Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2014.12.01City Council City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda - Final BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, December 1, 2014 CLOSED SESSION - 5:30 p.m. - Conference Room A Approval of the Closed Session Agendaa. Closed Session Community Forum: Members of the Public May Address the Council on any Item on the Closed Session Agenda at this Time. b. Adjournment into Closed Sessionc. Conference with Real Property Negotiators - Government Code §54956.8 Property - APN 029-204-230 (Parking Lot E) Negotiators: Lisa Goldman, Kathleen Kane, William Meeker Under Negotiation: Negotiating Agreement, Price, Terms d. Conference with Legal Counsel – Potential Litigation - Gov. Code §54956.9 (a) and (d) (4): One Case e. Note: Public comment is permitted on all action items as noted on the agenda below and in the non-agenda public comment provided for in item 7. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Mayor may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. All votes are unanimous unless separately noted for the record. 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION 5. UPCOMING EVENTS 6. PRESENTATION Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/20/2018 December 1, 2014City Council Meeting Agenda - Final a. Presentation of a Check by the Library's Capital Campaign 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Council agenda may do so during this public comment period. The Ralph M . Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR Consent calendar items are usually approved in a single motion, unless pulled for separate discussion . Any member of the public wishing to comment on an item listed here may do so by submitting a speaker slip for that item in advance of the Council’s consideration of the consent calendar. Approve the City Council Meeting Minutes of December 1, 2014a. 12-1-14 Unapproved MinutesAttachments: Adoption of a Resolution Establishing Electric Vehicle Charging Station Rates for City Parking Lot V b. Staff Report Resolution Attachments: Authorization to Purchase Web-Based Dispatch Radio Consoles from Avtecc. Staff ReportAttachments: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing a Reclassification of a Park Maintenance Lead Worker Position to an Assistant Parks Supervisor Position d. Staff Report Resolution Job Description Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Revised Department Head and Unrepresented Employees Compensation and Benefit Plan Effective January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 e. Staff Report Resolution Department Head Comp Benefit Plan Attachments: 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment) Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/20/2018 December 1, 2014City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Adoption of a Resolution Approving and Levying 2015 San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District Assessments on Hotel Businesses within the District a. Staff Report Resolution Reso Exhibit A 2015 Reso Exhibit B 2015 Reso Exhibit C 2015 Letter from TBID Chair.pdf Attachments: Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission's October 27, 2014 Approval of Amendments to a Design Review Permit for a New Residence Under Construction at 1521 Cabrillo Avenue b. Staff Report Ryan Appeal Letter October 27, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt October 27, 2014 Planning Commission Report with Attachments CEQA Resolution Resolution Granting Appeal Resolution Denying Appeal Attachments: 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) Consideration of Appointments to the Parks & Recreation Commissiona. Staff ReportAttachments: Revisions to Land-Use Restrictions for the Broadway Commercial Districtb. Staff ReportAttachments: Adoption of a Resolution Aproving a Memorandum of Understanding between Teamsters Local 856 and the City of Burlingame c. Staff Report Resolution MOU Teamsters Local 856 Attachments: Update Regarding Mills Canyon Illegal Tree Pruningd. Staff Report Protected Tree Removal Permit Tree Work Plan Permit for City Trees Attachments: Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/20/2018 December 1, 2014City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Update on Proposed Flood Insurance Rate Map and New Flood Insurance Study by FEMA e. Staff Report 2012 FEMA Flood Plain Map Coastal Beat - Coastal Flood Hazard Modelling Information Proposed Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map for Burlingame Attachments: Approval of Annual Report on the Status of Impact Fees Collected as of June 30, 2014, Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code Section 66000 et seq. f. Staff Report Resolution Attachments: 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Members report on committees and activities and make announcements. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - None 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 Special City Council Meeting: Wednesday, December 3, 2014; Next Regular City Council Meeting: Monday, December 15, 2014 VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT WWW.BURLINGAME.ORG - GO TO "CITY COUNCIL VIDEOS" Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office counter at City Hall at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/20/2018 Burlingame City Council December 1, 2014 Unapproved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of December 1, 2014 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. Mayor Brownrigg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by Kris Cannon. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Brownrigg, Keighran, Ortiz, Root MEMBERS ABSENT: Nagel 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION CA Kane advised that Council met in Closed Session and gave direction. She advised there would be follow- up communications on the second item with the High School District this week. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Brownrigg reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City. 6. PRESENTATION a. PRESENTATION OF A CHECK BY LIBRARY’S CAPITAL CAMPAIGN Kris Cannon of the Burlingame Library Foundation presented the City Council with a check for $500,000 representing the money they have raised for the Library’s Capital Campaign for the renovation of the Main Library. Mayor Brownrigg thanked all the members of the Capital Campaign for their exemplary efforts in raising the funds. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Burlingame residents Cynthia Cornell and Melinda spoke about the high cost of rents in Burlingame. Suze Gardner, Burlingame Aquatic Club Director spoke about the Club, as did Burlingame residents Amy Johnstone, and Fred. Burlingame resident Pat Giorni spoke about the Floribunda/El Camino Real intersection. Burlingame City Council December 1, 2014 Unapproved Minutes 2 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Brownrigg asked if any members of the public wished to remove any items from the consent calendar, and there were no requests. Councilmember Keighran removed item 8b and Mayor Brownrigg removed item 8c. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt items 8a, d, and e of the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). a. APPROVE THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 17, 2014 CC Kearney requested Council approve the City Council meeting minutes of November 17, 2014. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION RATES FOR CITY PARKING LOT V DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution No. 102-2014. Councilmember Keighran questioned the rates and if they are similar to other cities. Councilmember Keighran also questioned making a change to the software so as not to charge Sundays and holidays. Mayor Brownrigg also commented on the rates and the benefits of knowing what other cities are charging. DPW Murtuza addressed their concerns and provided clarification. DPW Murtuza agreed to provide an update as to how everything is going with the charging stations at a meeting in a few months. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt item 8b; seconded by Councilmember Root. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). c. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE WEB-BASED DISPATCH RADIO CONSOLES FROM AVTEC PC Wollman requested Council authorize the Police Department to purchase web-based dispatch radio consoles. Mayor Brownrigg questioned how the consoles would operate if the internet was to fail. PC Wollman said he would check with the manufacturer and provide the Mayor with an answer. Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to authorize the purchase of the consoles; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A RECLASSIFICATION OF A PARK MAINTENANCE LEAD WORKDER POSITION TO AN ASSISTANT PARKS SUPERVISOR POSITION HRD Loomis requested Council adopt Resolution No. 103-2014. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REVISED DEPARTMENT HEAD AND UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT PLAN EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2015 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2015 HRD Loomis requested Council adopt Resolution No 104-2014. Burlingame City Council December 1, 2014 Unapproved Minutes 3 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND LEVYING 2015 SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS ON HOTEL BUSINESSES WITHIN THE DISTRICT FinDir Augustine reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing and adopt Resolution No. 105-2014 approving and levying assessments for the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District and approve District programs and activities for the year 2015. CC Kearney advised that she did not receive any protests. Mayor Brownrigg opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 105-2014; seconded by Councilmember Root. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). b. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S OCTOBER 27, 2014 APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT 1521 CABRILLO AVENUE CA Kane reviewed the appeal process that would take place during the hearing. CA Kane also advised that the use of inappropriate language is not allowed in the Chambers and a fine would be imposed on any individual using such language. CDD Meeker reviewed the staff report and provided background on the project and reviewed the modified version of the applicant’s amendments approved by the Planning Commission at their meeting of October 27, 2014. Mayor Brownrigg opened the public hearing and the appellant Linda Ryan spoke and requested that, rather than permitting glass to be obscured with film applied to clear glass, it be permanently etched, obscured glass. The applicant Eric Mainini spoke and gave a brief presentation of the project. He also reviewed the efforts he has made to comply with the privacy issues. Mayor Brownrigg asked if any members of the audience wished to speak and Frank Ryan, husband of the appellant spoke and read a statement by a neighbor in support of the appellant. Burlingame residents Bob Bear, Ani Savi, and Pat Giorni also spoke. The Councilmembers asked questions of the applicant, the appellant and staff. The applicant and the appellant each gave a brief closing statement and Mayor Brownrigg closed the public hearing. Council discussion followed and Council commented that in Burlingame it is impossible to have complete privacy due to the smaller lots. Mayor Brownrigg called for a motion and Councilmember Keighran agreed. Councilmember Keighran said this would be a modification of the Planning Commission’s decision. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision with regard to the front elevation, that the square window in place of the round window is acceptable; with respect to the second floor bedroom window on the left elevation, the existing triple width window shall be replaced with a Burlingame City Council December 1, 2014 Unapproved Minutes 4 double width window, as approved by the Planning Commission; on the left elevation the windows for the second floor bedroom and stairway leading from the first to the second floor, obscured glazing shall not be required; with respect to the second floor closet window and bathroom window on the left elevation, these windows shall be permanently obscured glazing in which the method of obscuring the glass is permanently etched into the glass, application of film or other means of obscuring clear glass shall not be an acceptable means of obscuring the windows. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. Mayor Brownrigg called for a roll call vote and the motion was approved unanimously by a vote of 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). CDD Meeker advised that staff would bring back revised resolutions, that accurately reflect the Council’s action, at the December 15, 2014 Council meeting. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION CM Goldman advised that the three vacancies are due to the expired terms of two Commissioners and one is due to the resignation of a Commissioner. The vacancies were publicized, and notification letters were sent to past Commissioner applicants. Five applications were received as of the extended deadline of November 7, 2014. After two applicants withdrew, the following three applicants were interviewed by the full Council on November 24, 2014: Joe Dito, Claire Schissler, and Shari Lewis. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item for public comment, and there were no comments. CC Kearney gave each Councilmember a ballot to vote for the three candidates and indicate who they desired for the three year terms and who they desired for the one year term. The ballot submissions resulted in Joe Dito and Shari Lewis being appointed to the three year terms, and Claire Schissler was appointed to the one year term. b. REVISIONS TO LAND USE RESTRICTIONS FOR THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT CDD Meeker reviewed the staff report and requested that Council authorize staff to proceed with revisions to the current zoning restrictions related to the number of food establishments permitted in the Broadway District and to lift the requirement for a conditional use permit for health service uses above the ground floor. CDD Meeker advised that staff is withdrawing the suggestion of performing a consultant-based parking analysis for the Broadway District. Instead staff requests authorization to proceed with a staff-based analysis of other communities with commercial districts similar to Broadway to determine if a lesser standard may be found that can reduce or eliminate the instances in which parking variances must be sought for new food establishment locations. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item for public comment and John Kevranian and Garbis Bezdjian spoke. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to move forward with the changes as described by staff; seconded by Councilmember Root. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). Burlingame City Council December 1, 2014 Unapproved Minutes 5 c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN TEAMSTERS LOCAL 856 AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME CM Goldman reviewed the staff report and advised that Teamsters Local 856 represents the seven Police Department Communications Dispatchers. CM Goldman reviewed the major components of the new agreement. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item for public comment and there were no comments. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 106-2014 approving the Memorandum of Understanding with the Teamsters Local 856 and the City of Burlingame; seconded by Councilmember Root. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). d. UPDATE REGARDING MILLS CANYON ILLEGAL TREE PRUNING P&RD Glomstad spoke and provided background information on the trimming of City trees that took place on Toledo Court. Ms. Glomstad advised that the City was contacted by nearby neighbors of Toledo Court of the severity of the tree trimming. P&RD Glomstad said the arborists’ reports recommended that the trees be given the opportunity to return to their previous condition and they will survive with additional care and maintenance. Ms. Glomstad also advised that the department staff is currently working with the Beautification Commission and the City Attorney to update the City ordinances that pertain to trees and it is anticipated that an updated ordinance will be before the City Council in April of 2015. Council questions of P&RD Glomstad and City Arborist Disco followed and City Arborist Disco provided additional information from the independent arborist’s report. