HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2018.10.01City Council
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda - Final
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, October 1, 2018
Mayor for the Day Charlotte Parker
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
Business Landscape Awarda.
Sustainable Residential Awardb.
Update on Sea Level Rise: Joint Presentation by the San Mateo County Office of
Sustainability and Burlingame Department of Public Works
c.
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.
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/5/2018
October 1, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
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 September 17, 2018a.
Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25
(Zoning Code) of the Burlingame Municipal Code, Chapter 25.70.034 to Amend Hotel and
Motel Parking Regulations
b.
Staff Report
CEQA Resolution
Ordinance
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution of Support for Measure W, the Countywide Half -Cent Sales Tax
Designed to Relieve Traffic Congestion
c.
Staff Report
Resolution
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Addition of One New Full -time Equivalent Parks
Maintenance Worker Position and Amending the Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating Budget
to Fund the Additional Position
d.
Staff Report
Resolution
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Professional Services Agreement with TJKM
Transportation Engineers for Traffic Engineering Services Related to Traffic Calming
Studies in the Lyon-Hoag Neighborhood and Vicinity
e.
Staff Report
Resolution
Professional Services Agreement
Attachments:
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment)
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment)
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/5/2018
October 1, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Update Regarding Traffic Calming and Parking Concerns in the Lyon Hoag Neighborhood
and Vicinity
a.
Staff Report
Exhibit A - Community Meeting Notes
Exhibit B - Police Department Information
Exhibit C - Presentation
Attachments:
Letters from Representative Speier and State Senator Hill Regarding Peninsula Health
Care District’s Wellness Community
b.
Staff Report
Letter from Representative Speier
Letter from State Senator Hill
Attachments:
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements.
Vice Mayor Colson's Committee Reporta.
Committee ReportAttachments:
Councilmember Beach'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 - Monday, October
15, 2018
VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT WWW.BURLINGAME.ORG - GO TO
"CITY COUNCIL VIDEOS"
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/5/2018
October 1, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
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 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/5/2018
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/01/18
Burlingame City Council September 17, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
1
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting on September 17, 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 Fire Chief Kammeyer.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. STUDY SESSION
a. STUDY SESSION REGARDING THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN FOR THE NEW
COMMUNITY CENTER
A study session was held at 6:00 p.m. in Conference Room A regarding the schematic design for the new
Community Center.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Brownrigg reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city.
6. PRESENTATIONS
There were no presentations.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/01/18
Burlingame City Council September 17, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
2
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
Burlingame resident Doug Silverstein asked for the Council’s support of Measure W, the San Mateo County
Transit District Sales Tax Measure.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Brownrigg asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the
Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Colson pulled 8g, Councilmember Keighran pulled 8b, Councilmember
Beach pulled 8a, 8c, and 8i, and Mayor Brownrigg pulled 8f.
Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to approve 8d, 8e, 8h, 8j, 8k, 8l, and 8m; seconded by Mayor
Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
a. ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 4, 2018
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes of September 4, 2018.
Councilmember Beach stated that on page 12, paragraph 6 of the minutes, Councilmember Keighran’s
question was about whether research and development would be allowed in Burlingame if the Zoning Code
is silent, and not if delivery would be allowed. Councilmember Keighran agreed.
Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to adopt the amended City Council meeting minutes of September 4,
2018; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
b. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE BURLINGAME
MUNICIPAL CODE, 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) 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
CDD Gardiner requested Council adopt Ordinance 1954 and Resolution Number 117-2018.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she had heard from members of the public who were concerned about
removing the owner occupancy requirement. She discussed retaining the owner occupancy requirement but
allowing the owner to live in either the primary or secondary dwelling. She added that if both the primary
and secondary dwelling are rented, then the R-1 zone could be filled with duplexes, which is not the intent of
that zone. She explained that Half Moon Bay’s ADU ordinance requires owner occupancy in either the
primary or secondary unit. Additionally, in Half Moon Bay, the Community Development Director may
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/01/18
Burlingame City Council September 17, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
3
grant an owner a waiver that allows them to not live in either unit for two years in a ten-year period. She
asked if the City could amend the requirement so that it could be a family member in one of the units.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that Belmont also has an owner occupancy requirement. He stated that he liked the
idea of having an owner occupancy requirement with waivers.
Vice Mayor Colson asked if the City had any jurisdiction over defining family. CDD Gardiner replied in the
negative.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that to set up an ordinance that requires a family member in one of the units would
be almost impossible to enforce. She discussed talking with community members who felt that they have a
right to rent out their primary home and their ADU.
Vice Mayor Colson suggested removed the ownership language from the proposed ordinance and having
further discussions on that topic at a later date.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he couldn’t picture how the City would enforce the owner occupancy
requirement in a humane, decent manner. Therefore, he stated that he believed the City shouldn’t have this
requirement.
Vice Mayor Colson asked if the Council could reinstate the requirement at a later date. Acting City Attorney
Schaffner replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that she agreed with Councilmember Ortiz that she had difficulty understanding
how the City would enforce the owner occupancy requirement. CDD Gardiner stated it would be a code
enforcement issue and would be investigated by the code enforcement officer under the City Attorney. He
explained that the City can’t evict a tenant and could instead require the ADU to be decommissioned.
Councilmember Keighran asked if Costa Hawkins gets repealed and an individual is renting their ADU, but
wants to sell their house, could they evict the tenant. CDD Gardiner stated that just-cause eviction and other
rent control regulations could apply.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that the reason he sides with starting more conservatively and requiring an owner
on the premises is because it is easier to deregulate than to re-regulate.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Ortiz moved to adopt Ordinance 1954 and Resolution Number 117-2018; second by
Councilmember Beach.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was going to vote in favor of the motion. However, had there been a
majority he would have favored requiring owners be occupants of one of the units.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/01/18
Burlingame City Council September 17, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
4
Mayor Brownrigg called for a roll call vote. The motion passed 4-1 (Councilmember Keighran voted
against).
Councilmember Keighran asked that in the future, when an ordinance is brought back for a second reading,
and there has been a split vote, that it should be a staff report and not on the consent calendar.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that the City should collect data on the owner occupancy requirement over the
next year for the Council to review.
c. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25.58 OF THE BURLINGAME
MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD REGULATIONS REGARDING MARIJUANA
Assistant Attorney Vakharia requested Council adopt Ordinance 1955.
Councilmember Beach voiced concern that because the proposed ordinance doesn’t address research and
development, this use may be allowed in the city. She stated that while she didn’t have a strong opinion on
allowing marijuana research and development in Burlingame, she didn’t know if the Council should further
consider this aspect of the ordinance. She asked if there was any interest from her colleagues in drafting an
amendment that would place a moratorium on research and development.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the Council placed a moratorium on research and development, would it
supersede any future State regulations. Acting City Attorney Schaffner explained that it depends on timing
and the text of the State regulations.
Councilmember Beach asked if a moratorium on research and development would require the approval of the
Planning Commission. Acting Attorney Schaffner replied in the affirmative because it is a land use that isn’t
currently regulated. She added that it might also trigger a CEQA analysis.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that the City doesn’t ban companies from conducting research and development
on other substances that he feels are more noxious than marijuana. Therefore, he explained that it didn’t
make sense to ban research and development of marijuana.
Mayor Brownrigg and Vice Mayor Colson stated that they concurred with Councilmember Ortiz.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Beach moved to adopt Ordinance 1955; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion
passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE HILLSIDE AND SKYVIEW
RESERVOIR EXTERIOR COATING PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 82780
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 118-2018.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/01/18
Burlingame City Council September 17, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
5
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE EASTON ADDITION, RAY PARK
AND NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT, PHASE 3, CITY
PROJECT NO. 84191
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 119-2018.
f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE SANCHEZ LAGOON FLAP GATES
PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 84740
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 120-2018.
Mayor Brownrigg asked DPW Murtuza to explain the project. DPW Murtuza stated that the City’s storm
drain system has to deal with the Bay. During high tides, the Bay water tries to move into the City’s storm
channels and creeks. Therefore, during rainy season, it’s hard for storm water to get into the Bay. To assist
with this problem, the City is installing flap gates that will prevent the Bay water from getting into the storm
drain system but allow storm water into the Bay.
Mayor Brownrigg stated his appreciation for this project as it would prevent flooding and assist during
storms.
Mayor Brownrigg opened up for public comment. No one spoke.
Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 120-2018; seconded by Councilmember
Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESPONSE
LETTER TO THE 2017-2018 SAN MATEO COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT:
“SOARING CITY PENSION COSTS – TIME FOR HARD CHOICES”
Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 121-2018.
Vice Mayor Colson discussed staff’s proposed responses to the Grand Jury Report. She explained that she
appreciated that staff corrected the report’s conclusions regarding Burlingame and the work that the City has
undertaken. She reviewed the work the City has done including the establishment of the Pension 115 Fund.
She stated that she didn’t want the public to read the report and not grasp the nuances that are germane to
Burlingame. She added that the City could add footnotes to the CAFR about the work that they doing.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 121-2018; seconded by Councilmember
Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/01/18
Burlingame City Council September 17, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
6
h. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESPONSE
LETTER TO THE 2017-2018 SAN MATEO COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT:
“COOPERATIVE PURCHASING – A ROADMAP TO MORE EFFECTIVE CITY
PROCUREMENT”
Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 122-2018.
i. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OPPOSING PROPOSITION 6, THE NOVEMBER 2018
STATEWIDE BALLOT MEASURE TO REPEAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 123-2018.
Councilmember Beach explained that Proposition 6 on the November ballot is a measure to repeal Senate
Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. She stated that SB 1 funds are used for road safety
improvements, to fix pot holes, and repair streets.
Councilmember Beach stated that she hoped the public would read this staff report so that they would
understand the implications of repealing SB 1. She explained that 33% of the infrastructure projects in the
County are funded by SB 1. Additionally SB 1 allots approximately $15 million annually to Caltrain and
SamTrans and has given $164 million to the Caltrain Electrification Project. She discussed the usage of SB
1 funds for bicycle and pedestrian projects and stated that in this current fiscal year, the City has received
approximately $550,000 in SB 1 funds for infrastructure projects.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment.
Burlingame resident Doug Silverstein thanked the Council for opposing Proposition 6.
Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 123-2018; seconded by Vice Mayor
Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
j. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE,
RESEARCH & PLANNING, INC. AND APPROVING AN INITIAL APPROPRIATION OF
$3,726,000 FOR THE NEW COMMUNITY CENTER AND WASHINGTON PARK
RENOVATION PROJECT
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 124-2018.
k. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH GRIFFIN STRUCTURES FOR
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND APPROVING AN APPROPRIATION
OF $1,100,000 FOR THE NEW COMMUNITY CENTER AND WASHINGTON PARK
RENOVATION PROJECT
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/01/18
Burlingame City Council September 17, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
7
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 125-2018.
l. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOCIATES
INC. TO PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES RELATED TO THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW COMMERCIAL RECREATION FACILITY
(TOPGOLF) AT 250 ANZA BOULEVARD
CDD Gardiner requested Council adopt Resolution Number 126-2018.
m. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE CLASSIFICATION AND SALARY
RANGE FOR THE PAYROLL ADMINISTRATOR POSITION, AND APPROVING THE
AMENDED CITY OF BURLINGAME PAY RATES AND RANGES (SALARY SCHEDULE)
HR Director Morrison requested Council adopt Resolution Number 127-2018.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018-19
Finance Director Augustine stated that on August 20, 2018, the Council accepted DBID’s annual report and
asked the Council to hold a public hearing on DBID’s annual assessments.
Finance Director Augustine asked if the City Clerk received any protests. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer replied
that there had been one.
Finance Director Augustine stated that approximately $90,000 in assessments is collected each year for
DBID. She stated that if the protests don’t constitute a majority, the resolution should be adopted.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the public hearing. No one spoke
Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 128-2018; seconded by
Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
b. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 25,
CHAPTER 25.70.034 TO AMEND HOTEL AND MOTEL PARKING REGULATIONS
CDD Gardiner stated that last year, City Council directed staff and the Planning Commission to proceed with
a review of parking requirements for hotels. He explained that the current zoning code requires hotels and
motels to provide one parking space per room. He stated that this requirement is inclusive of all uses in the
hotel including restaurants and facilities. He explained that hotels have experienced a significant reduction
in the demand for parking as a result of ride sharing services like Uber and hotel shuttles.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/01/18
Burlingame City Council September 17, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
8
CDD Gardiner stated that staff prepared a survey to evaluate the parking utilization of each hotel and motel
in Burlingame. He explained that of the 12 hotels in Burlingame, eight general managers replied to the
survey. The survey reflects an underutilization of parking facilities, with 50-75% of parking spaces not
being used.
CDD Gardiner stated that the staff report includes a table of comparable city requirements near airports. He
stated that the one to one ratio is an industry standard. However, he noted that San Mateo requires two
spaces for every five rooms, and South San Francisco allows hotels and motels to apply for a Conditional
Use Permit (“CUP”) to reduce the number of parking spaces.
CDD Gardiner reviewed the potential alternatives that were brought to the Planning Commission including:
1. Reduced parking ratio,
2. Conditional Use Permit for parking reductions,
3. No parking requirement – operators determine supply based on anticipated demand, or
4. Maintain existing requirements
CDD Gardiner stated that the Planning Commission supported using CUPs to reduce parking requirements.
He explained that it is not a one-size-fits-all approach and puts the burden on the applicant. He added that
the proposed ordinance lays out the criteria for CUP approval.
Vice Mayor Colson asked if a current hotel obtains a CUP, if they could use the excess land to build an
additional wing to their hotel. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that her concern would be that once the City approves a CUP to reduce parking
requirements, it would not be easy to reverse that decision. CDD Gardiner stated that the hotel’s CUP
application would need to show how they would handle the parking needs of their facility and the determined
usage of the removed parking spots.
Vice Mayor Colson asked why a CUP would be more amenable to the City versus reducing the parking ratio.
CDD Gardiner stated that the hardest part with the parking ratio is trying to determine what the right ratio is.
He stated that the CUP approach is less prescriptive and puts the burden on the operator.
Councilmember Keighran voiced concern about reducing the parking requirement. She explained that in the
future, if the City utilizes the Bayfront for larger entertainment and recreation activities, then there could be a
need for a public-private partnership to use hotel parking lots. CDD Gardiner stated that the CUP would
provide information about the operator’s plan for surplus space.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that the data shows that the parking lots on average are 50% or more empty. He
explained that his only concern would be when the hotels host events that would require larger parking lots.
He suggested that the City have two different ratios that the hotels/motels have to comply with: one for hotel
rooms and one for event space. CDD Gardiner stated the event space factored into the study but did add a
wrinkle to the averages.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/01/18
Burlingame City Council September 17, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
9
Councilmember Beach stated that under the ordinance’s criteria for a CUP it states: “Special conditions –
including but not limited to proximity to frequent transit service; transportation characteristics of persons
residing, working, or visiting the site; or because the applicant has undertaken a transportation demand
management program – exist that will reduce parking demand at the site.” She proposed making
transportation demand management program (“TDM”) required for all CUPs. She explained that TDMs
force hoteliers to think about how they are going to handle transporting people to and from their property.
CDD Gardiner stated that staff could make it part of the fixed requirements.
