Loading...
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.