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item for public comment and Deirdre Shaw, Simon Yu, a resident on Valdivia, Linda Ryan, and Frank Ryan all spoke on the item. The Councilmembers were pleased with the significantly tighter process that is place, or will be put in place. Mayor Brownrigg requested that staff plant some 24 inch Madrone trees to replace the public property that was damaged. City Arborist Disco and CA Kane offered concerns over doing any new planting in that area and Mayor Brownrigg said he would defer to the City Arborist’s expertise. CA Kane said there should be an indicator quite soon whether the damaged trees are surviving, but the issue of restoring the canopy will be longer term. Mayor Brownrigg concluded and said bad tree service will not be tolerated in the City of Burlingame. He also requested that the Parks Department please send a copy of the revised tree trimming policy to Council once it is finalized. Councilmember Keighran requested that a notice be placed in the e-news advising residents that they need to obtain a permit from the City before trimming any trees. e. UPDATE ON PROPOSED FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP AND NEW FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY BY FEMA DPW Murtuza advised that this was an information item to give the Council an update on what FEMA is doing in terms of future changes in their maps. DPW Murtuza introduced Senior Engineer Martin Quan who Burlingame City Council December 1, 2014 Unapproved Minutes 6 gave a thorough report updating future changes that will be taking place in Burlingame with respect to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Mr. Quan indicated the flood zone areas and the creeks and channels in Burlingame identified by FIRM. The Council thanked Mr. Quan for his presentation and posed questions concerning homes in the flood zones and the requirements for remodeling. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item for public comment and Burlingame resident John Horgan spoke. d. APPROVAL OF ANNUAL REPORT ON THE STATUS OF IMPACT FEES COLLECTED AS OF JUNE 30, 2014, ACCORDING TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66000 ET SEQ FinDir Augustine reviewed the annual report on the status of the Public Facilities Impact fees, North Burlingame and Rollins Road fees, Bayfront Development fees and Burlingame Avenue Parking In -Lieu fees collected by the City. Mayor Brownrigg commented that these fees are not a great source of revenue and FinDir Augustine agreed. Mayor Brownrigg questioned if the City should perhaps rethink the whole matter of these fees. FinDir Augustine advised that the City had issued a request for proposals for a cost allocation and development fee study and it is anticipated that the consultant will have some good recommendations. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution 107-2014; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mary Ellen Kearney City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8b MEETING DATE: December 1, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: December 1, 2014 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Establishing Electric Vehicle Charging Station Rates for City Parking Lot V RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution establishing electric vehicle charging station rates for City Parking Lot V as follows: • Electric vehicles consuming electricity shall be charged an energy rate of $0.30 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) and a parking rate of $1.00 per hour, between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM. • Electric vehicles not consuming electricity shall be charged a parking rate of $1.00 per hour, between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM. • Electric vehicles consuming electricity shall be charged an energy rate $0.30 per kWh, between the hours of 6:00 PM and 8:00 AM. • All rates listed above shall be applicable on weekdays and weekends, including Sundays and holidays. The charging station software does not allow the City to forego charging for parking on Sundays and holidays. It is anticipated that a future model, which should be available in approximately one year, will provide this feature. BACKGROUND As part of the FY 2014-2015 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget, the Council approved the Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Station Project. On September 2, 2014, the Council awarded the project to REJ Electric, Inc. The project consists of engineering design, procurement, and installation of two ChargePoint dual cord commercial-grade Level 2 EV charging stations in City Parking Lot V, located along California Drive, in front of the Burlingame Avenue Caltrain Station. The project is currently in the midst of construction and is scheduled to be completed by January 2015. Upon completion, the project will provide the capability for EV charging for up to four EVs simultaneously. Electric Vehicle Charging Station Rates in City Parking Lot V December 1, 2014 2 DISCUSSION In an effort to ensure that the EV charging stations are adequately programmed with proper rates for both electricity consumption and for parking usage; staff examined the existing parking rates in Lot V, PG&E electricity rates, and the average charging capability of different makes and models of electric vehicles. Staff also considered different rate options currently used at other electric vehicles charging stations in the Bay Area. As a result, staff is proposing the above recommendations regarding electricity charging and parking rates for the City Council’s consideration. Staff believes the proposed per kWh rate is fair for all types of EVs. An EV will pay for the amount of energy it draws from the charging stations, regardless of the make and model of the vehicle. For example, at $0.30 per kWh, a Nissan LEAF and a Tesla Model S will both pay the same, $1.50 for 5 kWh of energy drawn from the charging stations. In addition to the electricity charge, the EVs will be required to pay $1.00 per hour parking rate between the hours of 8:00AM and 6:00PM, including Sundays and holidays. Currently, the charging station software does not allow price differentiation for different days of the week or selective days of the year. The $1.00 per hour parking rate is consistent with parking meter rates in the downtown area and will continue to encourage greater turn-around in short-term parking spaces for businesses in the Downtown Burlingame Avenue area. Parking in Lot V is currently limited to a maximum of four hours of parking between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Mondays through Saturdays. Staff requests that the City Council temporarily suspend the four-hour parking limit restrictions and temporarily allow the rates to be applicable seven days a week for the four EV parking spaces. Additionally, staff requests Council authorization to study and monitor the usage of the EV charging stations, electricity consumption and overall utilization over the course of next six to 12 months, and make necessary adjustments to electricity rates and time limits as appropriate. FISCAL IMPACT The estimated overall cost of the project is approximately $94,393 and is budgeted as part of the FY2014-15 CIP. The proposed EV charging rate of $0.30 per KWh is an estimated cost recovery amount based on average PG&E electricity rates and a small service charge fee by ChargePoint. The City does not intend to profit from the energy rates collected. Additionally, the parking fees collected will help fund maintenance of the downtown parking lots. Exhibit: • Resolution RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION RATES FOR CITY PARKING LOT V The City Council (the “Council”) of the City of Burlingame (the “City”) does resolve as follows: WHEREAS, Title 13 of the Burlingame Municipal Code provides the framework for regulating all of the City’s parking lots; and WHEREAS, the City Council has from time to time established regulations for parking rates in various City parking lots; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Electric Vehicle Charging Station Project as part of the FY 2014-2015 Capital Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, the City Council awarded the project to REJ Electric, Inc. on September 2, 2014 for the design, procurement, and installation of electric vehicle charging stations in City Parking Lot V, capable of charging four electric vehicles simultaneously; and WHEREAS, the rates for these four electric vehicle parking spaces should be established prior to the commissioning of the charging stations; and WHEREAS, the Public Works Department studied the cost for electric vehicle charging services, estimated the average electricity cost, and considered different rate options currently used at electric vehicles charging stations in the Bay Area; and WHEREAS, it was determined that a $0.30 per kilowatt-hour energy rate provides cost recovery for the electricity charges and associated transaction fees; and WHEREAS, a $1.00 per hour parking rate in City Parking Lot V is consistent with parking rates in the downtown area. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AS FOLLOWS: 1. Four parking spaces in City Parking Lot V shall be designated for actively plugged-in electric vehicle parking only. 2. Electric vehicles consuming electricity shall be charged an energy rate of $0.30 per kilowatt-hour and a parking rate of $1.00 per hour, between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM. 3. Electric vehicles not consuming electricity shall be charged a parking rate of $1.00 per hour, between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM. 4. Electric vehicles consuming electricity shall be charged an energy rate $0.30 per kilowatt-hour, between the hours of 6:00 PM and 8:00 AM. 5. All rates listed above shall be applicable on weekdays and weekends, including Sundays and holidays. 6. The time limitation of four-hour parking shall not apply for the four electric vehicle parking spaces and shall supersede any and all such limitations adopted by prior resolutions. 7. The Public Works Department is hereby authorized to monitor the utilization and electricity consumption of the electric vehicle charging stations and to make necessary rate and parking time limit adjustments based on monitoring results. 8. Any and all previous resolutions inconsistent with this resolution are hereby repealed. Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 1st day of December, 2014 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AY ES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8c MEETING DATE: December 1, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: December 1, 2014 From: Eric Wollman, Police Chief – (650) 777-4123 Subject: Authorization to Purchase Web-Based Dispatch Radio Consoles from Avtec RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Burlingame Police Department (BPD) to purchase five web-based dispatch radio consoles from Avtec to replace the Department’s current consoles. BACKGROUND In response to a 2010 Citygate Dispatch Consolidation Study and a 2012 San Mateo County Grand Jury Report regarding Independent Dispatch Centers, the BPD began an evaluation of its existing Communications Center. The evaluation consisted of looking into the efficiency of the current center as well as looking at opportunities to collaborate and share services with other agencies. It was during this process that the concept of “Virtual Dispatch” was developed. “Virtual Dispatch” is a plan in which cities with the same Records Management System/Computer Aided Dispatch (RMS/CAD) system, the same 911 system, and the same dispatch radio consoles could dispatch for one another from their own respective dispatch centers with “flick of the switch” ease and convenience during off peak hours, required breaks, emergency absences, disasters, etc. In 2013, BPD began collaborating with the San Bruno Police Department (SBPD) to assemble a “Virtual Dispatch” operation between the two agencies, while at the same time maintaining the ability to add other agencies to the group in the future. In August of 2013, both agencies upgraded their respective 911 systems to Intrado, while in April of 2014, both agencies replaced their existing RMS/CAD systems with Sun Ridge Systems. DISCUSSION There are two primary reasons for purchasing web-based dispatch radio consoles at this time. The Department’s current radio consoles are 15 years old and in need of replacement. The average life expectancy of a radio console is approximately ten years, which makes the current consoles five years overdue for replacement. In addition, the last step in the “Virtual Dispatch” collaboration with SBPD is the purchase and installation of matching web-based radio consoles. Once this is complete, the BPD and SBPD Communication Centers will be completely fluid (i.e. both agencies will be able to completely dispatch for one another from their respective dispatch centers). The Avtec web-based dispatch radio consoles were chosen for several reasons. Unlike the Department’s old system and other systems on the market, Avtec actually allows linking Dispatch Radio Consoles December 1, 2014 2 capabilities with other agencies (i.e. SBPD and other potential “Virtual Dispatch” partners within San Mateo County). Many of these potential “Virtual Dispatch” partners, including San Bruno, South San Francisco, Redwood City, and Menlo Park, are either already using, or are planning to purchase, the Avtec radio consoles. The Avtec radio console will allow the Department to consolidate its radio frequencies, as well as those of surrounding agencies and the mutual aid channels, into a single computer screen display. This will allow the Department to change channels easily when events are occurring on multiple channels. FISCAL IMPACT The cost of five web-based radio dispatch consoles from Avtec is $127,010.56 (which includes installation and all hardware and software). Sufficient funds for this purchase are included in the Facilities Capital Improvement Program (322 82010 220). 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8d MEETING DATE: December 1, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: December 1, 2014 From: Leslie Loomis, Director of Human Resources – (650) 558-7209 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing a Reclassification of a Park Maintenance Lead Worker Position to an Assistant Parks Supervisor Position RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution authorizing a reclassification of a Park Maintenance Lead Worker position in the Parks and Recreation Department to an Assistant Parks Supervisor position. The current staffing level of the Parks and Recreation Department of 29.30 FTEs will remain unchanged. BACKGROUND The Parks Division has seen a significant increase in the number of work requests, maintenance responsibilities and capital improvement projects. These increases require significant planning and management oversight that the current Parks Division staffing structure is not equipped to handle. Additional management level expertise to oversee and manage the magnitude of projects will significantly enhance the efficiency of the Parks and Recreation Department. DISCUSSION The Assistant Parks Supervisor position will provide support to the Parks Supervisor/City Arborist. This position will: 1. Allow for an improvement in the turnaround time for tree service request reviews. 2. Increase the supervision of parks/tree maintenance programs, including the park safety program. 3. Assist in planning and managing the large tree maintenance contracts and parks paving projects. 4. Assist with Capital Improvement Projects. 5. Promote more active management of Mills Canyon. 6. Assist in the management and supervision of the parks/tree maintenance staff. 