Councilmember Beach stated that she fully supported the proposal to reduce parking requirements based on
the data that shows how underutilized the space is. She voiced concern that the underutilized lots would be
used for “park and fly” programs. She stated that this would be an attractive option for the hotels because it
could be lucrative. However, she stated that as a community there is an interest in seeing that the land is
used for a higher purpose. She asked if the proposed language gives the Planning Commission the ability to
look at each case and prevent hotels from utilizing their parking lots for “park and fly” programs.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he feels comfortable with the Planning Commission reviewing a CUP and
determining whether the applicant has laid out a good plan. He noted that he was okay with “park and fly”.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if a hotel offers “park and fly” would the parking ratio change for them. CDD
Gardiner stated that it would be part of the equation.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that currently if a hotel offers “park and fly” they still have the same parking
requirements. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that the survey the Council received included the hotels that were allowing
“park and fly”, and their lots were not filled. He stated that therefore it is unlikely that “park and fly” would
become an issue.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that hotels can only offer “park and fly” to customers that stay at least one night at
the hotel. He explained that when he was on the Planning Commission, the Commission approved “park and
fly” programs in order to drive business to the hotels.
Mayor Brownrigg asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. City Clerk Hassel-
Shearer read the title.
Councilmember Keighran 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.
Councilmember Beach asked if there was anything in the ordinance that would prevent hotels from opening
up their lots for general parking. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative and explained that it is a non-
conforming use.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/01/18
Burlingame City Council September 17, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
10
Vice Mayor Colson stated that the data shows that the City has over-parked the Bayfront. She explained that
she believed the proposed ordinance was a reasonable approach.
Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to bring back the proposed ordinance as written; seconded by Mayor
Brownrigg.
Councilmember Beach asked if imposing a TDM requirement would be burdensome. CDD Gardiner stated
that it would depend on the nature of the request and how it related to the operation. He explained that if the
hotel’s CUP is for large parking lot reduction, then a TDM could be helpful. However, if the hotel’s plans
are less ambitious, then the TDM needs could be met by other provisions in the amendment.
Councilmember Beach asked if the proposed ordinance gives staff the discretion to request a TDM. CDD
Gardiner replied in the affirmative. He stated that staff would look for a complete application that lays out
the details and determine whether a TDM is necessary.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if there was a legal definition of TDM. CDD Gardiner stated that the current code
has provisions for TDM, however under the zoning code update, there would be a more robust TDM chapter.
Councilmember Beach suggested an amendment to the motion to incorporate TDMs in a thoughtful manner.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she didn’t want to make TDMs a requirement as the Planning
Commission could strongly encourage a hotel that applies for a CUP to include it.
Councilmember Ortiz stated at some point the City should look at a permanent reduction of the ratio.
Councilmember Keighran stated that it would be beneficial to have the hoteliers here to see what they have
in mind.
The motion stood as first stated.
Mayor Brownrigg asked for a roll call vote. The motion passed unanimously by roll call, 5-0.
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE RATE OPTIONS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2019
Finance Director Augustine explained that the City has not raised the solid waste rate since 2012. She stated
that the staff report reviews the costs associated with solid waste and makes recommendations on how to
increase the solid waste rates to cover these costs. She explained that the City spends $11.27 million on solid
waste a year. Collection services for the City cost $5.7 million and are comprised of labor, routes, containers
in service, and number of customers. The disposal costs for the City are $3.7 million and are based on
tonnage of recycling, compostable materials, and trash. She noted that these costs are partially offset by
recyclable revenues. Lastly, she reviewed the City expenses totaling $1.8 million which includes: landfill
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/01/18
Burlingame City Council September 17, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
11
post-closure expenses, street sweeping, public containers steam cleaning, rate stabilization reserve, and
franchise fee to reimburse for wear and tear on streets.
Finance Director Augustine explained that SBWMA has negotiated a new contract with Recology that will
take effect on January 1, 2021. She stated that staff expects an increase of 13% in Recology compensation
by 2021. Additionally, she discussed the tighter restrictions in China concerning the quality of recyclable
goods that they will accept.
Finance Director Augustine stated that residents’ monthly cost is $23.85 for all three containers, collection,
and disposal. She noted that in Palo Alto, residents pay $50.07; Belmont residents pay $35.38; and Foster
City residents pay $22.77.
Finance Director Augustine explained that the City isn’t covering the costs under existing rates. She stated
that the City Council needs to determine when to reset the rates and by how much. Additionally, the City
Council should consider whether or not to set aside funds for the Rate Stabilization Reserve.
Finance Director Augustine stated that staff recommends a 6% increase in the solid waste rates beginning in
2019, for each of the following three years. She noted that rate changes will follow the Prop 218 process.
Councilmember Beach discussed the future of green waste and State mandates that are getting increasingly
restrictive. She explained that from meetings she has attended, she has learned that there is going to be
extraordinary investment that needs to happen in terms of green waste. She asked if these types of changes
will hit after 2021 or during the proposed rate increases. Additionally, she asked if because of these changes
the City should be a little more aggressive on funding the Rate Stabilization Reserve. SBWMA Executive
Director Joe La Mariana stated that major legislation was passed two years ago. He explained that the intent
of the legislation is to eliminate greenhouse gas, and landfills have been identified as a large pollution source
of greenhouse gas. Therefore, the priority over the next 5-10 years is getting organic materials out of the
landfill. He noted that in order to make this happen there will be significant capital investment costs.
Finance Director Augustine added that the impact to the Rate Stabilization Reserve is key because while it is
adequate now, it can be quickly diminished for these mandates. She stated that if the Reserve runs in deficit,
the City will have to increase costs to cover subsequent years.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if Proposition 218 limits how much the City can fund the Rate Stabilization
Reserve. Finance Director Augustine replied in the negative. She explained that Proposition 218 states that
the City cannot charge more than the service, but if the City anticipates increases in the future, they are
allowed to increase rates.
Councilmember Beach asked if staff’s 6% rate increase for three years recommendation would provide a
break even or is there potential for adding to the Rate Stabilization Reserve. Finance Director Augustine
stated that the City would end 2021 by breaking even.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item for public comment. No one spoke.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/01/18
Burlingame City Council September 17, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
12
Mayor Brownrigg discussed the recycling revenue and how it has taken a huge hit. Additionally, he stated
that the County has the opportunity to experiment with different ways of processing waste.
Councilmember Keighran stated that considering that the City hasn’t had an increase in several years she
would rather do a little bit each year. She explained that at least now the community would be able to budget
for the increase over the next three years. She noted that 6% was reasonable.
Councilmember Beach stated that she trusted staff and asked that the public notices about the rate increase
include not only the percentage but also the dollar amount.
Vice Mayor Colson thanked Recology for their great work in the community.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he has always found Recology to be quick on handling customer complaints.
He discussed the rising concerns about bulk items like mattresses being left on the streets. He asked for
ideas on how to handle this matter. Mr. La Mariana stated that SBWMA is discussing this issue and will be
bring recommendations to the board soon.
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 9:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk
1
33
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: October 1, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: October 1, 2018
From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7255
Sheryl Schaffner, Acting City Attorney – (650) 558-7263
Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Burlingame
Amending Title 25 (Zoning code) of the Burlingame Municipal Code,
Chapter 25.70.034 to Amend Hotel and Motel Parking Regulations
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council should adopt the resolution:
A. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
FINDING THAT ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 25 – ZONING CODE
CHAPTER 25.70.034 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND
HOTEL AND MOTEL PARKING REGULATIONS, IS STATUTORILY EXEMPT
FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15305 WHICH EXEMPTS
MINOR ALTERATIONS IN LAND USE LIMITATIONS IN AREAS WITH AN
AVERAGE SLOPE OF LESS THAN 20%, WHICH DO NOT RESULT IN ANY
CHANGES IN LAND USE OR DENSITY.
The City Council should adopt the following ordinance:
B. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME,
AMENDING TITLE 25 – CHAPTER 25.70.034 OF THE BURLINGAME
MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND HOTEL AND MOTEL PARKING REGULATIONS.
DISCUSSION
The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing and discussed the proposed
amendment at its regular meeting of September 17, 2018. No changes were requested, and the
ordinance was scheduled for adoption. The proposed ordinance and a resolution making required
findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are presented to the City
Council for adoption at its regular meeting of October 1, 2018.
Title 25 – Hotel and Motel Parking Regulations October 1, 2018
2
FISCAL IMPACT
Existing unutilized parking spaces do not generate revenue. Depending on how hotels would
repurpose existing utilized spaces, new revenues may be generated through uses such as
expanded park and fly operations, expansion of hotel operations, etc.
Exhibits:
• CEQA Resolution
• Ordinance
RESOLUTION NO. __________
1
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
FINDING THAT ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 25 – ZONING
CODE CHAPTER 25.70.034 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO
AMEND HOTEL AND MOTEL PARKING REGULATIONS, IS STATUTORILY
EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15305 WHICH EXEMPTS
MINOR ALTERATIONS IN LAND USE LIMITATIONS IN AREAS WITH AN
AVERAGE SLOPE OF LESS THAN 20%, WHICH DO NOT RESULT IN ANY
CHANGES IN LAND USE OR DENSITY.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME hereby finds as follows:
Section 1. On July 3, 2017, the City Council of the City of Burlingame directed staff
to proceed with amendments for hotel and motel parking regulations; and
Section 2. At its meeting of August 27, 2018, the Planning Commission
recommended to the City Council to adopt amendments to Title 25 – (Zoning Code) of the
Burlingame Municipal Code, Chapter 25.70.034, to amend the hotel and motel parking
regulations to allow parking reductions through approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Section 3. A public hearing was held on September 17, 2018, in which the City
Council introduced an ordinance amending Title 25 – (Zoning Code) of the Burlingame
Municipal Code, Chapter 25.70.034, to amend the hotel and motel parking regulations to allow
parking reductions through approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Section 4. The proposed amendments to the zoning code related to accessory
dwelling units are Statutorily Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15305 which exempts minor alterations in land use
limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20%, which do not result in any changes
in land use or density.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME THAT adoption of the amendments to Title 25 (Zoning Code) of the Burlingame
Municipal Code, Chapter 25.70.034 to update existing Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations to be
consistent with recently adopted amendments to California Government Code Section 65852.2
Related to Accessory Dwelling Units is Statutorily Exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15305 which exempts minor
alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20%, which do not
result in any changes in land use or density.
___________________________________
Michael Brownrigg, Mayor
RESOLUTION NO. __________
2
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 1st day
of October, 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
___________________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. __________
1
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME,
AMENDING TITLE 25 – CHAPTER 25.70.034 OF THE BURLINGAME
MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND HOTEL AND MOTEL PARKING
REGULATIONS.
The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows:
Division 1.
WHEREAS, on July 3, 2017, the City Council of the City of Burlingame directed staff to
proceed with amendments for hotel and motel parking regulations; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of August 27, 2018, the Planning Commission recommended
to the City Council to adopt amendments to Title 25 – (Zoning Code) of the Burlingame
Municipal Code, Chapter 25.70.034, to amend the hotel and motel parking regulations to allow
parking reductions through approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of September 4, 2018 the Burlingame City Council
introduced an ordinance amending Title 25 – (Zoning Code) of the Burlingame Municipal Code,
Chapter 25.70.034, to amend the hotel and motel parking regulations to allow parking
reductions through approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Division 2.
Burlingame Municipal Code Title 25 - Zoning is hereby amended as follows:
Chapter 25.70.034 Requirements for rooming houses, motels, hotels, group residential facilities
for the elderly is replaced in total with the following text:
Chapter 25.70 OFF STREET PARKING
25.70.034 Requirements for rooming houses, motels, hotels, group residential facilities
for the elderly.
The following are parking requirements for rooming houses, motels, hotels, and group
residential facilities for the elderly:
ORDINANCE NO. __________
2
(a) Lodging Houses, Rooming Houses. There shall be provided one parking space for
each two (2) lodging rooms plus one parking space for each two (2) persons employed on the
premises, including the owner or manager.
(b) Motels, Hotels. There shall be provided one parking space for each dwelling unit or
lodging room, except as provided in subsection 25.70.034 (d).
(c) Group Residential Facilities for Elderly People. There shall be provided one
parking space for each three (3) residential units where such facilities are designed as separate
units; if designed as lodging rooms, one space for each four (4) lodgers, plus one space for
each two (2) people employed on the premises.
(d) Parking Reductions. Required parking for motels or hotels may be reduced
through approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
(1) Criteria for Approval.
(a) Special conditions—including but not limited to proximity to frequent transit
service; transportation characteristics of persons residing, working, or visiting the site; or
because the applicant has undertaken a transportation demand management program—exist
that will reduce parking demand at the site;
(b) The use will adequately be served by the proposed on-site parking; and
(c) Parking demand generated by the project will not exceed the capacity of or have
a detrimental impact on the supply of on-street parking in the surrounding area.
(2) Parking Demand Study. In order to evaluate a proposed project’s compliance
with the above criteria, the Community Development Director may require submittal of a parking
demand study that substantiates the basis for granting a reduced number of spaces.
Division 3.
This ordinance, or a summary as applicable, shall be published as required by law and shall
become effective 30-days thereafter.
ORDINANCE NO. __________
3
____________________________________
Michael Brownrigg, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17th day
of September, 2018, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
1st day of October, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
___________________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: October 1, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: October 1, 2018
From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager – (650) 558-7243
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution of Support for Measure W, the Countywide Half-
Cent Sales Tax for Congestion Relief
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution of support for Measure W, the
countywide half-cent sales tax designed to provide congestion relief.
BACKGROUND
In July, the San Mateo County Transit District Board of Directors and the County Board of
Supervisors voted to place a half-cent sales tax measure on the November 2018 ballot. If
approved by the voters, the measure is estimated to raise $80 million annually for a variety of
traffic congestion relief projects.
DISCUSSION
Over the course of about nine months starting in 2017, the San Mateo County Transit District led
a community engagement initiative, known as Get Us Moving San Mateo County, intended to
develop a community-driven solution to improve mobility, reduce traffic, and address complex
transportation issues in the county. The Get Us Moving team made two separate presentations
to the Burlingame City Council (on February 5 and May 21, 2018) and solicited feedback from
residents countywide through direct mail, online surveys, social media, town halls, and
presentations.
With feedback in hand, the team developed and refined a Congestion Relief Plan, which guides
the expenditure of the funds that would be raised by imposition of the half-cent sales tax. The
Plan includes five investment categories:
• Countywide Highway Congestion Improvements (22.5%) to improve throughput and travel
times on highway facilities in San Mateo County.
• Local Safety, Pothole and Congestion Relief Improvements (12.5%) for investment in local
transportation priorities including efforts to separate the rail corridor from local roads, improve
bicycle and pedestrian connections, incentivize transit options, and improve traffic flow in key
congested areas.
Support for Measure W October 1,
2018
2
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements (5%) that safely connect communities and
neighborhoods with schools, transit and employment centers countywide.
• Regional Transit Connections (10%) to better connect residents traveling from San Mateo
County to neighboring counties with new and enhanced transit options.
• County Public Transportation System Investments (50%) to maintain and enhance bus,
paratransit, rail and other countywide mobility services.
If enacted by the voters, the measure requires the appointment of a 15-member independent
citizen oversight committee that would meet regularly to monitor decision-making, ensure
accountability, and provide assurance that the plan is implemented in a way that stresses public
transparency.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact to the City from the adoption of this Resolution. The City will be in
line to receive a portion of the funds allocated to each of the cities and the County on a formula
basis for local safety, pothole and congestion relief improvements. The annual distributions will be
based 50% on population and 50% on road miles and will be adjusted annually. The City of
Burlingame’s share is estimated at just under $10.4 million over the life of the measure. In
addition, 2.5% of the funds will be set aside for grade separation projects. These funds will be
distributed on a discretionary basis. The City may also receive other Measure W funding, such as
monies from the bicycle and pedestrian improvements program.
Exhibit:
• Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME SUPPORTING
MEASURE W, THE COUNTYWIDE HALF-CENT SALES TAX FOR CONGESTION RELIEF
WHEREAS, in July, the San Mateo County Transit District Board of Directors and the
County Board of Supervisors voted to place a half-cent sales tax measure on the November
2018 ballot; and
WHEREAS, if approved by the voters, the measure is estimated to raise $80 million
annually for a variety of traffic congestion relief projects; and
WHEREAS, the Congestion Relief Plan, which guides the expenditure of the funds
raised, includes five investment categories; and
WHEREAS, the five categories are: Countywide Highway Congestion Improvements
(22.5%), Local Safety, Pothole and Congestion Relief Improvements (12.5%), Bicycle and
Pedestrian Improvements (5%), Regional Transit Connections (10%); and County Public
Transportation System Investments (50%); and
WHEREAS, the City will be in line to receive a portion of the funds allocated to each of
the cities and the County on a formula basis for local safety, pothole and congestion relief
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame’s share of this funding is estimated at just under
$10.4 million over the life of the measure; and
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame will also be eligible to apply for grade separation
funding, which will be distributed on a discretionary basis, and may be eligible for other Measure
W funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Burlingame
that the City supports Measure W on the November 6, 2018.
___________________________________
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 1st
day of October, 2018 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
___________________________________
Meghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 18-743
MEETING DATE: October 1, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: October 1, 2018
From: Sonya Morrison, Human Resources Director – (650) 558-7209
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Addition of One New Full-time
Equivalent Parks Maintenance Worker Position and Amending the Fiscal
Year 2018-19 Operating Budget to Fund the Additional Position
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution approving the addition of one new full-time
equivalent (1.0 FTE) Parks Maintenance Worker position in the Parks Division.
BACKGROUND
Recently, the Parks Division has seen a significant increase in workload. The following areas
have been added and/or service levels increased due to the completion of new City projects and
the needs of the community and businesses.
1. Increased Broadway Streetscape Attention (Additional Hours) 4 hours/wk
2. Broadway Overpass Maintenance (New) 16 hours/wk
3. Carolan Avenue Bioswales Maintenance and Watering (New) 2 hours/wk
4. On-going Replacement of Older, Non-water Efficient Landscape Plantings 10 hours/wk
5. Increased Maintenance Frequency of City Parking Lots, Easements, and
Alleyways (Additional hours due to continued complaints) 4 hours/wk
6. Larkspur Roundabout (New) 1 hour/wk
7. California Drive Roundabout (New) 8 hours/wk
8. Dwight/Peninsula Landscape Maintenance (New) 1 hour/wk
DISCUSSION
With the continuing addition of bioswales to comply with waste water pollution regulations, this
position change will enable staff to continue providing the services expected by the Parks Division
in a timely and consistent manner.
The change will increase the City’s total FTE count by one, to 213.25 FTE.
Notification of the additional Parks Maintenance Worker position has been provided to the
appropriate bargaining unit.
Addition of One New Full-time Equivalent Parks Maintenance Worker Position October 1, 2018
2
FISCAL IMPACT
The total estimated annual cost of an additional 1.0 FTE Parks Maintenance Worker position
(wages and benefits) is $95,000. The financial impact to the Fiscal Year 2018-19 City budget due
to the additional position will be approximately $71,250. This additional funding is provided for as
an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2018-19 City budget per the attached resolution.
Exhibit:
• Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING
THE ADDITION OF ONE NEW FULL TIME EQUIVALENT PARKS MAINTENANCE
WORKER POSITION, AND AMMENDING THE 2018-19 BUDGET TO FUND THE
ADDITIONAL POSITION IN THE PARKS DIVISION
WHEREAS, the Parks Division has seen a significant increase in work requests,
maintenance responsibilities, and capital improvement projects; and
WHEREAS, these increases require a significant amount of staff time that the current
Parks Division staffing is not equipped to handle; and
WHEREAS, the addition of 1.0 full-time equivalent (FTE) Parks and Maintenance Worker
position in the Parks Division of the Parks and Recreation Department will enable staff to meet
these increased demands for staff time; and
WHEREAS, the budget impact of the additional position is approximately $71,250 for the
remainder of Fiscal Year 2018-19; and
WHEREAS, additional funding needs to be appropriated to the Fiscal Year 2018-19 City
budget; and
WHEREAS, the bargaining unit representing the impacted Division has reviewed the
proposed change and has not brought forth any objections or concerns.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Burlingame finds,
orders and declares that:
1. The Council approves the addition of a 1.0 FTE Parks Maintenance Worker
position in the Parks Division of the Parks and Recreation Department; and
2. The Council approves the current fiscal year funding of the position with an
additional appropriation of $71,250 to the Fiscal Year 2018-19 budget.
____________________________
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 1st
day of October 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________
Meaghan Hassel Shearer, City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: October 1, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: October 1, 2018
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Professional Services Agreement with
TJKM Transportation Engineers for Traffic Engineering Services Related to
Traffic Calming Studies in the Lyon-Hoag Neighborhood and Vicinity
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving a professional
services agreement with TJKM Transportation Engineers for traffic engineering services related
to traffic calming studies in the Lyon-Hoag neighborhood and vicinity, in the amount of $173,338,
plus a 10% contingency, and authorize the City Manager to execute the same.
BACKGROUND
Residents residing in the Lyon-Hoag neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods have raised
concerns about cut-through traffic and speeding in their neighborhoods. They have also been
concerned about non-residents leaving their cars parked for extended periods of time. The
speeding concerns include drivers using local streets to bypass congestion on both U.S. 101 and
arterial streets; while street parking concerns are attributed to private developments in the
immediate area, employee parking from nearby businesses, and SFO Airport-related parking.
On May 23, 2018, the City held a community meeting with residents from the Lyon-Hoag
neighborhood and adjacent areas. The purpose of the meeting was to provide a forum for
residents to share their concerns with the City Council and staff and to educate attendees about
potential solutions to address many of their concerns.
As a follow up to the community meeting, staff proposes undertaking a comprehensive traffic
engineering study for residential neighborhoods in the affected area to identify feasible solutions
to address the problems.
DISCUSSION
Staff issued a Request for Proposals from qualified engineering firms to conduct traffic calming
studies in the Lyon-Hoag neighborhood and its vicinity and received two responses from qualified
engineering firms. Staff reviewed the proposals, interviewed the firms, and selected TJKM
Transportation Engineers as the most qualified firm for the project. TJKM Transportation
Professional Services Agreement with TJKM Transportation Engineers for Traffic October 1, 2018
Engineering Services Related to Traffic Calming Studies in Lyon-Hoag and Vicinity
2
Engineers was identified as the top ranking firm because of their high understanding of the overall
project needs, project approach, similar experience, and quality of proposal. Their project team
has previously completed successful work for other public agencies for traffic calming, and is
familiar with local conditions and City requirements. Staff has negotiated the following scope of
professional services with TJKM Transportation Engineers in the amount of $173,338, which is
also detailed in Exhibit A of the attached agreement:
• Perform necessary field engineering and traffic data collection work;
• Provide notifications for public/neighborhood outreach meetings (up to three notifications);
• Attend and obtain detailed feedback from the neighborhood from each public meeting (up to
three meetings);
• Based on initial public feedback, perform traffic analysis to identify problems, and develop
short-term and long-term solutions, conceptual layout of improvements, and cost estimates
for all associated work;
• Present the draft study findings to the neighborhood at a second public meeting;
• Revise the draft study based on community feedback; and
• Present revised study and recommendations to City Council.
The professional services fee of $173,338 is consistent with industry standards for traffic
engineering services based on the scope and complexity of the project involving public outreach,
conceptual and preliminary layouts, and completing a report detailing the recommendations.
FISCAL IMPACT
The following are the estimated costs related to the project development:
Traffic Engineering Services $ 173,338
Contingency $ 17,334
Staff Administration $ 9,328
Total $ 200,000
There are adequate funds available in the FY 2018-19 Capital Improvements Program to
undertake the Traffic Calming Study.
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Professional Services Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TJKM
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS FOR TRAFFIC CALMING STUDIES IN THE LYON-
HOAG NEIGHBORHOODAND VICNITY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $173,338, PLUS A
10% CONTINGENCY, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
AGREEMENT
CITY PROJECT NO. 85210
RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California which FINDS,
ORDERS and DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS:
1. The public interest and convenience require execution of the agreement cited in
the title above.
2. The City Manager is authorized to sign said agreement on behalf of the City of
Burlingame.
3. The City Clerk is instructed to attest such signature.
_____________________________
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 1ST day
of October, 2018 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Page 1 of 8
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES
WITH TJKM TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
FOR TRAFFIC CALMING STUDIES
IN THE LYON-HOAG NEIGHBORHOOD AND VICINITY
CITY PROJECT NO. 85210
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this ___________ day of ____________, 2018,
by and between the City of Burlingame, State of California, herein called the "City", and
TJKM Transportation Engineers engaged in providing PROFESSIONAL TRAFFIC
ENGINEERING services herein called the "Consultant".
RECITALS
A. The City is considering conducting activities for consultant engineering services
for traffic engineering services for traffic calming studies in the Lyon-Hoag
Neighborhood and Vicinity Project, City Project No. 85210.
B. The City desires to engage a professional engineering consultant to provide traffic
engineering services because of Consultant’s experience and qualifications to
perform the desired work, described in Exhibit A.
C. The Consultant represents and affirms that it is qualified and willing to perform the
desired work pursuant to this Agreement.
AGREEMENTS
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Scope of Services. The Consultant shall provide professional engineering
services such as traffic data collection, analysis, conceptual and preliminary
design, and as detailed in “Scope of Services” of the attached Exhibit A of this
agreement.
2. Time of Performance. The services of the Consultant are to commence upon
the execution of this Agreement with completion of all work as set forth in Exhibit
A.
3. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws,
codes, ordinances, and regulations of governing federal, state and local laws.
Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits,
Page 2 of 8
qualifications and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required for
Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant represents and warrants to City
that Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all
times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals which
are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall
maintain a City of Burlingame business license.
4. Sole Responsibility. Consultant shall be responsible for employing or engaging
all persons necessary to perform the services under this Agreement.
5. Information/Report Handling. All documents furnished to Consultant by the City
and all reports and supportive data prepared by the Consultant under this
Agreement are the City's property and shall be delivered to the City upon the
completion of Consultant's services or at the City's written request. All reports,
information, data, and exhibits prepared or assembled by Consultant in connection
with the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement are confidential
until released by the City to the public, and the Consultant shall not make any of
these documents or information available to any individual or organization not
employed by the Consultant or the City without the written consent of the City
before such release. The City acknowledges that the reports to be prepared by
the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are for the purpose of evaluating a
defined project, and City's use of the information contained in the reports prepared
by the Consultant in connection with other projects shall be solely at City's risk,
unless Consultant expressly consents to such use in writing. City further agrees
that it will not appropriate any methodology or technique of Consultant which is
and has been confirmed in writing by Consultant to be a trade secret of Consultant.
6. Compensation. Compensation for Consultant's professional services shall not
exceed $173,338; and payment shall be based upon City approval of each task.
Billing shall include current period and cumulative expenditures to date and shall
be accompanied by a detailed explanation of the work performed by whom at what
rate and on what date. Also, plans, specifications, documents or other pertinent
materials shall be submitted for City review, even if only in partial or draft form.
7. Availability of Records. Consultant shall maintain the records supporting this
billing for not less than three (3) years following completion of the work under this
Agreement. Consultant shall make these records available to authorized
personnel of the City at the Consultant's offices during business hours upon written
request of the City.
Page 3 of 8
8. Project Manager. The Project Manager for the Consultant for the work under this
Agreement shall be Ms. Ruta Jariwala, Principal.
9. Assignability and Subcontracting. The services to be performed under this
Agreement are unique and personal to the Consultant. No portion of these
services shall be assigned or subcontracted without the written consent of the City.
10. Notices. Any notice required to be given shall be deemed to be duly and properly
given if mailed postage prepaid, and addressed to:
To City: Andrew Wong, Senior Engineer
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
To Consultant: Ms. Ruta Jariwala, Principal
TJKM Transportation Engineers
4305 Hacienda Drive, Suite 550
Pleasanton, CA 94588
or personally delivered to Consultant to such address or such other address as
Consultant designates in writing to City.
11. Independent Contractor. It is understood that the Consultant, in the performance
of the work and services agreed to be performed, shall act as and be an
independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the City. As an
independent contractor he/she shall not obtain any rights to retirement benefits or
other benefits which accrue to City employee(s). With prior written consent, the
Consultant may perform some obligations under this Agreement by
subcontracting, but may not delegate ultimate responsibility for performance or
assign or transfer interests under this Agreement.
Consultant agrees to testify in any litigation brought regarding the subject of the
work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall be compensated
for its costs and expenses in preparing for, traveling to, and testifying in such
matters at its then current hourly rates of compensation, unless such litigation is
brought by Consultant or is based on allegations of Consultant's negligent
performance or wrongdoing.
Page 4 of 8
12. Conflict of Interest. Consultant understands that its professional responsibilities
is solely to the City. The Consultant has and shall not obtain any holding or
interest within the City of Burlingame. Consultant has no business holdings or
agreements with any individual member of the Staff or management of the City or
its representatives nor shall it enter into any such holdings or agreements. In
addition, Consultant warrants that it does not presently and shall not acquire any
direct or indirect interest adverse to those of the City in the subject of this
Agreement, and it shall immediately disassociate itself from such an interest
should it discover it has done so and shall, at the City’s sole discretion, divest itself
of such interest. Consultant shall not knowingly and shall take reasonable steps
to ensure that it does not employ a person having such an interest in this
performance of this Agreement. If after employment of a person, Consultant
discovers it has employed a person with a direct or indirect interest that would
conflict with its performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall promptly notify
City of this employment relationship, and shall, at the City’s sole discretion, sever
any such employment relationship.
13. Equal Employment Opportunity. Consultant warrants that it is an equal
opportunity employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal
employment opportunity. Neither Consultant nor its subcontractors do and
neither shall discriminate against persons employed or seeking employment with
them on the basis of age, sex, color, race, marital status, sexual orientation,
ancestry, physical or mental disability, national origin, religion, or medical
condition, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the
California Fair Employment & Housing Act.
14. Insurance.
A. Minimum Scope of Insurance:
i. Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the
contract, General Liability insurance policies insuring him/her and
his/her firm to an amount not less than: One million dollars
($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence and two million
dollars ($2,000,000) aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury and
property damage in a form at least as broad as ISO Occurrence Form
CG 0001.
ii. Consultant agrees to have and maintain for the duration of the
contract, an Automobile Liability insurance policy ensuring him/her
Page 5 of 8
and his/her staff to an amount not less than one million dollars
($1,000,000) combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and
property damage.
iii. Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the
contract, professional liability insurance in amounts not less than two
million dollars ($2,000,000) each claim/aggregate sufficient to insure
Consultant for professional errors or omissions in the performance
of the particular scope of work under this agreement.
iv. 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 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.