7. Provide for succession planning within the department. The Assistant Parks Supervisor position will be a Burlingame Association of Middle Managers position. Staff has met with and discussed this change with AFSCME Local 2190, and AFSCME Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Addition of an Asst Parks Supervisor Position December 1, 2014 2 has agreed to this position and has expressed the hope that the Park Maintenance Lead Worker position will be filled in the future. That position remains within the City’s classification system. The proposed salary range, which is 22% above the Lead Parks Maintenance Worker position, is: Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E $6341.00 $6658.05 $6990.95 $7340.58 $7707.53 FISCAL IMPACT The impact of the new position is approximately $2000 for the remainder of the 2014-15 fiscal year. If the $2000 cannot be covered in the Parks and Recreation Department budget, a request for the additional funds will be made during the mid-year budget process. Exhibits: • Resolution • Assistant Parks Supervisor Job Description RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE RECLASSIFICATION OF A PARK MAINTENANCE LEAD WORKER POSITION TO AN ASSISTANT PARKS SUPERVISOR POSITION WHEREAS, the Parks Division has seen a significant increase in work requests, maintenance responsibilities and capital improvement projects; and WHEREAS, these increases require significant planning and management oversight that the current Parks Division staffing structure is not equipped to handle; and WHEREAS, additional management level expertise to oversee and manage the magnitude of projects will significantly enhance the efficiency of the Parks and Recreation Department and support the work of the Parks Supervisor/City Arborist; and WHEREAS, the reclassification of a Park Maintenance Lead Worker position to an Assistant Parks Supervisor position will not increase the total staffing in the Parks and Recreation Department; and WHEREAS, the budget impact of this reclassification is approximately $2000 for fiscal year 2014-15. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT: A Park Maintenance Lead Worker position will be reclassified as an Assistant Parks Supervisor position. Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 1st day of December, 2014 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: __________________________ Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk ASSISTANT PARKS SUPERVISOR Page 1 of 3 ASSISTANT PARKS SUPERVISOR Class specifications are only intended to present a descriptive summary of the range of duties and responsibilities associated with specified positions. Therefore, specifications may not include all duties performed by individuals within a classification. In addition, specifications are intended to outline the minimum qualifications necessary for entry into the class and do not necessarily convey the qualifications of incumbents within the position. DEFINITION Under direction of the Park Supervisor, supervises, coordinates, oversees and participates in all phases of the operation of the tree maintenance, and in the maintenance and repair of parks, playgrounds, medians, and various facilities landscapes; implements maintenance policies and procedures; outlines, assigns, and determines work projects; ensures safe work practices; and performs other related duties as required. DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS This classification is distinguished from the Park Supervisor though its emphasis on the coordination of Park Division support functions. This position functions as a second-line supervisor and performs a variety of maintenance tasks and performs supervisory duties, including assisting in the planning, assigning, and evaluation of the work of subordinates, giving recommendations on discipline, and providing required training. In addition, this classification assists with capital improvement project planning and tree related permits. SUPERVISION RECEIVED/EXERCISED Receives direction from the Parks Supervisor. Exercises functional, technical, and supervision over assigned staff. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS: (includes but are not limited to the following) • Assists with the coordination and supervision of a variety of Park Division activities, programs and projects. • Supervises staff, including scheduling and prioritizing of work; training; conducting evaluations; and taking action or making effective recommendations on discipline. • Recommends service levels to the Supervisor; performs field observations to ensure compliance with department policies, practices, and City ordinances; assists in preparing reports for the Supervisor/Director related to division activities. • Assists with the coordination and collaboration with the Parks and Recreation Director, Parks Supervisor, lead-workers and maintenance workers to address the changing needs and priorities and meet the departmental goals; participates in the development and implementation of goals, objectives, policies, and procedures; evaluates work methods and procedures for improving Division performance and meeting goals; ensures that goals are achieved; forecasts the needs and resources of the Parks Division; assists in assessing current and long-range goals and objectives. • Assists in the monitoring of contract services; inspects the work of private contract trimming and the removal of City trees, performs service request inspections on City trees, oversees and reviews work of Tree Crew, ASSISTANT PARKS SUPERVISOR Page 2 of 3 • Responds to questions, concerns, and emergency calls from the general public; makes recommendations and/or takes appropriate action to resolve issues and problems; responds to inquiries about department policies, rules, regulations and City ordinances, establishes and maintains a customer service orientation within the work unit. • Assists all Parks crews and Public Works divisions when required. • Participates and assists in the investigation of accidents involving subordinate personnel. • Demonstrates a full understanding of applicable policies, procedures, and work methods associated with assigned duties; evaluates assigned work activities; estimates time, materials, and equipment necessary for the successful completion of assignments; acquires necessary resources as is appropriate. • As needed, leads, reviews, and performs the work of staff engaged in the planting, maintenance, care, removal of trees and shrubs along streets, in parks, and on other City grounds; assists in the development and implementation of crew assignments; inspects and reviews work methods, performance, and quality of work performed; conducts safety and training meetings; answers questions; provides input and recommendations on employee evaluations; assumes responsibility for the more difficult and complex tasks. • May serve as acting Parks Supervisor or City Arborist as required. • Establishes positive working relationships with representatives of community organizations, state/local agencies, City management and staff, and the public. PHYSICAL, MENTAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING CONDITIONS Position requires sitting, standing, walking on level and slippery surfaces, reaching, twisting, turning, kneeling, bending, stooping, squatting, crouching, grasping, and making repetitive hand movement in the performance of daily duties. Incumbents perform strenuous work and frequently work at heights well over 10 feet either in an aerial bucket or while suspended by ropes and climbing equipment. The position also requires both near and far vision when inspecting trees and operating assigned equipment. The need to lift, carry, and push tools, equipment, and supplies weighing 55 pounds or more is also required. Additionally, the incumbent in this outdoor position works in all weather conditions, including wet, hot, and cold. The incumbent may use herbicides, which may expose the employee to fumes, dust, and air contaminants, and be exposed to mechanical and electrical hazards. The nature of the work also requires the incumbent to use power and noise producing tools and equipment, including the frequent use of chain saws, drive motorized vehicles and heavy equipment, and work in heavy vehicle traffic conditions. The incumbent may be required to respond to afterhours emergency call-outs and perform routine standby duties. QUALIFICATIONS (The following are minimal qualifications necessary for entry into the classification.) Education and/or Experience Any combination of education and experience that has provided the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary for a Maintenance or Tree Lead Worker. A typical way of obtaining the required qualifications is to possess the equivalent of two years of responsible experience park, landscape and tree maintenance in a lead capacity, and a high school diploma or equivalent. License/Certificate Possession of, or ability to obtain, a valid class B California driver’s license at the time appointment; possession of the Qualified Applicators Certificate (QAC) issued by the State of California, within one year of appointment; possession of, or ability to obtain, a Certified Arborist (International Society of Arboriculture) status. Possession of Pest Control Advisor License and Certified Playground Inspector’s certification are desirable. ASSISTANT PARKS SUPERVISOR Page 3 of 3 KNOWLEDGE/ABILITIES/SKILLS (The following are a representative sample of the knowledge/abilities and skills necessary to perform essential duties of the position.) Knowledge of; Methods, materials, and equipment used in parks, trees, landscape, irrigation, and equipment repairs and maintenance; traffic control techniques; safety orders and safe work practices related to the park system repair and maintenance work; principles and practices of supervision; applicable federal, state and local laws, codes, and regulations, methods and techniques of scheduling work assignments; modern office procedures, practices, methods, and equipment, including a computer and applicable software; methods and techniques for record keeping and report preparation; proper English, spelling, and grammar; occupational hazards and standard safety practices (including S.B. 198 safety compliance standards). Ability to: Assist with the supervision and direction of the assigned maintenance operations and activities of the Parks Division in the Parks and Recreation Department; assist with the planning, organizing and direction of the work of subordinate staff in trees, parks, landscape, irrigation, and equipment repairs and maintenance activities; inspect projects and determine the adequacy of work performed; read, write and follow instructions and read parks related diagrams and specifications, maintain accurate records; prepare reports; provide training and guidance to maintenance staff; assist with supervising, training, motivating, and evaluating of assigned staff; interpret, explain, and apply applicable laws, codes, and regulations; read, interpret, and record data accurately; organize, prioritize, and follow-up on work assignments; analyze situations accurately and adopt an effective course of action; work independently and as part of a team; meet the public in situations requiring diplomacy and tact; assist with preparing contract documents and specifications; maintain accurate records; prepare and present reports; make sound decisions within established guidelines; follow written and oral directions; observe safety principles and work in a safe manner; communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing; establish and maintain effective working relationships. Skill to: Safely and effectively operate a variety of equipment, tools, and vehicles used in park and tree maintenance activities; ability to safely and efficiently operate tractor and implements, verticutter, aerator, spray rig, sweeper, mower, auger, front-end loader, blower, hedger, weed whip, chain saw, stumper and cutters, shop tools and similar landscape equipment; and ability to understand and troubleshoot turf and landscape irrigation systems. November 2014 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8e MEETING DATE: December 1, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: December 1, 2014 From: Leslie Loomis, Human Resources Director – (650) 558-7209 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Revised Department Head and Unrepresented Employees Compensation and Benefit Plan Effective January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to modify the Compensation and Benefit Plan for Department Head and Unrepresented classifications. The revised Plan is for one year and is attached to this report. BACKGROUND The Department Head and Unrepresented Compensation and Benefit Plan has not been updated since 2012. As a result, some of the language is out of date and/or needs clarification. For example, the existing Plan makes no mention of the new pension formulas that apply to employees hired after January 1, 2012, who are new to the CalPERS system. That has been corrected. In addition, the attached Plan includes some salary and benefit changes proposed for the covered classifications. The substantive changes are described below. DISCUSSION In the past the City has tried to maintain equity among the miscellaneous employee groups. The Burlingame Association of Middle Managers (BAMM), AFSCME Local 2190, AFSCME Local 829, and the unrepresented employees covered by the Department Head and Unrepresented Compensation and Benefit Plan are all scheduled to receive a 3% salary adjustment effective January 1, 2015. This salary adjustment was discussed with the City Council during a study session on August 18, 2014, and it has been included in the Plan. The Plan also increases the unrepresented employee contribution to PERS by .25% to match what other miscellaneous units are contributing. The Professional Development Program was a part of the Department Head benefits package that was suspended during the economic downtown. It provides Department Head classifications with an allowance of up to $2,500 per fiscal year for professional association memberships, unbudgeted conference participation, health programs, job-related computer equipment, and unreimbursed healthcare costs. This program was suspended during the December 1, 2011 Department Head and Unrepresented Employees Compensation and Benefit Plan December 1, 2014 2 through December 31, 2014 agreement. Staff recommends restoration of the suspended Professional Development Program for Department Heads. During the recent process of hiring a new Police Chief, it became apparent that the existing Department Head Compensation Plan does not address POST certification, safety retirement tiers (the 3%@50 tier for the Police Chief is not mentioned in the Plan), and sick leave cash out. In order to ensure there is no financial disincentive for Police Captains to promote to the Chief level when an opening occurs, staff recommends the Police Chief be eligible for an education incentive upon obtaining the POST Executive Certificate. Currently, the Police Administrators are eligible for an education incentive upon obtaining one of three lower POST certificates. To obtain the Post Executive Certificate, a Police Chief must have earned a POST Advanced Certificate, have a minimum of 60 semester units at an accredited college, served for a period of two years as a Police Chief, and completed the POST Executive Development Course. In addition, staff recommends that the Police Chief be eligible to cash out up to 600 hours of sick leave upon retirement. This is the same benefit granted to the Police Administrators in their Memorandum of Understanding. Fiscal Impact There is no cost for recommended benefit changes for the Police Chief in this budget year. The Chief will be eligible for the education incentive in approximately two years, while the sick leave cash out benefit occurs only upon retirement. The cost of a 3% salary increase for Department Heads is $19,769.15 for the remainder of the 2014-15 fiscal year. Funds for this increase are included in the fiscal year 2014-15 budget. The maximum impact of reinstating Professional Development is $11,250 for the remainder of the 2014-15 fiscal year. Many of the departments will be able to cover this cost, should their Directors choose to utilize the benefit, through their existing budgets. Exhibits: • Resolution • 2015 Department Head and Unrepresented Compensation and Benefit Plan RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO MODIFY THE COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT PLAN FOR DEPARTMENT HEAD AND UNREPRESENTED CLASSIFICATIONS WHEREAS, the Department Head and Unrepresented Compensation and Benefit Plan has not been updated since 2012; and WHEREAS, in the past, the City has tried to maintain equity among the miscellaneous employee groups, most of whom are scheduled to receive a 3% salary adjustment effective January 1, 2015; and WHEREAS, a comparable salary adjustment was discussed with the City Council during a study session on August 18, 2014; and WHEREAS, the revised Plan increases the unrepresented employee contribution to PERS by .25% to match what other miscellaneous units are contributing; and WHEREAS, the Professional Development Program, which provides Department Head Classifications with an allowance of up to $2,500 per fiscal year for professional association memberships, unbudgeted conference participation, health programs, job related computer equipment, and unreimbursed healthcare costs, was suspended during the December 1, 2011 through December 31, 2014 agreement; and WHEREAS, the Plan restores this program for Department Heads given that the suspension was intended to be lifted at the end of the term; and WHEREAS, the existing Department Head Compensation Plan does not address POST certification, safety retirement tiers, such as the 3%@50 tier, and sick leave cash out for the Police Chief; and WHEREAS, in order to ensure there is no financial disincentive for Police Captains to promote to the Chief level when an opening occurs, staff recommends the Police Chief be eligible for an education incentive upon obtaining the POST Executive Certificate and be eligible for the same sick leave cash out benefit granted to the Police Administrators in their Memorandum of Understanding. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to modify the Compensation and Benefit Plan for Department Head and Unrepresented classifications to: 1. Increase Department Head salaries by 3% 2. Increase the unrepresented employee contribution to PERS by .25% 3. Restore the Professional Development Program 4. Provide an education incentive and sick leave cash out to the Police Chief, and 5. Modify outdated and unclear language. Page 2 of 2 Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 1st day of December, 2014 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: __________________________ Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk COMPENSATION & BENEFIT PLAN FOR THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DEPARTMENT HEAD & UNREPRESENTED CLASSIFICATIONS December 1, 2011January 1, 2015 Revised February 27, 2012 Revised June 18, 2012 2 This Compensation and Benefit Plan covers the City of Burlingame (City) Department Head and Unrepresented Group (DH/UR). The parties have entered into this agreement after meeting and conferring in good faith and agree to the following terms: 1. RECOGNITION 1.1 Positions Covered The positions covered by this agreement include all department head and unrepresented classifications that work under the direction and at the will of the City Manager or are considered "confidential" classifications based on the nature of their work. The classifications that are covered by this compensation and benefit plan are as follows: Department Head Classifications: City Clerk City Librarian Community Development Director Finance Director Human Resources Director Parks & Recreation Director Police Chief Public Works Director Unrepresented Classifications: City Clerk Executive Assistant Human Resources Assistant Senior Human Resources Analyst II Human Resources Specialist The City Manager and City Attorney are not included as part of this agreement, but they receive the same benefits plan as the City of Burlingame Department Head and Unrepresented Group (DH/UR) unless specifically noted in their employment agreements.. 2. SALARY 2.1 Salary Adjustments In order to maintain consistency with the other miscellaneous employee units:, Unrepresented employees will receive a general increase equal to what BAMM receives: o 3% increase effective November 21, 2011  1% increase effective July 2, 2012  1% increase effective January 1, 2013  No increase in 2014  3% increase effective January 1, 2015 Department Heads will receive the following increases: 3  3% increase effective November 21, 2011 1% increase effective January 1, 2013  3% increase effective January 1, 2015 2.2 Deferred Compensation The City will maintain a matching contribution to deferred compensation of $45 per pay period. Deferred compensation is part of the total salary and will be included as such for future salary market analysis. 3. BENEFITS 3.1.1 Health Plans Contributions for medical will be based on enrollment levels and will be as follows: No Plan – Effective July 1, 2012, any Eesmployees whothat demonstrates they have medical insurance through another source will receive $350 per month in lieu of medical benefits. The $350 per month allowance may be put into a deferred compensation plan, section 125 plans or taken in cash. Any Ccash payout is subject to normal taxation. Department Head Classifications: • Employee Only - The City will contribute a maximum amount equal to 95% of the Blue Shield HMO rate for employee only. • Employee Plus One - The City will contribute a maximum amount equal to 95% of the Blue Shield HMO rate for employee plus one. • Employee Plus Two or more - The City will contribute a maximum amount equal to 95% of the Kaiser Rate for employee plus two or more. Unrepresented Classifications: • Employee Only - The City will contribute an amount equal to the Blue Shield HMO rate for employee only. • Employee Plus One - The City will contribute an amount equal to the Blue Shield HMO rate for employee plus one. • Employee Plus Two or more - The City will contribute an amount equal to the Kaiser Rate for employee plus two or more. An employee that enrolls in a medical plan that has a higher premium than the City's contribution as stated above will pay the difference via pre-tax payroll deductions. 3.1.2 Effective January 1, 2015 for Department Head and Unrepresented Classifications 4 The City shall contribute the below-listed amount per month toward each employee’s Section 125 Plan benefit allowance components. All contributions listed below include the PERS required Minimum Employer Contribution (MEC). • Employee Only: 92.5% of the selected medical plan premium up to a maximum of 92.5% of the Blue Shield HMO rate for Employee only • Employee plus one: 92.5% of the selected medical plan premium up to a maximum of 92.5% of the Blue Shield HMO rate for Employee plus one • Employee plus two or more: 92.5% of the selected medical plan premium up to a maximum of 92.5% of the Blue Shield HMO rate for family coverage An employee that enrolls in a medical plan that has a higher premium than the City's contribution as stated above will pay the difference via pre-tax payroll deductions. 3.2 Retiree Medical 3.2.1 Retiree Medical for Employees Hired Prior to 03/31/08 who Retire prior to 08/01/12 Employees hired prior to March 31, 2008 who retire prior to January 1, 2012 with a minimum of five (5) years of service with the City will receive a retiree medical benefit equivalent to the amount necessary for actual enrollment in single, two-party, or family coverage, up to a maximum dollar amount of the Kaiser family premium rate. 3.2.2 Retiree Medical for Employees Hired Prior to 03/31/08 who Retire on or after 08/01/12 Employees hired prior to March 31, 2008 who retire on or after January 1, 2012 with a minimum of five (5) years of service with the City will receive the following medical benefits upon retirement from the City: • For eligible retirees who are under the age of 65, the City contribution will be equivalent to the premium for the Blue Shield Access HMO Bay Area Region premium for Single coverage, and Kaiser Bay Area Region premium for Two-Party or Family coverage, as applicable. • For eligible retirees who are 65 years of age or older and enrolled in Medicare, the City contribution will be equivalent to the Medicare premium for the average of Kaiser, Blue Shield HMO and PERS Choice for the Bay Area Region Single, Two-Party, or Family coverage as applicable. 3.2.3 Retiree Medical for Employees Hired Between March 31, 2008 and October 31, 2011 Employees hired between March 31, 2008 and October 31, 2011 who retire with a minimum of five (5) years of service with the City will receive a retiree medical benefit based upon years of service as follows: Years of City Service Monthly Contribution 0 to the end of 9th year of service Minimum monthly amount as governed by the CalPERS Health System. 10 years to the end of the 14th year of service 100% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee only. 5 Years of City Service Monthly Contribution 15 years to the end of the 19th year of service 75% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee +1 dependent. 20 years of service or more 100% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee +1 dependent. 3.2.4 Retiree Medical for Employees Hired On or After November 1, 2011 Employees hired on or after November 1, 2011 will receive the following contributions to a Retirement Health Savings Account, based on years of service with the City. Years of Service Monthly Contribution 0- to the end of the 5th year of service 0.0% 6 years of service to the end of the 19th year of service 2.0% of base pay 20 years of service or more 2.5% of base pay 3.3 Dental and Vision Plans Dental Plan Employees will receive up to $1700 of reimbursable dental expenses per calendar year. In addition, all enrolled eligible dependents will receive a maximum combined benefits of $1800 of reimbursable dental expenses per calendar year. Dependents will receive a cumulative amount of $1800 of reimbursable dental expenses per year. Vision Plan Employees and eligible dependents will receive reimbursement for vision care expenses through the City’s vision care reimbursement program. An employee shall be limited to one (1) eye examination per calendar year and one (1) pair of glasses or contact lenses per calendar year. Disposable contacts shall be limited to a 12-month supply. The mMaximum reimbursement for frames is $160; the , maximum for lenses or contacts is $275. The plan does not cover replacement or prepaid insurance charges for loss or breakage of glasses or contact lenses. A dependent receives the same coverage, except the reimbursement limit on frames and glasses (or contacts) is 50% of the original, allowable cost. For further details refer to the Vision Reimbursement Plan on the Intranet. In the event the BAMM and/or the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) units receive higher benefit levels than those offered to the members covered by this compensation and benefit plan, the members can request that the compensation and benefit plan be reopened relative to dental and vision benefits. 3.4 Long Term Disability (LTD) The City agrees to provide Long-Term Disability (LTD) coverage to department heads and unrepresented classifications. Such coverage will be 60% of covered earnings with a maximum monthly benefit of $8,000. If the Police Chief elects to obtain LTD coverage through their his or her respective professional organizations, the City agrees to pay the premium of such LTD coverage. 6 3.5 Life Insurance The City agrees to provide a term life-insurance policy in an amount equal to annual salary for the Department Head group, and $100,000 for the Unrepresented group. 4. RETIREMENT 4.1 Retirement Formula • Effective 05/26/97, the City amended its contract with CalPERS to provide for the 2% @ 55 retirement formula for miscellaneous employees. • Effective 03/31/2008, the City will amended its contract with CalPERS to provide for the 2.5% at 55 retirement formula for all miscellaneous employees. • Miscellaneous employees hired after January 1st, 2013, who are not considered “classic employees,” shall receive the 2% @ 62 retirement benefit. • Effective as soon as possible after ratification of agreements with all miscellaneous employee groups, the City will implement the 2% at 60 CalPERS retirement formula with three year average compensation for new hires. • The Police Chief shall receive the 3% @ 50 retirement benefit afforded to other sworn Police Ppersonnel. A Police Chief who is not considered a “classic employee” new to the PERS system shall receive the 2.7% @ 57 retirement benefit. 4.1.1 Retirement Contribution • Effective the first pay period in March 2012, employees will contribute 1.25% of the employer’s contribution to PERS retirement via payroll deduction on a pre-tax basis. The City shall “pick-up” the employer contribution amount that is being paid by the employees through a payroll reduction under IRS Code Section 414(h)(2). • Effective the first pay period in January 2014, Department Head employees will contribute an additional 0.25%, for a total of 1.50% of the employer’s contribution to PERS retirement via payroll deduction on a pre-tax basis. The City shall “pick-up” the employer contribution amount that is being paid by the employees through a payroll reduction under IRS Code Section 414(h)(2). • Effective the first pay period after the POA agrees to additional PERS payments of at least 0.5% above the current 9.0% employee contribution, but no earlier than January 1, 2014, Unrepresented employees will pay an additional 0.25% of the employer’s contribution to PERS for a total contribution towards the employer’s contribution of 1.5%. 7 4.2 One-Year Final Compensation • Effective 01/01/02, the City amended its contract with CalPERS to provide for the One-Year Final Compensation Benefit (GC Section 20042). Miscellaneous employees hired after January 1st, 2013, who are not “classic employees,” are subject to the average of the last three 3 years of final compensation for retirement calculations. 4.3 Sick Leave for Service Credit • Effective 01/01/02, the City amended its contract with CalPERS to provide for the service credit for accrued sick leave at time of retirement (GC Section 20965). 4.4 Military Buy Back for Creditable Service • Effective 01/01/02, the City amended its contract with CalPERS to provide for Military Service Credit (GC 21024). 4.5 Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit • Effective 04/30/07, the City amended its contract with CalPERS to provide the Pre- Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit (GC 21548). This contract option provides for the surviving spouse of a retirement-eligible active employee to receive the highest possible retirement benefit as though the employee had retired the day before death and selected such option. 5. VACATION 5.1 Vacation Accrual Vacation Accrual rates will change on an employee’s anniversary date as follows: Biweekly Additive Maximum Length of Service Accrual Rate Amount Accrual 0-4 years 3.07 160 5 4.62 +40 240 11 4.93 +8 256 12 5.24 +8 272 13 5.54 +8 288 14 5.85 +8 304 15 6.16 +8 320 16 6.47 +8 336 17 6.78 +8 352 18 7.09 +8 368 25 7.39 +8 384 Note: The maximum vacation accrual for the Police Chief is 448 hours. 5.2 Vacation Accrual Maximum An employee shall not be allowed to have an accumulation of more than two (2) years' credit at any time. 8 6. SICK LEAVE 6.1 Sick Leave Accrual Employees will accrue 3.69 hours of sick leave per pay period. 6.2 Sick Leave Conversion Upon retirement, employees will have all sick leave hours converted to CalPERS credible service per GC Section 20965, with the exception of the Police Chief, who will receive the same sick leave conversion benefit as granted to the Police Administrators. The Police Administrators can elect to have all sick leave hours converted to CalPERS credible service, or they can elect to be compensated for up to 600 hours of accumulated sick leave. Any remaining sick leave hours can then be converted to CalPERS credible service. 6.3 Maximum Accrual The maximum sick leave accrual is 2,000 hours, except that the maximum accrual for the Police Chief is 2,080 hours. 7. ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE 7.1. Department Head Classifications Effective July 1 of each year, all Department Head classifications shall be granted 80 hours of administrative leave per year. The amount granted shall be prorated based upon the date of hire. A maximum of 80 hours of administrative leave can be paid out in a fiscal year. The payout can occur in the first pay period of December and/or the last pay period of June. An employee shall not be allowed to have an accumulation of more than two (2) times the annual accrual. Any remaining aAdministrative leave will be paid out upon separation of service with the City of Burlingame, prorated based upon the effective date of separation. 