B. General and Automobile Liability Policies:
i. The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be
covered as insured as respects: liability arising out of activities
performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed
operations of Consultant, premises owned or used by the
Consultant. 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. This requirement does not apply to the
professional liability insurance required for professional errors and
omissions.
ii. The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be endorsed to be
primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials,
employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurances
maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers
shall be excess of the Consultant'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, its officers, officials,
employees or volunteers.
Page 6 of 8
iv. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect
to the limits of the insurer's liability.
C. In addition to these policies, Consultant shall have and maintain Workers'
Compensation insurance as required by California law. Further,
Consultant shall ensure that all subcontractors employed by Consultant
provide the required Workers' Compensation insurance for their respective
employees.
D. All Coverages: Each insurance policy required in this item shall be
endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled except after thirty
(30) days' prior written notice by mail, has been given to the City (10 days
for non-payment of premium). Current certification of such insurance shall
be kept on file at all times during the term of this agreement with the City
Clerk.
E. Acceptability of Insurers: Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a
Best's rating of no less than A-:VII and authorized to do business in the
State of California.
F. Verification of Coverage: Upon execution of this Agreement, 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 any
work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified
copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.
15. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall save,
keep and hold harmless indemnify and defend the City, its officers, employees,
authorized agents and volunteers from all damages, liabilities, penalties, costs, or
expenses in law or equity, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees, that may at
any time arise, result from, relate to, or be set up because of damages to property
or personal injury received by reason of, or in the course of performing work which
arise out of, pertain to, or relate to, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, the
negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant, or any of the
Consultant’s officers, employees, or agents or any subconsultant. This provision
Page 7 of 8
shall not apply if the damage or injury is caused by the sole negligence, active
negligence, or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, agents, employees, or
volunteers.
16. Waiver. No failure on the part of either party to exercise any right or remedy
hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may
have hereunder, nor does waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement
constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other
provision of this Agreement.
17. Governing Law. This Agreement, regardless of where executed, shall be
governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California. Venue for
any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of the County
of San Mateo.
18. Termination of Agreement. The City and the Consultant shall have the right to
terminate this agreement with or without cause by giving not less than fifteen (15)
days written notice of termination. In the event of termination, the Consultant
shall deliver to the City all plans, files, documents, reports, performed to date by
the Consultant. In the event of such termination, City shall pay Consultant an
amount that bears the same ratio to the maximum contract price as the work
delivered to the City bears to completed services contemplated under this
Agreement, unless such termination is made for cause, in which event,
compensation, if any, shall be adjusted in light of the particular facts and
circumstances involved in such termination.
19. Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this
Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the
Consultant.
20. Disputes. In any dispute over any aspect of this Agreement, the prevailing party
shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, as well as costs not to exceed
$7,500 in total.
21. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive
statement of the Agreement between the City and Consultant. No terms,
conditions, understandings or agreements purporting to modify or vary this
Agreement, unless hereafter made in writing and signed by the party to be bound,
shall be binding on either party.
Page 8 of 8
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Consultant have executed this Agreement
as of the date indicated on page one (1).
City of Burlingame “Consultant”
By
Lisa K. Goldman Name:
City Manager TJKM Transportation Engineers
Approved as to form:
City Attorney – Kathleen Kane
ATTEST:
City Clerk – Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
Proposal for
Traffic Calming Study for Lyon Hoag Neighborhood
Page 1
SCOPE OF WORK & DELIVERABLES
The findings and recommendations from the Traffic Calming Study for Lyon Hoag Neighborhood will provide a
strong foundation for actions and improvements the City of Burlingame can undertake to accomplish the stated
goals with emphasis on equity, given the environmental justice and characteristics of the community.
Improvements identified as a part of the study will enhance safety, operations and health for all modes of
transportation.
The study and its recommendations will only be successful if they are convenient and cost effective for
residents. Hence, it is critical to capture an accurate understanding of the needs and preferences of the City's
residents. As part of the project improvements with an implementation plan and potential funding sources for
implementation of recommended improvements will be identified.
At the heart of our proposed approach to develop the Study is our commitment to community outreach as an
integral part of the process. By actively listening to the community, we can uncover what makes the study area
unique and assure the development of responsive solutions. This is just one attribute of a successful planning
effort. Others include:
Identity: The improvements must reflect a unique community identity in order for it to have a sense of place.
Our team’s process is based on an extraction and synthesis of the local, area specific character so that
improvements reflect the community and complement the existing atmosphere, as well as reflect the
anticipated future vision.
Complete: Issues such as potential parking impacts and traffic impacts will require creative solutions,
community education, and management of expectations. Our team will evaluate the opportunities and
constraints of the existing circulation system and develop creative alternatives based upon proven techniques to
address the issues.
EXHIBIT A
Proposal for
Traffic Calming Study for Lyon Hoag Neighborhood
Page 2
Community: The Study must be developed from a community-driven process in order for it to best respond to
user concerns and priorities. The Study can only be considered successful if it is embraced by the community it
serves. We propose to involve the community in a two-way dialogue by actively listening to their concerns,
explaining how we did or why we did not incorporate, and building consensus through a fun, engaging and
interactive outreach process. In addition, we will utilize innovative ways for community engagement and
visualization of alternatives. The result will be a plan that is user-responsive and unique.
Well-supported: Support for the Study must be wide ranging and must include stakeholders. Our team will
utilize unique insights obtained from our work with the stakeholders to proactively identify and address
potential concerns. Building on our prior experiences and lessons learned, we will work closely with
stakeholders to identify improvements that meet safety and transportation goals while also supporting a
community-building approach.
KEY HIGHLIGHTS OF OUR PROPOSED APPROACH
Based on our extensive experience working on similar projects, the TJKM Team will proceed in developing the
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and Connectivity Study taking into consideration the Five “E’s” – Engineering,
Encouragement, Education, Enforcement and Evaluation. The involvement of the community in the
development of the Plan is critical to its success. Our team experience includes working on similar projects,
including but not limited to, specific planning efforts such as:
Our proposed approach key highlights for developing the Study is summarized in brief below.
Community Values: We understand from our experience working on similar projects we understand the
community’s concerns with quality of life and traffic impacts. We will build on our experience through our
community outreach process, which will help us identify concerns, build consensus for desired community
attributes, and allow our team to incorporate the values of the community into the alternatives. We will utilize
our time with community members to discuss their thoughts on what makes this community different from
other communities in the region. Is it the people, the architectural character, the history or perhaps something
else that makes it special?
By documenting the existing conditions, we can communicate with the community and stakeholders and allow
them to respond to what they feel most strongly represents their community. The feedback received will be
utilized to develop a responsive plan that reflects the community’s spirit and develop a study that represents
character and identity unique to the community.
Innovative Solutions: The plan will balance technical considerations and safety for all modes of transportation
with good design principles. Our team of innovators works to balance current and local standards with new
developing approaches. Our team will draw from our extensive experience in planning, analysis, and innovation
to assist in developing alternatives that are feasible. We will utilize current local and national best practices,
treatment selection tools, and other methods to evaluate a range of solutions including standard and innovative
solutions. We will identify which solutions are included in state and federal guidelines, and identify jurisdictions
that have successfully implemented.
Community Driven Process: We view community outreach as an integral part of the process in developing the
Corridor Plan. Developing an understanding of the plan from the end user’s point of view – whether they are the
• San Benito Street Corridor in City of Hollister
• Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Study in Palo
Alto
• Citywide Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan
for Hayward
• Neighborhood Street Enhancement Program in
Redwood City
• Shoreline Boulevard Corridor Study in City of
Mountain View
• Los Altos Safe Routes to Downtown Study
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan for City of
Belmont
EXHIBIT A
Proposal for
Traffic Calming Study for Lyon Hoag Neighborhood
Page 3
general public, business owners, or agency representatives – is essential to the success of the plan. It will be our
goal to work closely with city staff to maximize the outreach effort, engage the community, and develop a plan
that addresses the specific issues the study is facing under existing conditions.
A thoughtful review of past and existing planning work in the area will provide the necessary background and
understanding prior to the community meetings. Stakeholder and community meetings and workshops will be
utilized to understand challenges and concerns, and develop the plan that address the feedback received.
Workshops conducted will be developed in a way that are fun and interactive to ensure that the community is
engaged and have opportunities to provide input and sustain interest. People are taking valuable time out of
their schedules to provide input so we will strive to make the experience enjoyable and have participants leave
with a sense that their voice is being heard. Our workshops will be set-up to allow participants to visit multiple
stations to learn more about the project, participate in interactive design charrettes, prioritization exercises,
and walk audits. This format has been extremely successful in maximizing attendance, input, and providing a
positive beginning to the consensus building process.
Stakeholders Coordination: Implementation of the study is dependent on the buy-ins from the stakeholders.
We have extensive experience working on similar implementable plans. Our team will utilize unique insights
from our past experience to proactively identify and address potential concerns. Building on those prior lessons
learned, we will work closely with stakeholders to develop alternatives that meet safety and mobility goals while
also supporting a community-building approach.
Our detailed approach, summarized below, addresses each of the tasks identified in the RFP (Scope of Work)
as well as the three focus areas listed under Section V.4 (Management Approach).
Within five days of the Notice-to-Proceed, TJKM will schedule a kick-off meeting with the City staff to discuss
and finalize scope of work, schedule, potential community outreach dates and timeline of key deliverables. This
meeting will also set us on the course of successfully initiating and completing the following tasks in a timely
manner.
Task 1 – Project Management & Kick-Off Meeting
Task 1.1 Project Kick-off Meeting
The TJKM Team will attend and facilitate a project kick-off meeting with City staff. The purpose of the meeting
will be to:
TJKM will prepare meeting materials including agenda and related handouts, PowerPoint presentations (if
necessary), and summarize meeting notes and action items.
Task 1.1 Deliverables:
Meeting Notes
• Clarify project goals and objectives
• Discuss and confirm critical data/issues that may
influence the study
• Discuss invoicing and quarterly reporting
• Discuss other relevant information
EXHIBIT A
Proposal for
Traffic Calming Study for Lyon Hoag Neighborhood
Page 4
Task 1.2 Project Team Coordination
Throughout the project, there will be ongoing coordination between the TJKM Team and the City of Burlingame
staff. We propose to hold regular progress conference calls (bi-weekly) so the project keeps on track and meets
expectations in addition to monthly face-to-face meetings. TJKM will provide monthly project updates that will
include budget, schedule and deliverables progress to the City’s Project Manager. TJKM will coordinate meetings
with City staff at various milestones throughout the project. We will prepare any agenda, maps, graphics, and
other relevant materials for each meeting and provide necessary support to the City staff.
Task 1.2 Deliverables:
Monthly Notes on Project Progress
Task 1.3 Preparation of Community Outreach Plan
TJKM under this task, will develop a Community Outreach Plan to serve as: 1) a communication tool to advertise
to the community and stakeholders the full range of public participation opportunities that will be available
throughout the program; and 2) a tool for programming and planning public outreach and engagement for
reference by the project team. The Community Outreach Plan will detail the objectives of the plan and project,
and materials to be developed for, community participation including community workshops and survey
activities. The Plan will also identify methods and materials to outreach traditionally under-represented groups,
the disabled, low-income, and the elderly.
Task 1.3 Deliverables:
Work Plan for Community and Stakeholder Outreach
Task 2 – Collect Background & Existing Conditions Information
Existing Policies & Neighborhood Plans
From the prior as well as continuing experience working on the City and County of San Mateo (County’s)
projects, the TJKM Team has gained significant knowledge of City’s and the County’s policies, and the near-term
and long-term priorities as identified in various planning and visioning documents. For example, TJKM currently
worked with the County’s and the North Fair Oaks community to develop a comprehensive plan to address
parking challenges faced by the community. TJKM will review additional documents most relevant to this project
including the City’s Traffic Calming Program, Broadway Interchange Project, California Drive Roundabout
Project, El Camino Real Task Force, High Speed Rail Project, City’s General Plan, Various Specific Plans, Bicycle
Transportation Plan, and other information provided by the City. We will also review prior complaints, concerns
and suggestions provided by the community in reference to the Stanford development.
Existing Conditions Data
At the kick-off meeting, the TJKM Team will discuss availability of
data from the City, and identify any missing data that is critical for
this project. It is anticipated that the City will be able to provide
current and reliable data related to traffic volumes, speeds,
collision history and street infrastructure including right-of-way
widths, sidewalks, and street furniture, street lighting, etc. We
anticipate gathering from the City any relevant information on
pedestrian and bicycle facilities that are vital to encouraging non-
auto commute alternatives and creating livable communities. For
any missing data collection, TJKM intends to utilize a combination
of in-house staff as well as data collection partners to collect
accurate data in the most economical manner. We will produce clear, easy to understand tables, charts, maps
and graphs that will be critical to effective communication with the three neighborhoods and other external
stakeholders.
EXHIBIT A
Proposal for
Traffic Calming Study for Lyon Hoag Neighborhood
Page 5
Task 2 Deliverables:
Technical Memorandum summarizing Existing Policies and Neighborhood Plans
Newly collected raw data (if any) in the source format
Clear and easy-to-understand data summary in pdf and source format
Task 3 – Community Participation & Outreach
Task 3.1 Community Outreach
This task pertains to general public outreach to be conducted throughout the project. The involvement of
residents in the development of the Study is critical to its success. The TJKM Team proposes to develop and
implement a targeted public outreach and engagement strategy. In order for the local governments,
organizations, businesses and residents to fully understand and endorse the Study to address the issues and
concerns, it is essential to involve a diverse cross section of the public throughout the preparation of this Study.
TJKM specializes in a variety of community outreach methods and strategies to assist our plans and clients,
including:
The TJKM Team understands and anticipates the following meetings under this task:
TJKM Team anticipates proposing locations and time for the Community Meetings to facilitate attendance at the
meetings. For a successful study that is implementable, buy-in and participation from City’s residents will be
essential if recommendations are to be meaningful and supported over time. We will remain flexible and seek
confirmation of our approach from City staff, and SAG members; we have assumed the following activities:
Project Website: The TJKM Team will create an interactive project website to engage the community to submit
ideas, concerns, priorities, desired facility and streetscape elements. The website will provide information on the
overall project goals, upcoming community meetings/events, draft and final reports. All approved project
deliverables will be posted to the website. The website will be linked to a City-hosted Facebook page, and City-
hosted Twitter account. The TJKM Team will work with the City staff to acquire a custom web address and will
host and manage the site for the duration of the project.
• Public workshops
• Focus groups
• Pop-Up Infrastructure Demonstration
• Project websites
• User and online survey
• City Council (Two)
• Traffic Safety Parking Commission (Two)
• Community Meetings (Three)
• Additional Meetings (Two)
• Walking Tour
EXHIBIT A
Proposal for
Traffic Calming Study for Lyon Hoag Neighborhood
Page 6
Online Resident Survey: An online survey will be an efficient way to engage the public early in the process, both
to communicate project objectives and to elicit feedback on specific issues, trip types, and destinations that
should be considered for prioritization. The results of the survey will be integrated into early analysis and help
inform future deliverables, and may include the development of an email contact list for project updates.
TJKM Team will prepare a draft online survey for review at the kickoff meeting. In the case of this Plan, for
example, we would suggest a visual preference survey of traffic calming and safety treatments that may be most
compatible with the character of the community.
As part of this task, TJKM will design a mailer that includes a description and link to the online survey, as well as
other information pertaining to the project scope and schedule – such as the date and time of a walking/biking
tour. The results of the online survey will be summarized and included as part of the Draft/Final Report.
Community Outreach Workshop No. 1: The City of Burlingame will be responsible for scheduling a community
outreach workshop and making arrangements for a facility. The TJKM Team will prepare notifications of public
workshops including a narrative for an advertisement. Working with the City staff, community and related area
groups to distribute the email news blast will be identified. Strategic phone calls to agreed-upon stakeholders to
inform them of the meeting will be performed by the TJKM Team. We will prepare an agenda, comment sheets,
other print materials, record public comments and assist in providing appropriate responses. Meeting materials
to be prepared could include exhibit boards, PowerPoint presentations, fact sheets and other materials helpful
in presenting the project to the public. Project-related news articles to share with the project team will be
tracked and collected.
During this workshop, information obtained to date will be presented at the community workshop with the
primary objective of gathering input on community concerns. The data collected will be presented at the
community workshop. The purpose of this workshop will be verification of issues and framing of the issues so
that alternatives can be developed. Key components of this community workshop will include the following:
• Community kick-off workshop with opening presentations on project objectives, tasks and schedule.
• Presentation of information on current and future transportation issues, such as traffic data and surveys,
circulation, non-motorized audits of the corridor, parking, analysis, and issues identification.
• Community design tables to provide a forum for community members to work with the project team to
verify issues and priorities, and identify potential strategies to be considered.
Community Outreach Workshop No. 2:
The alternatives developed as a part of the study will be presented at the second community workshop. The
purpose of the second community workshop will be to solicit feedback on each alternative and to develop a
hybrid alternative based on the alternatives. The City will be responsible for scheduling a third community
outreach meeting and making arrangements for a facility. We will be responsible for notifications and other
tasks as identified under Community Outreach Workshop No. 1. Key components of the third community
meeting will include the following:
• Presentation of Alternatives.
• Provide a forum for community members to identify elements of each plan that they want to see in the final
preferred plan.
Community Outreach Workshop No. 3: The alternative refined based on the comments and input received at
the second community workshop will be presented at the third community workshop. The purpose of the third
community workshop will be to solicit feedback on refined alternative. The City will be responsible for
scheduling a third community outreach meeting and making arrangements for a facility. We will be responsible
for notifications and other tasks as identified under Community Outreach Workshop No. 1. Key components of
the third community meeting will include the following:
EXHIBIT A
Proposal for
Traffic Calming Study for Lyon Hoag Neighborhood
Page 7
• Presentation of Refined Alternative.
• Provide a forum for community members to identify elements of the plan that they want to see in the final
preferred plan.
Task 3.3 Public Hearing for Study Presentation
Prior to presentation to the City Council for consideration, TJKM will conduct a noticed public hearing at a
regularly scheduled Traffic Safety Parking Commission and Council meeting to present the final version of the
study. Discussion of the process involved in the development of the study, feedback and input will be solicited.
Feedback received will be incorporated in the study. TJKM Team has accounted for total of three meetings
under this task in the level of effort for the project.
Task 3 Deliverables:
Community outreach material in English and Spanish (if needed), meeting attendance and meeting
summaries
Project Website
Online Resident Survey
Task 4 – Development of Traffic Calming Strategies
TJKM recognizes that Lyon Hoag Neighborhood experiences cut-through traffic from drivers seeking to avoid
using Peninsula Avenue, the main arterial. In addition to the increase in traffic and speeding the cut-through
traffic may bring, the residents are also concerned about a City of San Mateo project which is currently
underway. San Mateo is analyzing the impacts associated with the addition of southbound on and off ramps for
U.S. 101 at Peninsula Avenue. This project would close the existing ramps to the south at Poplar Avenue and re-
route all traffic to a new southbound ramps at Peninsula Avenue. The neighborhood residents are concerned of
the potential increase in cut-through traffic to this area. In addition to neighborhood traffic calming, there are
concerns regarding overflow parking in the neighborhood, both from the surrounding businesses in the area and
from travelers using the airport.
The TJKM Team brings outstanding experience in developing traffic calming strategies and prioritization of near-
term, mid-term, and long-term improvements for a broad range of mitigation measures. Our experience
includes developing selection criteria, petition process and prioritization system for Neighborhood Traffic
Calming Devices such as speed humps, chokers/chicanes, bulb-outs, medians, etc. We have also developed
Traffic Impact Fee programs for many cities that required new developments to fund specific traffic
improvements as a condition of approval. Developing such programs required identification of traffic impacts,
mitigation measures, costs, prioritization, and implementation plans. While each project is unique and each
community has its own needs and priorities, in general, we utilize the following priority approach (highest to
lowest priority):
Community support and acceptance are valued, and will be appropriately utilized in the process. We will work
with the City staff to develop prioritization first, and then present it at the community meeting for further input
and refinement. As we develop these priorities, we will educate and encourage the community to embrace the
City’s vision and goals Our proposed Project Manager Ruta Jariwala managed similar efforts on City of Redwood
City Stanford Neighborhood Streets Enhancement Project; City of Hayward Citywide Neighborhood Traffic
Management Plan; San Benito Street Corridor Study for City of Hollister; Avalon Heights Traffic Calming Study for
City of Fremont; Rossmoor Pedestrian Safety Evaluation for City of Walnut Creek; and Charleston-Arastradero
Corridor Project for City of Palo Alto.
• Compliance with City, State, or federal regulations
(e.g. ADA compliance)
• Safety
• Equal access
• Neighborhood beautification
• Convenience
EXHIBIT A
Proposal for
Traffic Calming Study for Lyon Hoag Neighborhood
Page 8
Impacts to vehicular traffic due to implementation of the strategies will be evaluated. Impacts will be
summarized and upon approval from City staff will be presented to the community at the Community Workshop
No. 2 allowing them to provide input in the implementation of the strategies.
Task 4 Deliverables:
Technical Memorandum outlining the strategies and prioritization process. Technical Memorandum will also
include preliminary cost estimates for the strategies identified
Task 5 – Develop Conceptual Designs
Working closely with the City staff, the TJKM Team will
develop conceptual designs for improvements identified
for near-term implementation. We will make necessary
field observations, verify constructability, and develop
conceptual designs that can be further developed
(through a separate contract) into construction
documents for formal bidding. We will also provide
Rough Order of Magnitude cost estimates for the
conceptual designs that we develop.
We have performed numerous traffic operations and
safety analysis and addressed hundreds of day to day
complaints and requests for the Redwood City
community. Our knowledge of the City policies,
procedures, and funding mechanism will help us prepare and deliver conceptual designs in a very timely and
cost effective manner. In addition, we will utilize industry best practices, NACTO design guidelines, and Vision
Zero principles from other cities to develop these conceptual designs. Our prior experience developing bicycle
and pedestrian master plans, Safe Routes to School Programs and Traffic Calming initiatives will be critical to
developing the priorities as well as the conceptual designs.
Task 5 Deliverables:
Conceptual designs and cost estimates for near-term enhancements
Back-up documents that support each recommended measure
Task 6 – Draft & Final Traffic Calming Plan
Based on the work completed under Tasks 2 through 5, City staff input, and feedback from the community, the
TJKM Team will develop an administrative draft Plan for review by the City staff.
An Administrative draft will be developed for review by various City departments and feedback. Any comments
received will be incorporated to develop a Draft Plan that will be presented to the community for their review
and feedback. Feedback received will be incorporated into the Final Plan.
Task 6 Deliverables:
Administrative Draft NSEP, Draft NSEP, and Final NSEP
EXHIBIT A
Proposal for
Traffic Calming Study for Lyon Hoag Neighborhood
Appendix A
PROJECT COSTS
Timeliness and quality are essential to maintaining good business relationships and a solid reputation. TJKM is
committed to preparing high quality deliverables for our clients, while maintaining schedule and budget
compliance, and to meeting deadlines that will be associated with this contract. Below is our estimated cost
proposal to complete the noted scope of work.
Apex Strategies
Ruta Jariwala Ian Lin Atul Patel
Brandon
Davis Eileen Goodwin
Project
Manager Task Leader Task Leader Task Leader Task Leader
250.00$ 120.00$ 230.00$ 145.00$ 145.00$ 206.00$ 185.00$ 275.00$
Project Management 12 8 8 28 6,848.00$
Kick-Off Meeting 2 2 2 6 1,462.00$
Coordination Meetings 12 12 3,000.00$
Community Outreach Plan 2 6 8 16 3,420.00$
Collect Background and Existing Conditions
Information 18 88 0 0 12 2 4 0 124 17,952.00$
Existing Policies and Neighborhood Plans 4 20 2 4 30 4,552.00$
Existing Conditions Data 8 40 12 60 8,540.00$
Develop Draft Technical Memorandum 4 20 24 3,400.00$
Develop Final Technical Memorandum 2 8 10 1,460.00$
Community Participation and Outreach 40 132 0 16 0 6 0 48 242 42,596.00$
Community Outreach
Project Website 2 4 6 980.00$
Online Resident Survey 2 16 18 2,420.00$
Community Workshop No. 1 2 16 2 16 36 7,232.00$
Community Workshop No. 2 2 16 2 16 36 7,232.00$
Community Workshop No. 3 2 16 2 16 36 7,232.00$
TSPC Meetings (2) (Optional)8 12 20 3,440.00$
Council Meetings (2) (Optional)8 12 20 3,440.00$
Walking Tour (1) (Optional)10 32 16 58 8,660.00$
Additional Meeting (2) (Optional)4 8 12 1,960.00$
Development of Traffic Calming Strategies 18 64 18 64 0 8 16 0 188 30,208.00$
Develop Traffic Calming Strategies 12 40 12 40 8 16 128 20,968.00$
Develop Draft Technical Memorandum 4 16 4 16 40 6,160.00$
Develop Final Technical Memorandum 2 8 2 8 20 3,080.00$
Develop Conceptual Designs 16 0 0 0 0 32 80 0 128 25,392.00$
Develop Concept Drawings 16 32 80 128 25,392.00$
Draft and Final Plan 28 108 0 0 0 0 0 0 136 19,960.00$
Develop Administrative Draft 16 60 76 11,200.00$
Develop Draft Plan 8 32 40 5,840.00$
Develop Final Plan 4 16 20 2,920.00$
Sub-Total with Optional Tasks w/o direct costs 148 398 18 80 12 58 100 66 880 150,838.00$
Mileage 2,500.00$
Origin-Destination (Streetlight Data up to 50
Points) (Optional)8,000.00$
Parking Study - 50 Block Faces (12 Hour Inventory,
Occupancy and Turnover) (Optional)5,000.00$
Additional Data Collection (Optional)7,000.00$
Total w/o Optional Tasks 135,838.00$
Total with Optional Tasks 173,338.00$
Tasks
Direct Costs
Hours by
Task Cost by Task
TJKM Transportation Consultants Wilsey Ham
Project
Engineers
Project
Planners
Project
Engineer
EXHIBIT A
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: October 1, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: October 1, 2018
From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager – (650) 558-7243
Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Eric Wollman, Chief of Police – (650) 777-4123
Nil Blackburn, Assistant to the City Manager – (650) 558-7229
Subject: Update Regarding Traffic Calming and Parking Concerns in the Lyon Hoag
Neighborhood and Vicinity
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive an update regarding actions taken relative to the
traffic calming and parking concerns raised by residents of the Lyon Hoag neighborhood and
vicinity at the May 23, 2018 community meeting.
BACKGROUND
On the evening of Wednesday, May 23, the City hosted a community meeting with members of
the Lyon Hoag neighborhood and vicinity to establish a shared understanding of issues and facts
related to residents’ growing concerns around parking, traffic congestion, and development in the
neighborhood. The City mailed postcard notices to 982 residents in the area including and
bounded by Peninsula Avenue, California Drive, Oak Grove Avenue, and Rollins Road and
included notification in the City’s weekly e-news and on Nextdoor. Nearly 100 residents, two
dozen City staff, all five Councilmembers, and members of the City’s Traffic, Safety and Parking
Commission attended this heavily noticed meeting.
Mayor Michael Brownrigg and City Manager Lisa Goldman kicked off the meeting. This was
followed by a presentation by City staff and three break-out discussion groups focused on
parking, traffic calming, and private development. During the break-out discussions, residents
informally met with Councilmembers, Commissioners, and City staff to share their specific
concerns, ask questions, and offer recommendations. Councilmembers captured comments from
the three discussion groups on chart pads; these notes have been transcribed into the list of
issues and concerns in Exhibit A.
Vice Mayor Colson and Councilmembers Keighran, Ortiz, and Beach concluded the meeting with
a report out of findings and concerns from each discussion group. On the topic of traffic calming,
Councilmember Keighran summarized residents’ concerns related to student safety, excessive
speeding, and the need for more police enforcement in problem areas. On the topic of
development, Vice Mayor Colson and Councilmember Ortiz shared residents’ concerns about the
rate of housing growth, and its potential impact on residents’ quality of life, as well as existing
Update Regarding Traffic Calming and Parking Concerns October 1, 2018
in the Lyon Hoag Neighborhood and Vicinity
2
streets and infrastructure. On the topic of parking, Councilmember Beach voiced residents’
concerns about limited parking and the appropriation of parking spaces outside residents’ homes
by surrounding businesses and airport commuters.
DISCUSSION
For the purposes of this report, the ensuing discussion will focus specifically on the issues of
traffic calming and parking. The actions taken to date, and long-term actions planned with regard
to each of these issues, is outlined below.
1. Traffic Calming
Many attendees expressed concerns about speeding cars and the safety risks they presented.
According to residents, speeding is more prevalent on certain streets and likely attributable to cut-
through traffic from drivers seeking to avoid Peninsula Avenue. The complete list of residents’
traffic concerns is included in Exhibit A. Residents and staff also discussed solutions ranging
from increased police presence and enforcement to flashing lights at crosswalks, stop signs,
speed bumps, gated street entrances, and other possible options.
a) Traffic Calming Actions Taken
Since the community meeting on May 23, the City’s Public Works Department has taken or
initiated the following actions related to signage:
Bayswater Ave.
• at Arundel Rd. Add pedestrian crossing signs
• at Channing Rd. Add pedestrian crossing signs
Dwight Rd.
• at Bayswater Ave. Trim trees blocking the stop signs
• at Peninsula Ave. Add a 25 m.p.h. sign entering Dwight Rd.
• at Burlingame Ave. Trim trees blocking the stop signs
• at Burlingame Ave. Add a 25 m.p.h. signs on Dwight Rd.
Burlingame Ave.
• at Rollins Rd. Add a 25 m.p.h. signs on Burlingame Ave.
• at Channing Rd. Switch out existing 25 m.p.h. sign to larger size (18x24)
• at Channing Rd. Add pedestrian crossing signs on Burlingame Ave.
• at Clarendon Rd. Add a 25 m.p.h. signs on Burlingame Ave.
Howard Ave.
• at Humboldt Trim trees blocking the stop signs
The City’s Police Department has significantly increased police presence in the neighborhood
and placed a radar trailer with a cautionary speed warning in the 400 block of Bayswater Avenue.