7.2. Unrepresented Classifications Effective July 1 of each year, Unrepresented Classifications shall receive administrative leave as follows: • Effective July 1 of each year, the Human Resources Specialist Analyst II shall be granted 60 hours of administrative leave per year. City Clerk shall be granted 80 hours of administrative leave per year. • Other unrepresented classifications covered by the compensation and benefit plan are considered FLSA non-exempt positions and are not eligible for administrative leave. A maximum one1-year allotment of administrative leave can be paid out in a fiscal year. The payout can occur in the first pay period of December and/or the last pay period of June. An employee shall not be allowed to have an accumulation of more than two (2) times the annual accrual. Any remaining aAdministrative leave will be paid out upon separation of service with the City of Burlingame, prorated based upon the effective date of separation. 8. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT & ALLOWANCES 8.1. Professional Development 9 Department Head Classifications are eligible to receive up to $2,500 per fiscal year for professional development and unreimbursed healthcare costs. This includes reimbursement for such things as: civic and professional association memberships, unbudgeted conference participation – including travel expenses, health programs, and job-related computer equipment. The Professional Development Expense Reimbursement program is suspended for the duration of this agreement. 8.2 Auto Allowance Department Head and Unrepresented Classifications are eligible to receive auto allowance as enumerated below. Department Heads can elect to waive their monthly auto allowance and defer an equivalent amount into their Section 457 – Deferred Compensation Account. Such elections can be changed annually with an effective date of January 1. Classification Monthly Amount Finance Director $200 City Clerk $200 Community Development Director $200 Human Resources Director $200 City Librarian $200 Parks & Recreation Director $350 Public Works Director $350 8.3. Uniform Allowance The Police Chief will receive an annual uniform allowance the same as granted to the Association of Police Administrators. 8.4 POST Certificate Pay The Police Chief shall be eligible to receive $950/month upon obtaining the POST Executive Certificate. 9. TERM This agreement shall be effective on December 1, 2011January 1st, 2015 and will remain in effect through December 31st January 1, 2015. The City agrees not to alter, amend, or reduce any existing benefit included in this document without meeting and conferring regarding such change. For the City: For the DH/UR: _________________________________ ___________________________ Date:_____________________________ Date:________________________ 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9a MEETING DATE: December 1, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: December 1, 2014 From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 588-7222 Subject: Possible Adoption of a Resolution Approving and Levying 2015 San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District Assessments on Hotel Businesses within the District RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council hold a public hearing, determine whether a majority protest has been made and, if not, adopt the Resolution approving and levying assessments for 2015 for the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District. BACKGROUND The San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) was formed in 2001 to revitalize the San Mateo County Convention & Visitors Bureau (SMCCVB). Prior to that time, the Bureau’s marketing and sales efforts had been funded with a share of transient occupancy tax revenues from those cities that chose to participate. By 1999, this inconsistent funding stream had resulted in layoffs and a reduction in activities at the Bureau, leading hoteliers to express their dissatisfaction in the inadequate marketing of the area and their properties. The Board hired Anne LeClair as the Bureau’s new CEO in May 2000, with specific direction to form a TBID to provide adequate and consistent funding for the Bureau’s activities. At that time, Burlingame was forwarding over $425,000 of TOT dollars annually to the Bureau. Because Burlingame had the most hotel rooms and had the greatest interest in seeing the TBID formed, the City agreed to act as “Lead Agency” for the TBID. Following multiple meetings with hotels and City Councils in the County, the Bureau proposed the TBID and the City of Burlingame held all of the required hearings in 2000, with the TBID going into effect in 2001. Board slots were allocated based upon the number of hotel rooms in the various cities, with Burlingame allotted four, the most of any city. Since the San Mateo County TBID’s formation, the Burlingame City Council has held the annual reauthorization hearing for the TBID, and the City has overseen the various cities’ tourism fee assessment payments. The City has received an administrative fee of $4,000 from the Bureau annually to cover the cost of the TBID public hearing and billing. The TBID now has 15 cities, along with unincorporated San Mateo County, participating. The District uses annual assessments of its member hotel businesses to fund its successful and wide-ranging promotional activities. On November 3, 2014, the City Council approved the Bureau’s 2014 annual report, which was filed by the District Advisory Board with the City Clerk. The report states the District’s activities and accomplishments during the past year. Among 2015 Assessments for the SMC Tourism Business Improvement District December 1, 2014 2 other achievements, the Board reports that 61,469 room nights had been generated from the Bureau’s activities in 2014. This represents a 37.6% increase from the prior year’s 44,657 room nights, not including individual corporate or leisure traveler nights generated through promotion of the area as a whole. Meeting leads generated for San Mateo County and Palo Alto properties had a potential economic impact of over $72 million, an increase of nearly 5% over the prior year’s estimate of added economic benefit. The District Board is recommending that the Council adopt and levy the 2015 assessments on the hotel businesses within the District to support similar activities in the coming year. At the November 3rd meeting, the Council requested that the District Board provide some level of assurance of their intent to approve and monitor the 2015 Budget. Derek Hudson, Chairman of the Board and General Manager of San Mateo’s Hilton Garden Inn, has provided a letter to the City Council, stating such assurances. It is attached to this staff report. At that same meeting, the City Council adopted a Resolution stating its intention to levy the annual assessments and to schedule a hearing for December 1, 2014. Notices of the public hearing and the proposed assessments were provided to the cities and members of the District by the District staff. The assessments requested by the District are consistent with the original authority for assessments enacted in 2001 at the time of District formation, and the method of computing the assessments has not changed from last year. Total assessments for the TBID in 2015 approximate $2.26 million. DISCUSSION The City Council should take the following actions: • Conduct a public hearing on the proposed District assessments for 2015 • Determine whether a majority protest has been made • If a majority protest has not been made, adopt the Resolution approving and levying assessments for the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District for the year 2015 FISCAL IMPACT Assessment revenues provide funding for operations and activities of the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District. The City receives an annual administrative fee of $4,000 from the Bureau. There is no other direct fiscal impact to the City. Exhibits: • Resolution Approving Assessments for 2014 and Exhibits • Letter from Derek Hudson, Chairman of the Board, SMCCVB RESOLUTION NO. _____ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING AND LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND APPROVING DISTRICT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE YEAR 2015 WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq., the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District ("District" herein) has been established for the purpose of promoting tourism in the District; and WHEREAS, the District Advisory Board has requested the Burlingame City Council to establish calendar year 2015 assessments for the District; and WHEREAS, on November 3, 2014, the City Council approved the District report and adopted a resolution of intention declaring its intent to impose assessments for the calendar year 2014 and setting and noticing a public hearing about the proposed assessments for December 1, 2014; and WHEREAS, notices were provided to the hotel businesses within the District as required by law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Streets & Highways Code, a public hearing on the proposed assessments was duly held on December 1, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, at the Council Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Streets and Highways Code, the City Council determined at the conclusion of the public hearing that a majority protest had not been made as to the proposed assessments or as to any proposed program or activity for the District; and WHEREAS, the proposed assessments and method of computing the assessments appear reasonable and consistent with the ordinance establishing the District, as amended, and the underlying State law; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve, determine, and find as follows: 2 2015 Assessment Resolution 1. Upon close of the public hearing, written protests to assessments, improvements or activities were not received which constituted a majority protest as defined in Government Code sections 36500 and following; accordingly, the Council f inds that there was no majority protest to the assessments. 2. The City Council does hereby levy an assessment for the calendar year 2015 on hotel businesses within the District as described in City of Burlingame Ordinance Nos. 1648, 1678, and 1774, as further amended, for the purpose of funding services, programs, and activities of the District. 3. The types of services, programs, and activities to be funded by the levy of assessments on businesses in the District for the calendar year 2015 are set forth in Exhibit "A", incorporated herein by reference. 4. The basis for assessments for the calendar year 2015 on all hotels within the District are set forth in Exhibit "B", the Assessment Formula Chart, incorporated herein by reference. 5. The assessments for the calendar year 2015 on hotel businesses within the District are set forth in Exhibit "C", incorporated herein by reference. 6. New businesses shall not be exempt from assessment. _____________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 1st day of December, 2014, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Councilmembers: Councilmembers: _____________________________ Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk EXHIBIT A SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SAN MATEO COUNTY/SILICON VALLEY CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU PLANNED ACTIVITIES FOR 2015 For the calendar year 2015, the Bureau plans to continue all of its normal activities, including but not limited to: * Exhibiting in trade shows; * Conducting multiple group FAM (familiarization) tours for meeting planners; * Conducting individual FAM and site tours for planners; * Conducting FAM tours for international travel agents from overseas; * Conducting a group FAM tour for members of the travel media from around the U.S.; * Conducting individual FAM tours for travel media; * Advertising in meeting planner publications; * Advertising in leisure publications; * Promoting the area to international and domestic media via regular releases of editorial; * Creating updated visitor guides, maps and specialty brochures; * Working with area sporting events; * Actively recruiting filming through our film commission. In addition, we will be introducing a Certified Ambassador program for area concierges, front desk reps, sales managers and area front line team members who deal regularly with visitors, awarding certificates and pins to those taking the course and passing the test. EXHIBIT BCATEGORYZONE A - ASSESSMENT FOR YEAR 2015ZONE B - ASSESSMENT FOR YEAR 2015ZONE C - ASSESSMENT FOR YEAR 2015Hotel with full serviceand more than 20 sleeping rooms$360 per sleeping room x 69.5% X (District months in 2015)12$360 per sleeping room X 55% X (District months in 2015)12$360 per sleeping room x 68% X (District months in 2015)12Hotel with limited serviceand more than 1,000 squarefeet of meeting spaceand more than 20 sleeping rooms$180 per sleeping room X 60% X (District months in 2015)12$180 per sleeping room X 40% X (District months in 2015)12$180 per sleeping room X 60% X (District months in 2015)12Hotel with limited serviceand some meeting spacebut less than 1,000 squarefeet and more than 20sleeping rooms$90 per sleeping room X 60% X (District months in 2015)12$90 per sleeping room X 40% X (District months in 2015)12$90 per sleeping room X 60% X (District months in 2015)12Hotel with standard serviceand more than 20 sleepingrooms$54 per sleeping room X 60% X (District months in 2015)12$54 per sleeping room X 40% X (District months in 2015)12$54 per sleeping room X 60% X (District months in 2015)12Hotel with full service,limited service, or standardservice, and 20 sleepingrooms or less$54 per sleeping room X 30% X (District months in 2015)12$54 per sleeping room X 25% X (District months in 2015)12$54 per sleeping room X 30% X (District months in 2015)12ZONE A - Includes all cities in the District except Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, Palo Alto and the unincorporated CountZONE B - Includes Half Moon Bay, Pacifica and the unincorporated County.ZONE C - Palo AltoASSESSMENT FORMULA CHARTSAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT EXHIBIT C: **** SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS (ALL ZONES) FOR 2015 - DRAFT *****BurlingameName of PropertyZone Category/Assessment# RoomsANNUAL AssessmentMonthly AssessmentBay LandingA90.00$ 1307,020.00$ 585.00$ Burlingame HotelA54.00$ 381,231.20$ 102.60$ Crowne Plaza SFOA360.00$ 30977,311.80$ 6,442.65$ DoubleTree by HiltonA360.00$ 39398,328.60$ 8,194.05$ Embassy Suites SFO - Waterfront A360.00$ 34085,068.00$ 7,089.00$ Hampton Inn & SuitesA54.00$ 772,494.80$ 207.90$ Hilton Garden InnA180.00$ 13214,256.00$ 1,188.00$ Hilton SF Airport BayfrontA360.00$ 402100,580.40$ 8,381.70$ Holiday Inn Express SFO South A90.00$ 1467,884.00$ 657.00$ Hyatt Regency SFOA360.00$ 789197,407.80$ 16,450.65$ Red Roof InnA54.00$ 2136,901.20$ 575.10$ SFO Marriott WaterfrontA360.00$ 685171,387.00$ 14,282.25$ Vagabond Inn ExecutiveA54.00$ 933,013.20$ 251.10$ Room Total 3747Total:772,884.00$ San Mateo Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment# RoomsANNUAL AssessmentMonthly AssessmentAmericas Best Value InnA54.00$ 531,717.20$ 143.10$ Avalon MotelA54.00$ 481,555.20$ 129.60$ Best Western Plus Coyote Point Inn A54.00$ 993,207.60$ 267.30$ Best Western Los Prados InnA90.00$ 1136,102.00$ 508.50$ Extended Stay AmericaA54.00$ 1364,406.40$ 367.20$ Hillsdale InnA54.00$ 902,916.00$ 243.00$ Hilton Garden InnA180.00$ 15616,848.00$ 1,404.00$ Holiday Inn & SuitesA360.00$ 11027,522.00$ 2,293.50$ Howard JohnsonA90.00$ 573,078.00$ 256.50$ Residence Inn by MarriottA54.00$ 1605,184.00$ 432.00$ San Mateo MarriottA360.00$ 476119,095.20$ 9,924.60$ San Mateo SFO Airport Hotel A54.00$ 1103,564.00$ 297.00$ Stone Villa InnA90.00$ 452,430.00$ 202.50$ Room Total 1653Total:195,908.40$ 1 of 6DRAFT 2015 EXHIBIT C: **** SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS (ALL ZONES) FOR 2015 - DRAFT *****South San Francisco Name of PropertyZone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly AssessmentAirport InnA54.00$ 341,101.60$ 91.80$ All Seasons LodgeA54.00$ 13210.60$ 17.55$ Americana Inn MotelA54.00$ 17275.40$ 22.95$ Americas Best Value