Exhibit B provides a summary of the Police Department’s initiatives taken during the period of
June 8, 2018 through August 31, 2018, as compared with the same period in previous years. To
Update Regarding Traffic Calming and Parking Concerns October 1, 2018
in the Lyon Hoag Neighborhood and Vicinity
3
summarize, the Police Department issued 58 citations during this period, or 38 more citations
than the same period in 2017. The increase in citations likely correlates to the increase in police
presence. For example, there were 130 traffic stops during this time, or 75 more than the same
period last year. The Department also stepped up its number of passing checks to 232,
compared with only 20 for the same period last year. Passing checks are the number of times an
officer drives or walks through a specific location or area to look for and address a specific issue
or violation. In addition, the Department performed selective traffic enforcement on 61 occasions
during this period. Selective traffic enforcement is when an officer parks his or her marked patrol
vehicle at a specific intersection or street in response to complaints, and actively monitors the
area for a specific traffic violation. Last year, in comparison, the Department conducted four
selective traffic enforcements in the area during the same period. While selective traffic
enforcement has proven effective, the Department only has enough resources to conduct such
deployments at 11 locations throughout the city each week and must station personnel in other
hot spots as well.
b) Traffic Calming Actions Planned
For the purposes of identifying and implementing sustainable, long-term solutions relative to
traffic calming and safety, tonight’s agenda also includes approval of an agreement for
professional traffic engineering services with TJKM Transportation Consultants for traffic calming
in the Lyon Hoag area (traffic calming study).
The goal of the traffic calming study is to further study and define existing conditions in the Lyon
Hoag neighborhood and vicinity; conduct community outreach through workshops and
stakeholder meetings; develop traffic calming strategies and recommendations; and develop final
conceptual designs and plans for traffic calming and mitigation.
2. Parking
During the May 23 community meeting, residents expressed concerns with limited parking in the
neighborhood. Parking concerns seemed to fall in two categories: supply and misappropriation.
In some areas, the supply of parking spaces is exceeded by the growing number of cars per
dwelling. Second, there is a perception among some residents that individuals from outside the
Lyon Hoag neighborhood and vicinity, such as employees at surrounding businesses and airport
commuters, are parking in front of their residences, and using up the limited number of available
parking spaces.
In anticipation of residents’ concerns regarding limited parking supply, Director of Public Works
Syed Murtuza explained the City’s residential parking permit program to attendees. The program
is detailed on pages 5 and 6 of Exhibit C. To summarize, for streets whose residents have
chosen to adopt the residential permit program, the City may impose two-hour time limits on
vehicles that do not display parking permits. In order to qualify a particular street as a designated
residential street, a resident can submit a request to the City. Once the resident applicant and
City staff determine the parameters of the parking restrictions, the applicant must circulate a
Update Regarding Traffic Calming and Parking Concerns October 1, 2018
in the Lyon Hoag Neighborhood and Vicinity
4
petition and obtain support from 67% of impacted residents. The City’s Traffic, Safety & Parking
Commission would then hear public input and recommend the program, if appropriate.
Update Regarding Traffic Calming and Parking Concerns October 1, 2018
in the Lyon Hoag Neighborhood and Vicinity
5
a) Parking Actions Taken
In the absence of a neighborhood parking permit program, individuals from outside the Lyon
Hoag neighborhood may park on public City streets in the area. As such, it is be difficult to
prevent non-residents, including nearby business employees, from parking in the neighborhood.
However, per State law, cars may not be parked in the same spot for more than 72 hours. After
72 hours, the vehicle may be considered abandoned or stored.
In an attempt to validate whether out-of-neighborhood individuals, such as airport commuters,
were violating the 72-hour parking limitation and exacerbating parking issues, the Police
Department produced a report of vehicles reported as abandoned in the Lyon Hoag
neighborhood for the eight-month period from January 1, 2018 through August 20, 2018. This
chart, Reported Abandoned Vehicles, is included in Exhibit B. According to the chart, there were
185 abandoned vehicles reported in this time period. Of these cars, 30% are registered to
Burlingame residents, 19% are registered to San Mateo residents, and 51% (95 cars) are
registered to residents outside the immediate area. Further analysis shows that of the 35
vehicles registered to San Mateo residents, 17 are registered to individuals who live immediately
east of Peninsula Avenue. Refer to the map in Exhibit B. At this point, it is unclear how much of
an impact the removal of abandoned and stored vehicles might have on the parking shortages in
the neighborhood.
a) Parking Actions Planned
To date, the City has not received any requests for a residential parking permit program from
residents in the Lyon Hoag neighborhood and vicinity. As such, there are currently no parking
actions planned.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact related to this update.
Exhibits:
• Exhibit A - List of residents’ issues, concerns and recommendations from May 23, 2018
community meeting transcribed
• Exhibit B – Burlingame Police Department, Lyon Hoag District Education and Enforcement
Campaign
• Exhibit C – Lyon Hoag Neighborhood Workshop presentation dated May 23, 2018
City of Burlingame
Lyon Hoag May 23, 2018 Community Meeting Notes
Department of Public Works
Engineering Division
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Development
1) Concern over number of units built
a. RHNA #’s –Fair Share
2) Development/Zoning process
a. How does it work?
3) R-1 Reduce FAR >ADUs
4) Concern about number of additions in the area
a. Staging
5) Concerns about street degradation
6) Do we collect fees?
7) Number of units under construction
a. Where and number?
Traffic Calming
1) Restrict left-hand turn from Broadway onto Rollins Road from 101
2) Study the impact of 920 Bayswater project (car traffic) onto neighborhood streets?
a. Look at multiple project impacts – especially on Howard, Bayswater, Dwight
3) Concerned and speeding traffic on Bloomfield
4) Need Enforcement! Speeding
5) Between Dwight and Humboldt – speedway
a. No stops signs currently
6) Bayswater & Humboldt turned into freeway on ramp because of Poplar improvements
a. Concerned about the 290 units by Broadway and traffic going toward their neighborhoods
7) People not stopping at stop signs close to downtown area
a. Need enforcement
8) There is no stop sign on Dwight between Bayswater and Rollins Road.
9) Howard and Bayswater speedway needs stop signs, every other street needs enforcement
10) Dwight and Bayswater – going through stop sign
a. How do you make this area pedestrian friendly?
11) Like the street dips – need more of them
12) Oak Grove Avenue - How do you handle BHS traffic circulation?
13) 200 Block of Victoria – People cut through from Rollins Road.
a. Need slow down signs located near Victoria Park
14) Enforcement Bloomfield
15) Flashing lights at crosswalk especially near the school
16) Median and Traffic circles on Oak Grove, Bloomfield, and Rollins
17) Slow the traffic at Clarendon and Dwight
a. Makes it difficult for homeowners to back out of driveways safely
18) Victoria and Howard – need crosswalks
19) Need more enforcement – lots of kids in one area
20) Is $200,000 enough for the studies? - May need to re-evaluate
21) How do we motivate San Mateo to work with Burlingame to implement potential solutions?
22) Gated entrances? Peninsula Ave
23) Big cars by corners makes it difficult to see
24) Study traffic impacts that development projects potentially cause
City of Burlingame
Lyon Hoag May 23, 2018 Community Meeting Notes
Department of Public Works
Engineering Division
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
25) Humps wanted on Bayswater and other busy streets
a. Some people don’t want because people may lose control of car (maybe DUI)
26) San Mateo needs to also help by implementing solutions in the city – Collaboration
27) Need to work with adjacent cities (i.e.: Millbrae, San Mateo)
Parking
Group 1 (Approx. 20)
1) Extended Family in one residence need more than 2 vehicles/cost of living
2) Tickets/Flexibility/Enforcement fines – too rigid
3) Possible prohibition of overnight parking
a. 72 hours too long/ Airport adjacent
4) Possible Permit = overnight allowed
a. Don’t limit 2 hours
5) City wide permit program to protect all neighborhoods
6) Concern residential permit impact on school teacher parking
7) Victoria needs daytime parking
8) Extended parking around parks
9) Visibility issues, too many parked cars
10) Parking too close/ into crosswalks
11) People/residents use garbage bins to reserve parking in front of homes
12) Commercial vehicles parked/reduced visibility
13) Victoria residents deeply concerned about parking
14) Concerned residents parking (all), regardless of neighborhood – frustrated by non-residents
15) New homes/garage too small for cars or additions – sq/ft requirement for larger cars
16) Uber/Lyft/Rideshare waiting for calls
17) Leaving cars to go downtown
18) Leaving cars for Caltrain/free
Group 2
1) Cars parked both sides street
2) Construction workers multiple remodeling
3) Stagger number of remodels at any given time
4) Safety backing out of driveway on Dwight
5) No space to put trash out on trash day
6) Permit concerns – what if residents have BBQ /Dinner Party?
a. Solution – Temporary passes for special events
7) When comes to multi-unit residential – How many signatures needed?
a. One per residence or 1 per landlord owner? What if multiple families in one apartment?
Capacity?
8) Width driveways for 2 cars capacity side-by-side
9) How to start permit process?
10) Reduce 72 hour limit to 36/48 hours
11) If residential permit program – What is enforcement?: Ticket or Towing
12) Need free parking - designated space for downtown workers
Eric Wollman
Chief Of Police
Mike Matteucci
Police Captain
0
30
60
90
120
150
201820172016
TRAFFIC STOPS
JUNE 8 THROUGH AUGUST 31
Lyon Hoag District
130
55
36
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
201820172016
TRAFFIC CITATIONS
JUNE 8 THROUGH AUGUST 31
Lyon Hoag District
58
20
11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
201820172016
SELECTIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCMENT
JUNE 8 THROUGH AUGUST 31
61
4
Lyon Hoag District
What is selective traffic enforcement?
Every week, the Director of Traffic creates a selective
traffic enforcement list of problematic locations based
on citizen input. Currently, there are eleven locations
throughout all parts of the city (Trousdale Dr to
Peninsula Ave) on the selective traffic enforcement
list. Any officer may work selective traffic enforcement
when they have time. An officer will park their marked
patrol vehicle and monitor an intersection or street. The
purpose is to watch for traffic violators and improper
driving behaviors. If a violator is observed, the officer
will leave the post, stop the violator, and address (cite,
warning, etc.) the violation with the driver.
Burlingame Police Department
1111 Trousdale Dr.
Burlingame, Ca 94010
Non-Emergency Busniess Telephone Number: (650) 777-4100
Emergency Telephone Number: 9-1-1
What are passing checks?
A passing check is when an officer monitors a specific
location, like a park walkthrough or vacation house
check, for unlawful activity. It is basically the number of
times an officer has driven through the neighborhood
during their normal patrol. They are not working
selective enforcement, and not responding to a call for
service. Because Lyon Hoag is listed on our “passing
checks” list, officers are required to do extra checks of
the area and log their check in our computer system.
0
50
100
150
200
250
201820172016
PASSING CHECKS
JUNE 8 THROUGH AUGUST 31
Lyon Hoag District
232
2011
The Burlingame Police Department’s policy on reported abandoned vehicles
The Burlingame Police Department is committed to addressing all traffic complaints
in a timely and appropriate manner. Abandoned cars can be disruptive to the
overall quality of a neighborhood. The Burlingame Police Department realizes the
importance of removing abandoned vehicles promptly, and within the specifications
of law. Some signs of an abandoned vehicle include cobwebs, leaves and debris
around the tires, debris on the vehicle, dirt, low tires, and missing and/or broken
vehicle parts.
Even if a vehicle is parked in front of the owner’s residence, registered and insured,
the vehicle can still be considered abandoned or stored if it’s been parked in excess of 72 hours without being driven.
The Burlingame Police Department will place a yellow courtesy notice on the vehicle that explains the Burlingame
Municipal Code section. The owner will be given 72 hours to either remove the vehicle from the street or drive it a
minimum of one tenth of one mile. The marking officer will return no sooner than 3 days to determine if the owner has
complied. If, at that time, the vehicle has not been driven or moved, the car can be towed and cited pursuant to State Law.
The vehicle cannot be moved a few feet or across the street just to avoid the tow. The vehicle must be completely removed
or actually driven for the officer to determine that it’s not just being stored on the street.
Checkout the Burlingame Police Department out on
our social media sites:
Facebook: facebook.com/burlingamepoliceTwitter: @burlingamepdWeb Site: www.burlingame.org/police
REPORTED ABANDON VEHICLES BY DMV REGISTERED OWNERS
JUNE 8 THROUGH AUGUST 20
Lyon Hoag District
Out Of State
Other
Santa Clara County
San Francisco
Other Counties
San Mateo County
City Of San Mateo
Burlingame
Burlingame
Reported Abandon Vehicles
Lyon Hoag District
January 1, 2018 through August 20, 2018
CITY OF REGISTERED OWNER NUMBER
Burlingame 55
San Mateo 35
San Francisco 17
Out Of State 7
Milpitas 6
Redwood City 6
San Carlos 6
San Jose 5
South San Francisco 4
Total 185
From January 1, 2018 to August 20, 2018, the Burlingame Police Department checked 185 reported abandon
vehicles in the Lyon Hoag District. Of the 185 abandon vehicles, 35 vehicles were registered to owners in San
Mateo. The map below are approximate locations of registered owners in the north-end of San Mateo.
1
1
1
1
The red box indicates number of reported abandon vehicles from the approximate location.
Program Overview
•Introductions
•Background
•Parking
•Traffic Calming
•Peninsula Avenue Interchange Project Update
•Private Development
•Table Discussions
(Parking, Traffic, and Private Development )
•Report Out
Background
City’s understanding of major concerns:
•Parking Street parking is impacted due to airport parking,
Uber/Lyft/taxi, and employee and construction
workers parking
•Traffic Congestion Cut-through traffic in residential neighborhoods
•Peninsula Interchange Potential impacts from the proposed project
•Private Development Concerns about potential traffic impacts and
changing character of the neighborhood
Solutions
Residential
Parking Permit
Program
Traffic Calming
Education Enforcement Engineering
Residential Parking Permit Program
What is it?
•The Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) prohibits vehicles from outside the neighborhood parking for an
extended period of time on designated residential streets that have a 2 -hour parking limitation, while exempting
residents with permits.
•The City Council wishes to preserve the livability of our residential neighborhoods. By prohibiting nonresidents
(commuters) from parking for long periods, there should be reduced traffic congestion, improved air quality,
improved parking for residents, and a better appearance to the residential neighborhoods.
How does it work?
•An RPPP area involves the posting of 2-hour time limits from which local residents are exempt if a valid permit is
displayed in their vehicles.
•Any qualified vehicle registered to an address within a permit parking neighborhood is eligible to utilize a
parking permit. The number of parking permits issued per property is two. The cost is $54 for a permit.
What do I need to do have get RPPP on my street?
•Residents need to petition the City with a minimum of 2/3rd support from the affected block/street supporting
the program
•City staff will study the request and hold public meetings at the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission to hear
public input and recommend the program if required support is present.
Residential Parking Permit Program
The process:
Resident can submit a request
to the City for an RPPP for
his/her street.
City staff will evaluate any
impact. Alternatives for
prevention will be examined.
If no alternative is available,
the City will continue the
evaluation.
A meeting will be held
between the applicant and
City staff.
With the applicant’s input,
City staff will determine the
RPPP area limits for the
program.
The applicant must then
circulate a petition to
determine support within the
RPPP area. At least 67% of
residents must sign to show
support.
The petition needs to be
returned to the City within 45
days of issuance to the
applicant.
Traffic Calming
A traffic calming program uses various traffic engineering, police
enforcement, and public education strategies to reduce speeding and
cut-through traffic in residential neighborhoods.
Resident
Requests
Residents & Staff
Meet
Preliminary
Analysis
Project
Development
Project
Presentation to
Neighborhood
(optional)
Recommendation
to the Traffic,
Safety and
Parking
Commission
Recommendation
to City Council
Traffic Calming –Solution Examples
•Signage & Striping
•Police Radar Signs
•Driver Feedback Signs
•Speed Humps, Bumps, Lumps, and Traffic Tables
•Bulb-Outs, Traffic Circles, Street Closures, and One-Way
Streets
Signage & Striping
Advantages:
•May reduce traffic speeds
•May increase driver awareness
•Relatively low costDisadvantages:
•Signs are not enforceable
•Overuse can decrease
effectiveness
•Effectiveness may decrease over
time
Various signs that help signify vehicles of traffic operations
Note: Not Park Road or Park Avenue in Burlingame!!
Police Radar Signs
Advantages:
•Useful educational tool
•Increases public awareness
•Useful where spot speed reduction is
desired
•No negative effect on emergency
services
Disadvantages:
•Requires periodic enforcement
•Effective for limited durations
•Requires frequent moving of
equipment
Driver Feedback Signs
Advantages:
•Can be placed at specific locations for
extended duration
•Can be rotated in and out of location to
renew its effectiveness
•Once pole and hardware have been
installed, signs can be rotated to other
locations
•Multiple signs can be in operation
throughout the city at any one time, as
opposed to a single radar trailer
Disadvantages:
•Requires periodic enforcement
•Batteries must be swapped out every couple
of weeks if not solar powered
•Longer initial placement time associated
with pole and hardware installation
Speed Humps, Lumps, Bumps and Speed Tables
Areas of pavement raised to affect the speed at which vehicles can still comfortably go.
Speed Lump
Speed Table
Speed Bumps, Humps, Lumps, and Speed Tables
Advantages:
•Reduces speed
•Relatively inexpensive costs
•May discourage non-local traffic from entering
residential streets
•Self-enforcing
Disadvantages:
•Questionable aesthetics
•Can cause discomfort for people with disabilities
•Can reduce emergency vehicle response time
•Possible noise and air pollution due to braking and
accelerating vehicles
•Potential damage to emergency vehicles and injury to
emergency personnel
•May attract skateboarders
Speed BumpSpeed HumpSpeed LumpsSpeed Table
Bulb-Outs
Advantages:
•Narrowing effect slows down vehicles
•Reduced turning radii slows turning traffic
•Reduces crossing distance for pedestrians
•Landscaping opportunities
•Interrupts straight curb lines, slowing traffic
Disadvantages:
•Can reduce on-street parking
•Potential maintenance and drainage issues
•Utilities may require costly relocation
•Can restrict or impede large vehicle access
Physical curb reduction of road width at intersections and mid-block
locations, discouraging cut-through traffic.
Traffic Circles
Advantages:
•Effectively reduces vehicle speeds
•Reduces collision potential
•Better side street access
•Landscape opportunity
Disadvantages:
•Expensive and will take more time for
development
•Can restrict or impede large vehicle
access
Traffic circles are islands, placed in intersections, around which traffic circulates.
Larkspur/Linden Traffic Circle
One-Way Streets
Advantages:
•Potential decrease of vehicle traffic on that
street
•Widens roadway
•Reduces side-swipe collisions
Disadvantages:
•Increases traffic onto neighboring streets
•May intensify overall traffic circulation
problems
•May create confusion in the early phases
•Inconvenient for local residents
•Speed may increase due to wider roadway
•Can reduce emergency vehicle response
time
Street Closures
Advantages:
•Decreases vehicle traffic on that street
Disadvantages:
•Increases traffic onto neighboring streets
•May intensify traffic circulation problem
•Inconvenient for local residents
•Can reduce emergency vehicle response
time
Traffic Calming Study Project for Lyon Hoag
Neighborhood
City Council approved funding
in next fiscal year’s work
program to undertake a traffic
calming study for the Lyon
Hoag neighborhood in
response to resident concerns.
Staff will schedule a meeting
with the neighborhood prior to
initiating studies to seek input
from residents
Peninsula Interchange Project Update
City of San Mateo made an
initial presentation on the
project
Dec. 6, 2016
Subsequently a community
meeting was held. Studies
were performed and data
was collected. Benefits of
the project were discussed
May 17, 2017
City of San Mateo project
team collected public
feedback and is in the
process of conducting
traffic analysis.
Upon completion of the
traffic studies, San Mateo is
planning on scheduling
community meetings in the
Fall 2018 to share results
Highway 101 southbound on-ramp and off-ramp proposed
to be relocated from East Poplar Avenue to Peninsula Avenue.
Peninsula Interchange Project Traffic Study Intersections
Private Development
•Downtown Specific Plan
•Proposed and Approved Development Projects
•General Plan
Downtown Specific Plan
Adopted 2010
920 Bayswater Ave
Proposed 128 Apartments
225 California Dr
Retail/Office
240 Lorton Ave
Retail/Office
250 California Dr
Retail/Office
Village at Burlingame
Proposed 132
Affordable Apartments
988 Howard Ave
Retail/Office
General Plan Update:
Envision Burlingame
“A long-term plan to guide decisions for stability and change”
Envisionburlingame.org
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: October 1, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: October 1, 2018
From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager – (650) 558-7243
Subject: Letters from Representative Speier and State Senator Hill Regarding
Peninsula Health Care District’s Wellness Community
DISCUSSION
The Mayor would like the City Council to discuss the City’s response, if any, to the attached
letters from Representative Speier and State Senator Hill regarding the Peninsula Health Care
District’s Wellness Community.
Exhibits:
• Letter from Representative Speier
• Letter from State Senator Hill
JACKIE SPEIER
14TH DrsrRtcr, cALrFonNtA
2465 RAyBURN HousE OFFIcE BUILDING
WasHrNGroN, DC 2051 5-0514
12021 225-3531
F^x: l2OZ) 226-4143
'I 55 BovET Roao, SurrE 780
SAN MATEo, CA94402
{650) 342-0300
FAx: (650) 375-427O
M.SPEIEF.HOUSE.GOV
WW,FACEAOOK.COM/JACKIESPEIER
WWW. TWITTEN.COM/FEPSPEIEB
ffongrrss of tlyffintteb Stutes
Tbouse of Bepr egentatibtg
@,asbrngt on, D@ 2 0515 - 0514
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
SUBCOMMITTEES:
RANKNG MEMBER, OVERSIGHT AND
lNwslGATloN
MILITARY PEFSoNNEL
PERMANENT SELECT COIVIMITTEE
ON INTELLIGENCE
SUBCOMMITTEES:
EMEBGiNG THREATS
NSA AND CYBERSEcUBTTY
Scnior Whip
September 12,2018
Lawrence W. Cappell, PhD
Peninsula Health Care District
1 8 l9 Trousdale Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Chair Cappell and Directors:
It has come to my attention that the disrict is exploring whether to construct 300-400 independent living units for
seniors. In addition, the district is examining whether to allow construction of a medical oflice building. All of this
would be on land leased from the district by a private developer under terms yet to be determined. It is also my
understanding that, while the district is exploring this idea, it might also decide to go in an entirely different
direction.
I would like to respectfully suggest that the district conduct a much more significant outreach effort to the general
public concerning the district's plans and examine if the public might feel that other uses would provide a greater
public benefit. As I am confident district directors are aware, we are in the midst of an affordable housing crisis on
the Peninsula. Depending upon who is doing the estimate, I understand that there may have been as many as 68,000
jobs created in San Mateo County between 201I and 2016, while there were approximately 2,800 housing units
developed. Thousands more jobs have been created since then to the point where my office is regularly contacted
by low income, middle income, and moderately well-off persons who cannot afford to rent. In my conversations
with business leaders, their #1 and#2 concerns are housing costs and ffaffic. Fortunately, there are sound choices
that can be made with respect to these concerns.
For example, the San Mateo County Community College District has led the way amongst public agencies in the
creation of workforce housing for employees. Using existing public lands, the district is offering rents that are 25Yo-
50% below market rate and that offer up to seven years oftenancy. The advantage ofusing public property
translates directly into below-market rents and more stable future rents. Generally speaking, turnover amongst staff
in these townhomes has plummeted and staff satisfaction has skyrocketed. When the debt is paid, the district
expects to eam about $l million per year for the dishict's general fund, over and above the costs ofoperation,
depreciation and maintenance. A nonprofit board, appointed by the district's elected governiug body, governs the
units, hires the management company, and deals with policy issues. These benefits, however, do not have to be
limited to a single public employer. District properly could help many public agencies, and the hospital itself, by
providing workforce housing to support these public missions.
I am confident that there are many nonprofit housing developers in the community that would be willing to explain
to your board what might be done with the available property owned by the health care district. These include
developers that regularly create mixed income developments for all ages.
Federal policy on affordable housing, with respect to San Mateo County, is at risk of being reversed with severe,
adverse, impacts. Eligibility for generous types of housing tax credits could be removed through an administrative
process, as almost happened during the Obama Administration. My advocacy and work done by San Mateo County
retained eligibility for a period of a few years, but that period will also come to an end if a different administrative
judgment were to be made. It is therefore important for the district and other agencies with under-utilized public
lands to make a timely determination about what may be possible.
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
@@rr
The community also has a need for specific skills, such as those of teachers, teacher's aides, public safety personnel,
and medical personnel. All of these persons, and more, call my office throughout the year to explain their hardships
in our housing market. Even local hospitals and medical practices, recruiting physicians to serve us all, report that it
is "difhcult to compete" with other locales offering more affordable housing options. I am told that this is
particularly true for our VA hospitals who serve veterans throughout our community.
I respectfully suggest that a new informational hearing be proposed by the district to the Burlingame City Council,
or held by the district on its own, to specifically explore workforce housing needs in the community. You could
invite nonproht housing developers to first examine the property of the district and then explain what they might do
on the property. You might also wish to invite housing advocates, such as the Housing Leadership Council, as well
as representatives of schools and cities within the district. If you wish, and if my schedule permits, I can participate
in the hearing. I also suggest that Senator Hill and Assemblyman Mullin, both of whom are deeply committed to
encouraging workforce housing, be invited to participate.
I believe that it will be a loss to the community if primarily market rate housing is created on district properfy.
Market rate housing may,by dehnition, be created anywhere that land is for sale at a market rate. District property,
in contrast, is not sold and therefore offers the chance to make rents much more affordable. I believe that you will
be much more confident of the needs of the public if you are able to obtain much broader input than has perhaps, to
date, been possible.
All the best,
ackie Speier
State Senator Jerry Hill
1528 South El Camino Real, Suite 303
San Mateo, CA 94402
Assemblyman Kevin Mullin
1528 South El Camino Real, Suite 302
San Mateo, CA 94402
The Honorable Michael Brownrigg
Mayor, City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo
2905 So. El Camino Real
San Mateo, CA 94403
The Honorable Dave Pine
President, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
400 County Center, First Floor, Board of Supervisors Office
Redwood City, CA 94063
Chancellor Ron Galatolo
San Mateo County Community College District
3401 CSM Drive
San Mateo, CA 94402
cc
KJS/bp
a,zlllr D e-t-
$.alifsrnia fital.c firlnattCAPITOL OFFICE
STATE CAPITOL
SACRAMENTO CA 954]4
rEL (916) 65l -4O13
FAx (916)651-4913
DISTRICT OFFICE
I52A S, EL CAMINO REAL
SUITE 3O3
SAN MATEO. CA94402
TEL (650) 212-3313
FAX (650r212-3320
SENATOR
JERRY HILL
THIRTEENTH SENATE DISTRICT
COMMITTEES
BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS &
ECONOMIC OEVELOPMENT
CHAIR
APPROPRIATIONS
ENERGY, UTILITIES &
COMMUNICATIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY
GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
www.sENATE.cA.GOv/HrLL
SENAToR.HTLL@SENATE cA.Gov
September t 7, 201 8
Lawrence W. Cappell, Ph.D.
Peninsula Health Care District
I 819 Trousdale Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Chair Cappell and Directors:
I am writing in reference to the Peninsula Health Care District's exploration of constructing 300-400 independent
living units for seniors and a medical office building on district land. I understand that this is an early concept, in
which a private developer would lease the land from the district, under terms to be determined.
I respectfully invite the district to seize the opportunity to think bolder and deeper by reaching out to the general
public about the district's plans. Explore if the public might feel that other uses would provide a greater public
benefit. We are in the middle of an affordable housing crisis on the Peninsula. Ourregion has done erponentially
well at creating jobs. But our workers across the spectrum of incomes, frorn low to moderately well ofI. cannot
afford the rents near theirjobs. And that is seen on our roads, highways and even residential streets. Business leaders
up and down the Peninsula identifu housing and traffic as the top problems holding back our communities' ability to
sustain our prosperity and quality of life.
Bold+hinking public entities in San Mateo County have shown us that we, too, can be innovative -- and we have
resources to help us in creating solutions.
For example, the San Mateo County Community College District has been a leader, leveraging its public land to
create workforce housing for employees. Using its public land, the district is offering rents that are 25 percent to 50
percent below market rate, and up to seven years oftenancy. The advantage ofusing public property translates
directly into below-market rents and more stable future rents for staff. SMCCCD reports that staff turnover has
plummeted and satisfaction has skyrocketed. When the debt is paid, the SMCCCD expects to earn about $1 million
per year for the district's general fund, over and above the costs of operation, depreciation and maintenance. A
nonprofit board, appointed by the district's elected goveming body, govems the units, hires the management
company, and deals with policy issues.
These benefits, however, do not have to be lirnited to a single public employer. Peninsula Health Care District
properry could help many public agencies, and the hospital itself, by providing workforce housing to support these
public missions.
Taking a page from SMCCCD's experience, Santa Clara County embarked this year on such an exploration. The
county, the city of Palo Alto and the Foothill-De Anza Community College District have pledged money, making
quick strides since January toward a concept to use that county's properfy to create up to 120 units of teacher
housing.
Our area boasts several experienced nonprofit housing developers in the community, any of whom would be able to
explain to your board what might be done with the available properry owned by the health care district. These
include developers that regularly create mixed income developments for all ages.
Lawrence W. Cappell, Ph.D.
September 17,2018
I respectfully suggest that a new informational hearing be proposed by the district to the Burlingame City Council --
or held by the Peninsula Health Care District on its own -- to specifically explore workforce housing needs in the
community. You could invite nonprofit housing developers to first examine the property of the district and then
explain what they might do on the property. You might also wish to invite housing advocates, such as the Housing
Leadership Trust, as well as representatives of schools and cities within the district. I am willing to participate in the
hearing if my schedule permits, along with my colleague, Assemblymember Kevin Mullin. I know that U.S. Rep.
Jackie Speier has offered the same.
Our communities need teachers, teacher's aides, public safery personnel, and medical personnel. We need doctors in
our local hospitals and Veterans Administration hospitals. But all are having difficulty serving our residents because
it is becoming nearly impossible to be residents themselves.
I believe that it will be a loss to the community if primarily market rate housing is built on district propeffy. h might
also be a lost opporlunity to make an indelible impact on a critical need of our times. Market rate housing may, by
definition. be created anywhere that land is for sale at a market rate. District properry, in contrast, is not sold and
therefore offers the chance to make rents much more affordable. I believe that you will be much more confident of
the needs ofthe public ifyou are able to obtain much broader input than has perhaps, to date, been possible.
With warm
H
U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier
155 Bovet Road, Suite 780
San Mateo, CA 94402
Assemblymember Kevin Mullin
1528 South El Camino Real, Suite 302
San Mateo, CA 94402
The Honorable Michael Brownrigg
Mayor, City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo
2905 So. El Camino Real
San Mateo, CA 94403
The Honorable Dave Pine
President, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
400 County Center, First Floor, Board of Supervisors Office
Redwood City, CA 94063
Chancellor Ron Galatolo
San Mateo County Community College District
3401 CSM Drive
San Mateo, CA 94402
1
Memorandum
AGENDA NO: 11a
MEETING DATE: October 1, 2018
To: City Council
Date: October 1, 2018
From: Vice Mayor Donna Colson
Subject: Committee Report
Saturday, September 15, 2018
Bay Area Clean Up - Great day with hundreds of people cleaning up the bay front.
Housing For All Burlingame - Sat in on meeting to hear concerns about renters’ rights, and the
ballot measures for fall 2018.
Monday, September 17, 2018
Notes for County Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) 6.0 NOFA
Public Hearing
13 total projects submitted for funding - want to prioritize the projects that are closest to shovel
ready, but trying to provide something for everyone. First three are close to shovel ready - 6
months, the next three are early pre-development and the final five are large awards that would
complete capital stack, but require other funding - we did not
Multi-Family Rental Housing (New Construction and Re-Syndication or Rehab)
Measure K nearly $20 mm
Home Community Housing Development Corporation - Low Income Target
$362K CDBC funds for existing residential rehab
$500K for
Set aside $1 mm for affordable housing purchases - not just rental
Revisions - at least 10% are targeted unites extremely low income and 5% are targeted to
homeless and using county support services. Then 80% median households. Application was
completely revised by the County and now much easier to summarize data to move to the Board of
Supervisors.
Changes to some of the underwriting standards and interest to discuss asset management and
monitoring of the projects so we have feedback and make sure that they work is done and
administered properly.
Colson Committee Report October 1, 2018
2
Project 1 - 2821 North Fair Oaks - 67 unit total, 27 homeless vets, 6 for mental illness and case
management from the county, remaining are targeted for 60% AMI. Requesting $2 million, but if
they receive an award for 9% tax credits, then they will return the funding!
Project 2 - MidPenHousing - Arroyo Green RWC, 117 units for seniors with downtown access
on land donated by the city.
Project 3 - ROEM Development - 353 Main Street RWC
63 units, 100% affordable with many very low income and many are supportive, financing has
city, county, private, developer equity. Project is far along and Lease up fall 2021. Funds used for
development costs. Support due to the level of affordability. Project was entitled market rate, but
were able to use the LIHTC to convert to affordable. Spring of 2019 to start construction.
Project 4 - Mid-Pen Downtown San Mateo Sites
164 Unites in downtown SM - 111 at or below 80% AMI and the other 51 are 80-120% AMI and
two manager units. Conducting community outreach. Construction Dec 2021. Open 2023.
Replacing the pay parking lots existing and adding new public parking stalls.
Project 5 - Mid-Pen Housing Firehouse Square, Belmont
Excited due to the location and recommending the full ask. 66 units mixed use across from
Caltrain in downtown Belmont. This is a city site and because of rising construction costs, could
not make this project pencil and so they kept the 15 townhomes, and the Council and MP liked the
option. Redesigning to make more efficient. Full entitlement by the end of this year.
Project 6 - Mid-Pen Midway Village in Daly City
Phase 1 - Rebuild 150 existing and (total final 182) add new on 15 acre site including units for 6
former foster youth. But not limited to that number of foster youth. Entitlements 1Q of next year.
County property. A lot of support from local community. Rebuilding on land used for a park (very
low use) and then will start and relocate 1/3 into the new wing and then move through the project.
Gain of 130 new units in this phase.
Project 7 - Mid-Pen Cypress Point at Moss
$3 mm used for acquisition costs of the project. Working to determine what % targeted to locals.
First deed restricted affordable housing in this area of the county. 71 units affordable family
housing in 1-3 bedroom. 18 smaller buildings and great outdoor amenities. Completed the
environmental work and are waiting to move to planning commission hearings. Funding is needed
to acquire the site.
Project 8 - LINC Housing - Firm is located in Southern CA and very experienced in the state.
Proposing 37 units RFP site - city of Belmont donating the land. 18 for frail and elderly seniors
and the rest for lower income, focused on teachers and other workforce housing. Maximizing units
for the very small site. Great location near transit. Concerns - lack other type of public funding and
timeline was aggressive and need a couple of extended scenarios. Provide more support services to
the senior units and targeting half to special needs population. Funding about $500K to start on
entitlement work. Specialty in support services housing - partner with local agencies to develop
the programs with those providers. Sites are 5000 SF and 8000 SF so the developer is really expert
at using small sites.
Colson Committee Report October 1, 2018
3
Project 9 - Eden Housing Light Tree Apartments in EPA
Transform to 185 unit apartment - will demolish some existing and increase the units. 19 for ELI
and 9/10 for homeless households. Applying for 6 units of former foster youth as well. Like idea
to densify the site. Ask was $9.5 million and now about $1.4 recommendation - need to apply for
cap and trade funding to bring down the gap. Also states Prop 1 passage for November.
Project 10 - MidPen Housing - Gateway Family Apartments, Menlo Park
Second phase - First phase was senior and now phase 2 going to workforce and family. Currently
82 households and going to 140 units - 52 units to 80% AMI. Recommend ask of $1.5 mm for first
year. Working to complete construction - doing first modular project. Helping with the schedule.
Start construction March 2020. Using modular units from a variety of manufacturers. Working
with a firm so that you can do a design bid - bring some cost savings, but the schedule is the real
benefit. 1% budget increase per month.
Project 11 - CORE Affordable Housing - Millbrae = 80 units that are 100% affordable veterans
housing, part of Gateway masterplan in Millbrae - 63% at 60% and 8 units at ELI and 8 at 50%
AMI. Great location right next to BART and CalTrain. Focus on veterans for the project.
Multi-Family First-Time Homeownership Projects
Habitat Greater SF
612 Jefferson Ave RWC 20 units for first time homebuyers - 120% AMI and excellent access to
transportation and urban amenities. These homes will remain deed restricted. The homes are zero
down payment and zero interest loans and the owner gets all their principal back when they sell.
Small and constrained lots and needed expertise so they are using less of their usual model. Still
each owner must do 500 hours of community service work. Last project of 30 units and and had
420 applications. Plenty of demand.
Habitat Greater SF - Daly City - Gave Land donation and about $500K and PGE is in talks as
well. 6 total units. Start construction mid-2019.
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
Peninsula Clean Energy - Search for CFO
Engaged in several meetings to conclude the CFO search. Ended in offer to well qualified
candidate (Andy Stern) who starts October 18. Will be bringing in PCE for Council review first
meeting in January.
Wednesday, September 19, 2018
Community Center
Meeting to determine final external colors on Community Center and work to start the internal
themes for design development. Focusing on ROOTED and GROWTH. Like rooted in the
community idea with personal growth and development.
Colson Committee Report October 1, 2018
4
Thursday, September 20, 2018
Home for All Leadership Conversation Steering Council Meeting
Review and recap of the four Learning Network pilots - all seem to be successful. Also provided
update on the overall Steering Committee and working groups. Assemblyman Mullin provided
update on state level housing legislation.
Friday, September 21, 2018
Economic Dev Sub-Committee
Reviewed
1. How do we attract and keep businesses - discussed pilot program for Broadway to help
business owners complete facade repairs or upgrades for their storefront. Make attractive
to shoppers and help owners. Discussed that we would develop a prototype notice of
funding and have Council weigh in on process, dollar amounts, evaluation guidelines to
develop the program.
2. Succession Planning for businesses - Cleese developed a list of resources for businesses
thinking about selling or transitioning so that they can stay in our community.
Monday, September 24, 2018
Park and Recreation Foundation Meeting
• Successful fundraising year and ending with nearly $25,000
• New brick purchase donation program for Ray Park
• Reviewed all park sites and what we can add (bike racks, etc.)
• Fall fundraising includes Fall Festival and Santa visits
Thursday, September 27, 2018
Home For All Learning Network Meeting
• Highlights of cities progress on housing
• Review of the Learning Network findings including interdependence and conversation - to
find positive in connection. People respond to OUR COMMUNITY conversation.
• Listen and gather information for feedback
Three levels of engagement and the information you provide
• Introductory Information for new and minimally engaged
• Intermediate - Moderately engaged
• Advanced - Have technical background
Use plain language - no acronyms please and clear and simple
Channels are as important as content - using community partners as a way to transfer information
back and forth. Need feedback before it hits the larger community.
1
Memorandum
To: City Council
Date: October 1, 2018
From: Councilmember Emily Beach
Subject: Committee Report
Thursday, 9/13 & 14: League of California Cities Annual Conference
•Joined advocacy efforts for local (city) control legislation
•Will include highlights in future report
Saturday, 9/15: Housing for All Burlingame Meeting, Palestine Cultural Day in Foster City,
BCE Reception
Tuesday, 9/18: Constituent Meetings (3)
•Discussion topics included development, ADU’s, traffic, pedestrian safety, commissions,
General Plan, impact on public schools
Thursday, 9/20 Commute.org Board of Directors
•Significant staff changeover at Commute.org (4 new staff members, one more retiring this
month)
•Significant workforce challenges with shuttle drivers. Once trained, cannot keep them
despite strong union wages. Within the last few months, many shuttles cancelled
unexpectedly, and riders frustrated by lack of confidence in system. Staff working through
these challenges with vendor. Another illustration of the affordability and workforce crisis
in our region.
•Received SamTrans business plan presentation – very inspiring, forward-thinking vision
if/when resources available
•Board approved resolutions to endorse Yes on Measure W, SamTrans sales tax for
November Ballot. Also resolution for No on Prop 6, which would repeal SB1
transportation funding.
•Discussed Assembly Bill 1912 – JPA Pension Liabilities; will connect with Burlingame
staff on this
Friday, 9/21 Economic Development Subcommittee
•Discussed tools for business attraction: discussion focused on façade
improvements/beautification pilot program for Broadway
Friday, 9/21 Meeting with Peninsula Health Care District CEO
•Discussed housing affordability within the new Wellness Community
AGENDA NO: 11b
MEETING DATE: October 1, 2018
Beach Committee Report October 1, 2018
2
• PHCD is open-minded about future vision; considering stakeholder meeting with city
representatives throughout the district (San Bruno to San Mateo) to discuss community
benefits
Saturday, 9/22 Burlingame Hills Association Annual Party & Committee for Green Foothills
Guardians of Nature Annual Event
• Event honored contributions of retired GM of Mid-Peninsula Open Space District
Chairperson Steve Abbors, and Rue Mapp, the inspirational founder of Outdoor Afro.
Monday, 9/24: Congestion Management and Environmental Quality Committee
• Discussed results/data from C/CAG’s $1,000,000 Carpool incentive program, lessons
learned
• Many positive results, but limitations from data collected and partnership with Scoop.
Tough questions posed, thoughtful discussion.
• Commute.org presentation for Carpool incentive program 2.0: incorporated lessons-
learned for a program with more data accountability and targeted incentives to encourage
the carpooling behavior. Committee unanimously approved the pilot program
recommendation.
• Received a presentation and provided input on County’s Transportation Climate Plan and
provided input.
• Received an overview of proposed scope of the County’s Comprehensive Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan update, which will be discussed in more detail at the C/CAG BPAC
meeting in October.
Wednesday, 9/26 Grand Boulevard Task Force Corridor Tour
• I joined apx. 60 participants from San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, included staff
members, elected officials, and business community members for an El Camino Real
corridor tour. Visited Belmont housing developments, Bay Meadows Community in San
Mateo, and Redwood City El Camino Real corridor improvements.
• Belmont
o Community Development Director Carlos de Melo led the tour
o Belmont currently has apx. 475 housing units along El Camino Real in the pipeline
or early planning stages with apx. 140 below market rate units (combination of
apartments and condos/townhouses) = 30% BMR.
o How did they do it? Housing impact fees, inclusionary requirements, and visionary
land purchases by the City between 2009-11 when corner vacant/abandoned
properties along El Camino Real were up for sale. Now partnering with developers
to activate sites into higher use.
o Belmont recently implemented 15% inclusionary zoning (only developments under
25 units have an in-lieu fee option) and still require housing impact fees. Estimated
total city fees on Belmont projects equal 7% of project cost, not including school
impact fees. Staff should verify.
o Belmont downtown specific plan unbundles parking.
o Downtown Specific Plan allows 45-50 feet; up to 60’ height with additional
community benefits subject to Council approval. Menu of community benefit
Beach Committee Report October 1, 2018
3
options include: 20% or more affordable housing (rather than required 15%), more
$ donated to transportation improvements or other infrastructure improvements
than is required, construction of public plaza, etc. Allows developers to be creative
within the context of their project.
o Higher FAR allowed near transit (no density metric in the plan) which allows
developers to create smaller unit / TOD workforce housing near transit -- which the
market currently demands
o Belmont also recently conducted a nexus study to update and increase all other
development fees
• Bay Meadows San Mateo
o 83 acres including 18 acres public park / open space (stakeholder group forming to
create a master plan for the park)
o Developer donated $1 million public art; City public art committee selects the
works not developers
o Apx 51% of residents use Caltrain daily (Grade Separation project under
construction @ 25th Ave will further improve access)
o 10% BMR requirement every block
o Highlights of tour included community edible garden, sustainable storm water
treatments/green infrastructure throughout, Beer Garden is now community
gathering space / social hub
• Redwood City
o Downtown specific plan originally capped office space at 500,000 sq/foot. Two
office buildings near train station (Box @ 300,000 sq/ft and building across) max
this out. City is reconsidering expanding, did not anticipate the demand for office.
Focused primarily on housing and retail/services.
o RWC has high parking requirements for office, but allows developers to cut by
50% if they share parking with public at night and on weekends
o Automobile trip generation is half what they predicted; downtown is over-parked.
o Redwood City is beginning a feasibility study for Broadway Streetcar that would
travel from transit hub to Stanford.
o Downtown specific plan requires 12-20’ sidewalks for walkability; City gets
easement rather than requiring moving property lines to facilitate
o El Camino Real
Conducting a pilot program on Jefferson which removes street parking on
El Camino and replaces with protected bike lanes. Will study impact on
community and consider replicating on other sections of El Camino. See
attachment.
o Redwood City Sequoia Station (Safeway/CVS strip mall near Caltrain) lessons
learned:
Developers/City built a small public plaza with seating at the edge of the
shopping area on the corner of El Camino Real (busy intersection.) Seating
area isn’t surrounded by retail to activate the plaza, not a comfortable place
Beach Committee Report October 1, 2018
4
for pedestrians or community gathering. Learned this is an underutilized
waste of space in this location.
Sequoia Station precise plan envisions new street grids to divide up the
strip-mall block into a walkable, pedestrian-friendly development --
welcoming to all modes of transportation. Developers will be required to
help create this new street grid. This could be an important model as we
envision a new neighborhood in Rollins Area. See attachment.