Inn SFOA54.00$ 21680.40$ 56.70$ Best Western Plus Grosvenor Hotel A360.00$ 20651,541.20$ 4,295.10$ CitiGarden HotelA180.00$ 17518,900.00$ 1,575.00$ Comfort Inn & Suites SFOA54.00$ 1665,378.40$ 448.20$ Courtyard by MarriottA180.00$ 19721,276.00$ 1,773.00$ Days InnA54.00$ 25810.00$ 67.50$ Deluxe InnA54.00$ 20324.00$ 27.00$ Embassy Suites SFOA360.00$ 31278,062.40$ 6,505.20$ Four Points by Sheraton A54.00$ 1013,272.40$ 272.70$ Hampton InnA54.00$ 1003,240.00$ 270.00$ Hilton Garden InnA180.00$ 16918,252.00$ 1,521.00$ Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites A54.00$ 872,818.80$ 234.90$ Holiday Inn SF Int'l AirportA360.00$ 22456,044.80$ 4,670.40$ Hotel Focus SFOA54.00$ 1173,790.80$ 315.90$ Howard JohnsonA54.00$ 511,652.40$ 137.70$ Inn at Oyster PointA90.00$ 301,620.00$ 135.00$ La Quinta Inn A90.00$ 1749,396.00$ 783.00$ Larkspur LandingA90.00$ 1115,994.00$ 499.50$ Quality Inn & SuitesA54.00$ 451,458.00$ 121.50$ Ramada Limited SuitesA54.00$ 451,458.00$ 121.50$ Residence Inn by MarriottA90.00$ 1528,208.00$ 684.00$ Royal InnA54.00$ 17275.40$ 22.95$ Travelers InnA54.00$ 20324.00$ 27.00$ Travelodge SFO North A54.00$ 1996,447.60$ 537.30$ Room Total2828Total:302,812.20$ MillbraeName of PropertyZone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly AssessmentAloft SFOA90.00$ 25213,608.00$ 1,134.00$ Best Western Plus El Rancho Inn A54.00$ 2197,095.60$ 591.30$ The Dylan at SFOA54.00$ 581,879.20$ 156.60$ Fairfield Inn & Suites SFO A54.00$ 802,592.00$ 216.00$ La Quinta Inn & Suites SFOA54.00$ 1003,240.00$ 270.00$ Millwood Inn & SuitesA54.00$ 341,101.60$ 91.80$ The Westin S.F. AirportA360.00$ 39799,329.40$ 8,277.45$ Room Total 1140Total:128,845.80$ 2 of 6DRAFT 2015 EXHIBIT C: **** SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS (ALL ZONES) FOR 2015 - DRAFT *****Foster CityName of PropertyZone Category/Assessment# RoomsANNUAL AssessmentMonthly AssessmentCrowne Plaza Foster City-San Mateo A360.00$ 35689,071.20$ 7,422.60$ Courtyard by MarriottA180.00$ 14715,876.00$ 1,323.00$ Room Total 503Total:104,947.20$ Half Moon Bay Name of PropertyZone Category/Assessment# RoomsANNUAL AssessmentMonthly AssessmentAmericas Best Value Inn B54.00$ 27583.20$ 48.60$ Beach House HotelB180.00$ 543,888.00$ 324.00$ Cameron's InnB54.00$ 340.50$ 3.38$ Coastside InnB54.00$ 521,123.20$ 93.60$ Comfort InnB90.00$ 541,944.00$ 162.00$ Half Moon Bay InnB54.00$ 15202.50$ 16.88$ Half Moon Bay LodgeB180.00$ 815,832.00$ 486.00$ Mill Rose InnB54.00$ 681.00$ 6.75$ Nantucket Whale InnB54.00$ 794.50$ 7.88$ The Ritz-CarltonB360.00$ 26151,678.00$ 4,306.50$ San Benito HouseB54.00$ 12162.00$ 13.50$ Zaballa House Bed & Breakfast B54.00$ 16216.00$ 18.00$ Room Total 588Total:65,844.90$ Unincorporated CountyName of PropertyZone Category/Assessment# RoomsANNUAL AssessmentMonthly AssessmentAtherton InnA54.00$ 567.50$ 5.63$ Best Western Plus Executive Suites A54.00$ 29626.40$ 52.20$ CostanoaB90.00$ 1726,192.00$ 516.00$ Cypress Inn on Miramar Beach B54.00$ 18243.00$ 20.25$ Goose & Turrets Bed & Breakfast B54.00$ 567.50$ 5.63$ Harbor View InnB54.00$ 17229.50$ 19.13$ Inn at MavericksB54.00$ 681.00$ 6.75$ Landis Shores Oceanfront InnB54.00$ 8108.00$ 9.00$ Motorville MotelB54.00$ 30648.00$ 54.00$ Ocean View InnB54.00$ 9121.50$ 10.13$ Oceano Hotel & SpaB360.00$ 9518,810.00$ 1,567.50$ Pacific Victorian Bed & Breakfast B54.00$ 340.50$ 3.38$ Pescadero Creek InnB54.00$ 454.00$ 4.50$ Pescadero Creekside BarnB54.00$ 113.50$ 1.13$ Pillar Point InnB54.00$ 11148.50$ 12.38$ Princess Port Bed & BreakfastB54.00$ 454.00$ 4.50$ Seal Cove InnB54.00$ 10135.00$ 11.25$ Room Total 427Total:27,639.90$ 3 of 6DRAFT 2015 EXHIBIT C: **** SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS (ALL ZONES) FOR 2015 - DRAFT *****Redwood City Name of PropertyZone Category/Assessment# RoomsANNUAL AssessmentMonthly AssessmentAmerica's Best InnA54.00$ 381,231.20$ 102.60$ Atherton Park Inn & SuitesA54.00$ 381,231.20$ 102.60$ Best Western Plus InnA54.00$ 26842.40$ 70.20$ Budget InnA54.00$ 401,296.00$ 108.00$ Capri MotelA54.00$ 501,620.00$ 135.00$ Comfort InnA54.00$ 521,684.80$ 140.40$ Days InnA54.00$ 682,203.20$ 183.60$ Deluxe InnA54.00$ 27874.80$ 72.90$ Garden MotelA54.00$ 17275.40$ 22.95$ Good Nite InnA54.00$ 1233,985.20$ 332.10$ Holiday Inn Express RWC Central A54.00$ 611,976.40$ 164.70$ Pacific Euro HotelA54.00$ 551,782.00$ 148.50$ Pacific Inn A54.00$ 752,430.00$ 202.50$ Redwood Motor CourtA54.00$ 12194.40$ 16.20$ Sequoia InnA54.00$ 22712.80$ 59.40$ Sofitel San Francisco BayA360.00$ 421105,334.20$ 8,777.85$ Towne Place Suites by Marriott A54.00$ 953,078.00$ 256.50$ Room Total 1220Total:130,752.00$ San BrunoName of PropertyZone Category/Assessment# RoomsANNUAL AssessmentMonthly AssessmentBayhill InnA54.00$ 24777.60$ 64.80$ Budget MotelA54.00$ 29939.60$ 78.30$ Comfort Inn & SuitesA54.00$ 29939.60$ 78.30$ Courtyard by MarriottA180.00$ 14715,876.00$ 1,323.00$ Days InnA54.00$ 481,555.20$ 129.60$ Gateway Inn & SuitesA54.00$ 311,004.40$ 83.70$ Howard JohnsonA54.00$ 491,587.60$ 132.30$ Ramada LimitedA54.00$ 611,976.40$ 164.70$ Regency InnA54.00$ 321,036.80$ 86.40$ Ritz InnA54.00$ 23745.20$ 62.10$ Staybridge Suites A180.00$ 9510,260.00$ 855.00$ Super 8 A54.00$ 541,749.60$ 145.80$ Villa Montes HotelA90.00$ 412,214.00$ 184.50$ Room Total 663Total:40,662.00$ 4 of 6DRAFT 2015 EXHIBIT C: **** SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS (ALL ZONES) FOR 2015 - DRAFT *****BelmontName of PropertyZone Category/Assessment# RoomsANNUAL AssessmentMonthly AssessmentBel Mateo MotelA54.00$ 23745.20$ 62.10$ Belmont PalmsA54.00$ 14226.80$ 18.90$ Extended Stay AmericaA54.00$ 1083,499.20$ 291.60$ Hillside LodgeA54.00$ 23745.20$ 62.10$ Holiday Inn Express & SuitesA90.00$ 824,428.00$ 369.00$ Hotel Belmont A54.00$ 16259.20$ 21.60$ Hyatt HouseA90.00$ 1327,128.00$ 594.00$ Motel 6A54.00$ 2738,845.20$ 737.10$ Room Total 671Total:25,876.80$ San CarlosName of PropertyZone Category/Assessment# RoomsANNUAL AssessmentMonthly AssessmentAmericas Best Value InnA54.00$ 321,036.80$ 86.40$ Country Inn & SuitesA54.00$ 501,620.00$ 135.00$ Extended Stay AmericaA90.00$ 1166,264.00$ 522.00$ Fairfield Inn & SuitesA54.00$ 1123,628.80$ 302.40$ Hotel San CarlosA54.00$ 29939.60$ 78.30$ San Carlos InnA54.00$ 10162.00$ 13.50$ Travel InnA54.00$ 29939.60$ 78.30$ Room Total 378Total:14,590.80$ East Palo AltoName of PropertyZone Category/Assessment# RoomsANNUAL AssessmentMonthly AssessmentFour Seasons Silicon ValleyA360.00$ 20050,040.00$ 4,170.00$ Palo AltoName of PropertyZone Category/Assessment# RoomsANNUAL AssessmentMonthly AssessmentAmericas Best Value Sky Ranch Inn C54.00$ 29939.60$ 78.30$ Cardinal Hotel Palo AltoC54.00$ 601,944.00$ 162.00$ Comfort Inn StanfordC54.00$ 702,268.00$ 189.00$ Coronet MotelC54.00$ 21680.40$ 56.70$ Country Inn MotelC54.00$ 27874.80$ 72.90$ Cowper InnC54.00$ 14226.80$ 18.90$ Creekside InnC180.00$ 13614,688.00$ 1,224.00$ Crowne Plaza Palo AltoC360.00$ 19547,736.00$ 3,978.00$ Days Inn Palo AltoC54.00$ 23745.20$ 62.10$ Dinah's Garden HotelC360.00$ 12931,579.20$ 2,631.60$ The EpiphanyC360.00$ 8621,052.80$ 1,754.40$ 5 of 6DRAFT 2015 EXHIBIT C: **** SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS (ALL ZONES) FOR 2015 - DRAFT *****Garden Court HotelC360.00$ 6215,177.60$ 1,264.80$ Glass Slipper InnC54.00$ 25810.00$ 67.50$ (will pay Apr-Dec)Hilton Garden Inn Palo AltoC180.00$ 17418,792.00$ 1,566.00$ (will pay Apr-Dec)Homewood Suites by Hilton Palo Alto C90.00$ 1387,452.00$ 621.00$ Hotel CaliforniaC54.00$ 20324.00$ 27.00$ Hotel KeenC54.00$ 421,360.80$ 113.40$ Hotel ParmaniC54.00$ 361,166.40$ 97.20$ Oak Motel Palo AltoC54.00$ 421,360.80$ 113.40$ Palo Alto LodgeC54.00$ 18291.60$ 24.30$ Quality Inn Palo AltoC54.00$ 521,684.80$ 140.40$ Sheraton Palo AltoC360.00$ 35586,904.00$ 7,242.00$ Stanford Motor InnC54.00$ 371,198.80$ 99.90$ Stanford Terrace InnC90.00$ 804,320.00$ 360.00$ Travelodge Palo Alto Silicon Valley C54.00$ 29939.60$ 78.30$ The Westin Palo AltoC360.00$ 18445,043.20$ 3,753.60$ The Zen HotelC54.00$ 371,198.80$ 99.90$ Room Total 2121Total:310,759.20$ PacificaName of PropertyZone Category/Assessment# RoomsANNUAL AssessmentMonthly AssessmentAmericas Best Value InnB54.00$ 25540.00$ 45.00$ Best Western Plus LighthouseB180.00$ 976,984.00$ 582.00$ Holiday Inn ExpressB54.00$ 38820.80$ 68.40$ Pacifica Beach HotelB90.00$ 521,872.00$ 156.00$ Pacifica Motor InnB54.00$ 42907.20$ 75.60$ Sea Breeze MotelB54.00$ 20270.00$ 22.50$ Room Total 274Total:11,394.00$ BrisbaneName of PropertyZone Category/Assessment# RoomsANNUAL AssessmentMonthly AssessmentHomewood Suites by Hilton SFO North A90.00$ 1779,558.00$ 796.50$ Radisson Hotel SF Airport Bay Front A360.00$ 21052,542.00$ 4,378.50$ Room Total 387Total:62,100.00$ 6 of 6DRAFT 2015 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9b MEETING DATE: December 1, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: December 1, 2014 From: William Meeker, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7255 Subject: Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission's October 27, 2014 Approval of Amendments to a Design Review Permit for a New Residence Under Construction at 1521 Cabrillo Avenue RECOMMENDATION The City Council should conduct a public hearing, consider all oral and written testimony received during the hearing and, following closure of the hearing and deliberations, take one of the following actions:  Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of amendments to the Design Review Permit;  Grant the appeal and deny the applicant’s requests for approval of amendments to the Design Review Permit; or  Remand the matter back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration, with direction. BACKGROUND An application for Design Review, Special Permit for an attached garage and Parking Variance for construction of a new, two-story single family dwelling at 1521 Cabrillo Avenue was approved by the Planning Commission on August 26, 2013. A building permit was issued on January 7, 2014, and construction is currently underway. At its meeting of October 27, 2014, the Planning Commission considered the applicant’s request for amendments to the previously approved project plans as follows:  Front Elevation, Bath #2 W indow – substitute the approved round window with a square window.  Left Side Elevation, Stairwell W indow – replace stained/obscured glazing with clear glazing.  Left Side Elevation, Bedroom #4 W indow – replace 4’-6” (approximate) window with 7’-0” (approximate) window, and replace stained/obscured glazing with clear glazing. 1521 Cabrillo Avenue/Ryan Appeal December 1, 2014 2 Following a duly noticed public hearing, the Commission approved a modified version of the applicant’s request, as follows:  Accepted the change in the front elevation window from round to square.  Required that the original approved windows on left elevation be installed as approved and shown on the plans approved by the Planning Commission date stamped August 14, 2013.  If film is used to obscure the windows, it shall be brought back to the Planning Commission as an FYI, and the film shall be maintained in perpetuity. This condition shall remain in place irrespective of changes in property ownership. DISCUSSION On November 5, 2014 Linda Ryan, a resident at 1532 Drake Avenue located adjacent to the property at 1521 Cabrillo Avenue, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s action. In her appeal, Ms. Ryan requests that the City Council overrule the Planning Commission’s approval of October 27, 2014. She requests that, rather than permitting glass to be obscured with film applied to clear glass, it be permanently etched, obscured glass. FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibits:  Appeal Letter  October 27, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments  October 27, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt  Draft Resolution – Deny Appeal and Uphold the Planning Commission’s Action  Draft Resolution – CEQA Finding  Draft Resolution – Grant Appeal and Deny the Proposed Amendments Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE Meeting Date: October 27, 2014 REGULAR ACTION Item No: 8(a) 1 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1521 Cabrillo Avenue APN: 025-224-150 APPLICANT/ARCHITECT/DESIGNER: James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc. PROPERTY OWNER: Eric Mainini GENERAL PLAN/ZONING: Low Density Residential/R-1 LOT AREA: 16,942 SF ENVIRONM ENTAL REVIEW STATUS: Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single famil y residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. PROJECT DESCRIPTION An application for Design Review, Special Permit for an attached garage and Parking Variance for construction of a new, two-story single family dwelling at 1521 Cabrillo Avenue was approved by the Planning Commission on August 26, 2013 (August 26, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes attached). A building permit was issued on January 7, 2014 and construction is currently underway. The property owner is proposing alterations to three of the windows on the dwelling: Front Elevation, Bath #2 window – substitute approved round window with square window Left Side Elevation, stairwell window – replace stained/obscure glazing with clear glazing Left Side Elevation, Bedroom #4 window – replace 4’-6” (approx.) window with 7’-0” (approx.) window, and replace stained/obscure glazing with clear glazing The property owner submitted a letter and photographs accompanied by originally approved and proposed plans, date stamped October 15, 2014, to explain the proposed changes to the previously approved Design Review project. Other than the proposed revisions listed above, there are no other changes proposed to the design of the house. BACKGROUND The proposed house and attached garage, currently under construction, will have a total floor area of 4,438.9 SF (0.26 FAR) where 6,521 SF (0.38 FAR) is the maximum that could allowed for the 16,942 SF property (including covered porch and chimney exemptions). The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at three separate meetings, first as a Design Review Study item on July 22, 2013, and then an Action item on August 12 and August 26, 2013. The Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE Meeting Date: October 27, 2014 REGULAR ACTION Item No: 8(a) 2 Planning Commission approved the project at its August 26 meeting. Minutes from the August 26th meeting are attached for reference. An “FYI” application to reduce the size of the house at the back in order to save an existing protected size Oak tree in the rear yard was approved by the Planning Commission on May 27, 2014. The FYI memorandum is attached for reference. DISCUSSION With any new construction approved by the Planning Commission, Planning Division staff will conduct a final inspection prior to finalization of building permits. Should there be any significant discrepancies between the built dwelling and the plans approved by the Planning Commission, the matter will be brought back to Planning Commission for consideration either as an “FYI” memorandum or as a Design Review Amendment request before building permits can be finalized. Because the dwelling at 1521 Cabrillo Avenue is currently under construction, Planning staff has not yet conducted a final inspection. However if unanticipated issues are encountered during construction it is not unusual for applicants to request FYI or Design Review Amendments prior to final inspections. In this instance the request is limited to the three windows identified in the property owner’s letter and the proposed revised plans. Staff notes that while the approved plans have an annotation on the Left Elevation specifying “stained/obscured glazing shown shaded typ.” a specific method for obscuring the glazing was not included in either the approved plans or the Conditions of Approval. However the expectation would be that such treatment (whether frosted glass or applied privacy film) would be intended to be fixed permanently. DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1.Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2.Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3.Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4.Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5.Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE Meeting Date: October 27, 2014 REGULAR ACTION Item No: 8(a) 3 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the proposal to modify the windows of the approved project, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. Alternatives the Planning Commission may consider include but are not limited to: A. Approval of the modifications to all three windows as requested; B. Approval of some but not all of the modifications as requested; C. Denial of all modification requests. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered. Underlined conditions would be consistent with the amendments requested by the property owner in the application; the Planning Commission may choose to retain, modify, and/or delete such conditions consistent with its findings. 1.that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped August 14, 2013 sheets A.1 through G.1, L1.0, L2.0 and Partial Topographic Map, with the clarification that the particular species planted along the fence line shall be the Prunus Caroliniana standard; and as modified on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 19, 2014 sheets A.1 through A.7, and as modified on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 15, 2014 sheets A.4, A.4a, A5.a and A.6; 2.that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3.that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4.that the conditions of the City Engineer’s April 1, 2013 memo, the Chief Building Official's March 7, 2013 memo, the Parks Supervisor’s June 28, 2013 and March 12, 2013 memos, the Fire Marshal's July 1, 2013 and March 4, 2013 memos, and the Stormwater Coordinator's June 25, 2013 and March 5, 2013 memos shall be met; 5.that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures as defined in the arborist report prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated February 27, 2013; Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE Meeting Date: October 27, 2014 REGULAR ACTION Item No: 8(a) 4 6.that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Parking Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 7.that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 8.that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 9.that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 10.that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 11.that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 12.that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 13.that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14.that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE Meeting Date: October 27, 2014 REGULAR ACTION Item No: 8(a) 5 certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15.that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 16.that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Prepared by: Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager c. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc, 55 W. 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94403, designer. Eric Mainini, property owner Attachments: E-mail letter and photos from property owner, dated October 22, 2014 Minutes from the August 26, 2013, Planning Commission Regular Action Meeting FYI memorandum to the Planning Commission dated May 27, 2014 Planning Commission resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed October 17, 2014 Aerial Photo RESOLUTION NO. __________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FINDING THAT APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 1521 CABRILLO AVENUE IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM REVIEW PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303(A) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME hereby finds as follows: Section 1. Pursuant to Section 15303(a) of the Guidelines to Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single-family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review under CEQA. It follows that amendment of the previously approved Design Review Permit for construction of a single-family dwelling at 1521 Cabrillo Avenue is also exempt from analysis under CEQA. Section 2. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. ____________________________________ Mayor I, MARY ELLEN KEARNEY, 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 December, 2014 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: _____________________________________ City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. ________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, GRANTING THE APPEAL OF LINDA RYAN AND DENYING THE REQUEST OF ERIC MAININI (APPLICANT) FOR AN AMENDMENT OF A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 1521 CABRILLO AVENUE, SITUATED WITHIN A SINGLE-FAMILY (R-1) ZONE RESOLVED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THAT: WHEREAS, an application for Design Review, Special Permit for an attached garage and Parking Variance for construction of a new, two-story single family dwelling at 1521 Cabrillo Avenue was approved by the Planning Commission on August 26, 2013; WHEREAS, a building permit for construction of the new dwelling was issued on January 7, 2014 and construction is currently underway; WHEREAS, at its meeting of October 27, 2014 the Planning Commission approved the applicant’s request for amendment of the Design Review Permit for the project as outlined in his correspondence dated October 22, 2014; WHEREAS, on November 5, 2014 Linda Ryan, an adjacent resident living at 1532 Drake Avenue filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s October 27, 2014 decision granting approval of the amendments to the Design Review Permit, as requested by the applicant; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of an amendment to the Design Review Permit for the project at its regular meeting of December 1, 2014. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT: Section 1. The City Council hereby grants the appeal and denies the request for an amendment of the Design Review Permit for the single-family dwelling at 1521 Cabrillo Avenue, based upon the following findings: a) (Insert findings as stated by the City Council on December 1, 2014) ___________________________ Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, 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 December, 2014 by the following vote: RESOLUTION NO. ________ AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ____________________________ City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. ________ 1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, DENYING THE APPEAL OF LINDA RYAN AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 1521 CABRILLO AVENUE, SITUATED WITHIN A SINGLE-FAMILY (R-1) ZONE RESOLVED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THAT: WHEREAS, an application for Design Review, Special Permit for an attached garage and Parking Variance for construction of a new, two-story single family dwelling at 1521 Cabrillo Avenue was approved by the Planning Commission on August 26, 2013; WHEREAS, a building permit for construction of the new dwelling was issued on January 7, 2014 and construction is currently underway; WHEREAS, at its meeting of October 27, 2014 the Planning Commission approved the applicant’s request for amendment of the Design Review Permit for the project as outlined in his correspondence dated October 22, 2014; WHEREAS, on November 5, 2014 Linda Ryan, an adjacent resident living at 1532 Drake Avenue filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s October 27, 2014 decision granting approval of the amendments to the Design Review Permit, as requested by the applicant; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of an amendment to the Design Review Permit for the project at its regular meeting of December 1, 2014. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT: Section 1. The City Council hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission’s approval of an amendment to the Design Review Permit for 1521 Cabrillo Avenue, subject to the following findings: (Insert findings articulated by the City Council on December 1, 2014) Section 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. ____________________________ Mayor RESOLUTION NO. ________ 2 I, Mary Ellen Kearney, 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 December, 2014 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ____________________________ City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 10a MEETING DATE: December 1, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: December 1, 2014 From: Ana Maria Silva, Executive Assistant – (650) 558-7204 Subject: Consideration of Appointments to the Parks & Recreation Commission RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council make appointments to fill three vacancies on the Parks and Recreation Commission or decide to re-open the application process. BACKGROUND The vacancies are due to two expired terms and the resignation of Commissioner Eaton. The two incumbents did not re-apply. The vacancies were publicized, and notification letters were sent to past Commission applicants. Five applications were received as of the extended deadline of November 7, 2014. After two applicants withdrew, the following three applicants were interviewed by the full Council on November 24, 2014: Joe Dito, Claire Schissler and Shari Lewis. Two of the appointee terms will be for three years, ending on October 7, 2017; one term will expire on October 7, 2015. 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 10b MEETING DATE: December 1, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: December 1, 2014 From: William Meeker, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7255 Subject: Revisions to Land-Use Restrictions for the Broadway Commercial District RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that the City Council provide direction to proceed with preparation of amendments to the land-use restrictions applicable to the Broadway Commercial District as they relate to food establishments and health service uses. Further, as a secondary task, staff requests authorization to proceed with an evaluation of parking requirements for food establishment uses in the District to determine if reduced standards may be appropriate in the area given its character as a neighborhood/community shopping district. BACKGROUND Broadway Community Meeting Input: The City recently held a very successful community meeting to discuss issues related to the vitality of the Broadway Commercial District. Comments received during the October 18, 2014 meeting, as well as from the more than 1,200 survey respondents, revealed that there is an interest in loosening or eliminating the food establishment quota in the District and eliminating the conditional use permit requirement for health service uses above the ground floor. Given the specific nature of these two items, if directed by Council, staff will be able to proceed fairly quickly with the necessary amendments to the zoning regulations to implement these changes. Staff is currently assembling all information received from the October 18th meeting and will present a complete summary of the meeting at one of the January 2015 City Council meetings. November 3, 2014 City Council Discussion: The City Council last discussed this matter at its meeting of November 3, 2014. At that time, staff also recommended that the Council consider authorizing the evaluation of parking standards for the Broadway Commercial District in light of the District’s character as a neighborhood/community shopping district. The intent of this suggestion was to eliminate the need for property owners to seek approval of parking variances in those instances where a tenant space may be converted to a food establishment use from a retail use, and where the existing supply of on-site parking (if present) fails to meet current zoning ordinance standards. Though parking variances have been granted in the District in the past, the Planning Commission’s ability to adequately make the necessary findings in support of granting Broadway Commercial District – Food Establishments/Health Services December 1, 2014 2 variances can be challenging unless an applicant can sufficiently demonstrate that a particular use generates the need for fewer parking spaces than required by the zoning regulations. Staff suggested securing the services of a parking consultant to evaluate the parking standards of the District as a means of supporting a reduction in parking standards for food establishment uses. Unfortunately, this suggestion was misinterpreted as having the potential for identifying a parking deficit in the District that may be counter to the desire to implement measures to enhance the use mix in the District, as well as be duplicative of work that may be undertaken as part of the upcoming General Plan update. Revised Recommendation: Staff continues to recommend that the City Council authorize work to proceed to revise current zoning restrictions related to the number of food establishments permitted in the Broadway District and to lift the requirement for a conditional use permit for health service uses above the ground floor. Until such time that reduced parking standards for food establishments are adopted for the District, staff (including the Community Development Director and City Attorney) are comfortable with allowing the Planning Commission to consider requests for variances from parking standards on a case-by-case basis based upon the specific characteristics of the business enterprise for which relief is sought. At this time, staff is withdrawing the suggestion of performing a consultant-based parking analysis for the Broadway District. However, in an effort to further streamline the food establishment approval procedure, staff seeks authorization to proceed with a staff-based analysis of parking standards of other communities with commercial districts similar to Broadway to determine if a lesser standard may be found that can reduce or eliminate the instances in which parking variances must be sought for new food establishment locations. As has always been the case in this matter, staff’s sole interest in this task is to reduce any stumbling blocks that could make it difficult to establish new food establishments in the Broadway District in the event that the restriction on new establishments is raised, or completely lifted. FISCAL IMPACT None. 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 10c MEETING DATE: December 1, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: December 1, 2014 From: Leslie Loomis, Human Resources Director – (650) 558-7209 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Memorandum of Understanding between Teamsters Local 856 and the City of Burlingame RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign the Memorandum of Understanding between Teamsters Local 856 and the City of Burlingame. BACKGROUND Teamsters Local 856 represents the Police Department Communications Dispatchers (seven employees). The Teamsters labor agreement expired on December 31, 2013. The City and Teamsters met several times to negotiate the terms of a new agreement. On October 22, 2014, the City reached tentative agreement with the Teamsters unit, and the Teamsters ratified the agreement. DISCUSSION The major components of the new agreement are as follows: Term: • Two-year term; new term January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2015. Salary: • 1.0% increase effective the first pay period in December 2014 • $825 lump sum payment effective the first pay period in December 2014 • 1.0% increase effective the first pay period after the modification of the Shift Differential (described below) • 3.0% increase effective the first pay period in January 2015; however, 1.0% of the 3.0% shall offset the City’s cost of medical insurance premiums, such that the net increase to base salary shall be 2.0% Shift Differential: • Employees will receive a 6% shift differential if their assigned shift schedule falls between the hours of 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. This change in shift differential is estimated to save the City Teamsters MOU December 1, 2014 2 approximately $7,800 annually. Sick Leave: • All full-time regular and probationary members hired prior to January 1, 2015, shall accrue sick leave at the rate of 4.62 hours per bi-weekly pay period to a maximum of 2.000 hours. • All full-time regular and probationary members hired on or after January 1, 2015, shall accrue sick leave at the rate of 3.69 hours per bi-weekly pay period to a maximum of 2,000 hours. Medical: • The City will contribute up to the Blue Shield HMO rate for employee only, up to the Blue Shield rate for employee plus one; and up to the Kaiser Family rate for employee plus two or more. • Any employee that enrolls in a medical plan that has a higher premium than the City’s contribution will pay the difference via pre-tax payroll deductions. • Employees who demonstrate that they have medical insurance from another source will receive $350 per month in lieu of medical benefits. The funds may be placed into a deferred compensation plan, Section 125 plan, or taken in cash. Retiree Medical: • Effective December 1, 2015, employees hired prior to 2008 who are under age 65 and retire from the City will receive a retiree medical benefit equivalent to the premium for the Blue Shield single, Blue Shield two-party, or Kaiser family coverage as applicable. • For eligible employees who are 65 or older and enrolled in Medicare, the City contribution will be equivalent to the average of Kaiser, Blue Shield HMO and PERS Choice for the Bay Area Region single, two-party, or family Medicare coverage as applicable. • The City will implement an Irrevocable Trust for all new contributions towards the City’s GASB 45 obligations. FISCAL IMPACT Over the life of the two-year agreement, staff estimates the agreement will cost the City $27,012. Exhibits: • Resolution • Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Burlingame and Teamsters Local 856 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN TEAMSTERS LOCAL 856 AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE CITY WHEREAS, Teamsters Local 856 represents the Police Department Communications Dispatchers, a unit that includes seven employees; and WHEREAS, the Teamsters labor agreement expired on December 31, 2013; and WHEREAS, the City and the Teamsters have met and conferred in good faith on the terms and conditions of employment as provided by State law; and WHEREAS, the City and the Teamsters have reached agreement on certain changes to be made to the existing terms and conditions of employment and Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Teamsters; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes are fair and are in the best interests of the public and the employees represented by the Teamsters. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The changes in existing salary and benefits of the employees represented by the Teamsters as contained in the Memorandum of Understanding between Teamsters Local 856 and the City of Burlingame hereto are approved. 2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the Memorandum of Understanding between the Teamsters Local 856 and the City of Burlingame. ____________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, MARY ELLEN KEARNEY, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 1st day of December 2014, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ____________________________ Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 10d MEETING DATE: December 1, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: December 1, 2014 From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307 Bob Disco, Parks Supervisor/City Arborist – (650) 558-7333 Subject: Update Regarding Mills Canyon Illegal Tree Pruning RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council receive an update on the status of the illegal pruning of ten trees located in Mills Canyon between Valdivia Way and Toledo Court. BACKGROUND On July 30 2014, the homeowners at 3 Toledo Court requested a tree work permit for trees located behind their property in Mills Canyon. The work permit was requested to trim, thin and remove undergrowth on Eucalyptus, Oak and Pine trees. Based on past City practice, the City Arborist approved the permit August 11, 2014. Under the permit, trimming and thinning in excess of 25% of the trees’ crown was prohibited. On August 13, 2014, ten trees were pruned significantly beyond the scope of the permit. Of the ten trees that were significantly trimmed, four were of protected size. Upon notification of the over-pruning, the City Arborist visited the site and completed a tree report, which said: 1. The affected Oak trees were severely topped, over thinned and improperly pruned based on International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) standards. 2. Several of the trees were trimmed to a point where they had little or no leaf growth left on the limbs, and two trees were stripped of all secondary limbs and branches with only large leaders remaining. 3. More than 1/3 of each tree’s canopy was removed. 4. The trees will more than likely survive the severe trimming, as Oak trees tend to regenerate new growth quickly after pruning. Given the severity of the impact on the trees and the need to fully assess the damage to City property and the best methods of recovering from that damage, the City contracted with two independent arborists to perform a survey and appraisal of the ten trees. The City also hired a surveyor to verify ownership of the trees. Update Regarding Mills Canyon Illegal Tree Pruning December 1, 2014 2 The survey confirmed that all of the significantly trimmed trees are on City property. All of the arborists’ reports recommended the trees be given the opportunity to return to their previous condition, and they recommended against planting new trees in the area, as new trees would fail to thrive. In order for regrowth to occur, the trees will need additional care and maintenance. This work will be completed by a licensed tree company hired by the City over the next few years. The City will also be requesting that the lights that had been installed on the trees by another neighbor be removed in order to ensure that the lights do not inhibit the regrowth of the City’s trees. The City has notified the property owner and the landscape contractor that performed the work that they are financially responsible for the damage caused to the City’s trees and has requested payment. DISCUSSION In order to ensure that this type of over-pruning doesn’t occur again, staff has made changes to the tree permit process. A review and revision of the City’s tree ordinance are in progress. The following is a list of changes to the permit forms. Private Protected Tree Removal Permit 1. Added the requirement that applicant provide a schematic drawing with the location of the trees on the property. Tree Work Plan Permit for City Trees 1. Added the requirement that applicant provide a schematic drawing with the location of the trees in relationship to the property line. 2. Added a requirement that the applicant provide the number and type of trees to be pruned. 3. Added clarifying language regarding how much of the tree canopy may be pruned. 4. Added a requirement that the permit be given to the tree company prior to work being performed. 5. Added space on the form to fill out an issue date and a completion date. Department staff is currently working with the Beautification Commission and City Attorney to update the City ordinances that pertain to trees. This includes the Street Trees and Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection sections. The update will include a refinement and clarification of the definitions, penalties and enforceability and an overall reorganization of the section. This review includes evaluation of best practices from other jurisdictions. It is anticipated an updated ordinance will be before the City Council in April of 2015. FISCAL IMPACT There is no financial impact related to this staff report. Additional staff time will be required to confirm completion of work for the Tree Work Plan Permit for City trees. Update Regarding Mills Canyon Illegal Tree Pruning December 1, 2014 3 Exhibits: • Revised Private Tree/Pruning Permit • Revised Tree Work Plan Permit 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 10e MEETING DATE: December 1, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: December 1, 2014 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230 Subject: Update on Proposed Flood Insurance Rate Map and New Flood Insurance Study by FEMA RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review information about the proposed Flood Insurance Rate Map and new flood insurance study by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) as part of the California Coastal Analysis and Mapping Program (CCAMP), and provide feedback to staff. BACKGROUND The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is a Federal program created to mitigate future flood losses nationwide through community-enforced development ordinances and to provide access to an affordable, federally backed flood insurance program. Burlingame participates in the NFIP by enforcing floodplain management requirements for new construction to reduce future flood risks in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA). The SFHA is a high-risk area defined as any land that would be inundated by a flood having a one-percent chance of occurring in a given year, more commonly referred to as a 100-year flood. Areas of flood hazard are established by engineering studies and are identified on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). FEMA issued the first FIRMs for Burlingame on September 16, 1981; the maps showed boundaries for two SFHA (flood zones) within the city. The two areas are referred to as the Laguna Flood Zone Area and the Easton Creek Flood Zone Area, and encompass approximately 371 residential properties. Property owners within the flood zones are required to purchase flood insurance by mortgage companies if the elevation of their structure is lower than the base flood elevation (BFE), and face additional building permit requirements to either raise their finish floor or protect against flooding when initiating substantial remodeling or new construction projects. The FIRM maps also indicate that the major portions of creeks within the city contain the 100- year flood within the creek channels. The major creeks include: Burlingame Creek, Sanchez Creek, Easton Creek, Mills Creek, El Portal Creek, Trousdale Channel and Gilbreth Channel. In October 2012, FEMA issued revised FIRMs that indicated the identical flood zone boundary information as the 1981 maps. Proposed FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map December 1, 2014 2 In early 2013, FEMA authorized the CCAMP to study various types of potential for coastal flood processes along the California coast such as king tide, extreme high tide, wind wave event, Pacific winter storm (Pineapple express), El Nino winter storm, and remote swells. This study was prompted by coastal flood events, including Hurricanes Katrina in 2005 and Sandy in 2012, which have increased the public’s awareness of coastal flood vulnerability. The coastal flood engineering processes were used to generate wave models of the San Francisco Bay. The models include an analysis of wave run-up, wave overtopping, and overland wave propagation along the California coast and the San Francisco Bay. The results of the study identified potential flood hazard areas in Burlingame, and the preliminary map from FEMA indicates that there are approximately 210 commercial properties and 22 residential properties that will be added to the SFHA. The majority of the affected commercial properties are located on the north side of Burlingame between the City limits, Rollins Road, and the San Francisco Bay. The affected residential properties are located adjacent to Victoria Park, bordering Rollins Road, Victoria Road, and the City limits. The coastal study mapping timeline is as follows: • February 2013 – FEMA initiated the CCAMP (Coastal Study) • April – September 2014 – revised floodplain mapping generated • October 1st, 2014 - FEMA met with local agencies to discuss the new maps • December 17th, 2014 – Deadline for initial commenting period on proposed mapping • June 2015 – FEMA to release Preliminary FIRMs • October to January 2016 – 90-day appeal period • March 2016 – final map determination by FEMA • September 2016 – new FIRMs effective DISCUSSION Staff has reviewed the preliminary FIRMs generated by FEMA under the CCAMP and has concerns with the program used to generate the wave models for San Francisco Bay. The original wave modelling program was designed for conditions on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Revisions to the program were made to remove hurricane condition scenarios, as those scenarios are not appropriate for the California Pacific coast. However, it is unclear how the program corrects, if any, the difference between waves within the Bay versus coastal waves. Staff is requesting more information from FEMA. The result of the revised preliminary FIRMs will mean that approximately 210 commercial and 22 residential properties would be required to obtain flood insurance protection through the national flood protection program. In addition, if the affected property owners wish to construct a new building or complete major improvements to their property, they would have to comply with additional building permit requirements to raise the finish floor elevation above the BFE and/or flood proof the affected structure. These additional requirements can substantially increase the construction cost to property owners. Proposed FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map December 1, 2014 3 Following the current timeline for initial commenting, staff will be submitting comments to FEMA before the December 17th deadline. Staff will send out a public notice of the revised FIRMs to all affected property owners once the preliminary map is released in June 2015. Contents of the public notice will include information on FEMA, flood risk hazards, available resources, and staff contacts. Based on the results of the study and responses from FEMA to City comments, staff will determine if additional resources will be needed to submit an appeal during the appeal period of October 2015 to January 2016. FISCAL IMPACT There will be staff time involved in reviewing FEMA documents and providing information to the public, which will be absorbed within the department’s current fiscal year operating budget. Exhibits: • FEMA 2012 Map • Coastal Beat – Coastal Flood Hazard Modeling Information • Proposed Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map for Burlingame El Ca mino Real El Camino Real El Camino Real El Camin o Real UV82 UV82 UV35 UV35 UV82 £¤101 £¤101 £¤101 £¤101 §¨¦280 171615262718201 4 1 9 2 1 25242 2 23Legend Coastal Transects Major Highways and Roads Flood Zones 1 pct Annual Chance Flood Hazard Floodway SFHA 0.2 pct Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area with Reduced Flood Risk Due to Levee D ±Scale - 1:36,000 1 inch = 3,000 feet Reference Map San Fra nsisco Bay Area Coastal Hazard StudySan Mateo County October 2014 City of San Francisco (Area Not Included) Co astal Hazard Analysis Transect Layout - C 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 10.125 Miles City of Millbrae City of Burlingame Town of Hillsborough City of San Mateo FEMA coastal flood hazard mapping under CCAMP follows guidelines set forth in FEMA’s Final Draft Guidelines for Coastal Flood Hazard Analysis and Mapping for the Pacific Coast of the United States (2005). This article summarizes some of the important considerations that go into coastal floodplain mapping. Coastal flood hazards often include both elevated water levels and storm-induced wave action. Elevated water lev- els can inundate low-lying areas and allow larger waves to reach beyond the shoreline. The primary wave hazards evaluated in a FEMA coastal flood hazard study are wave runup and overland wave propagation. Wave runup is the dominant wave hazard along shore- lines with steep terrain, including natural features such as coastal bluffs and dunes, and engineered structures such as revetments, levees and flood walls. Wave runup occurs when waves break against the shore and water rushes up the steep shoreline. If the crest elevation of the feature or structure is relatively low, the wave runup can exceed the crest resulting in overtopping (see figure below). The pri- mary characteristics of a study area that impact wave runup results are incident wave conditions, shoreline slope, and the crest elevation of the shoreline feature or structure. Overland wave propagation occurs when elevated water levels, often referred to as the stillwater elevation (SWEL), inundate normally dry land and waves are able to propa- gate farther inland. Analysis of overland wave propagation evaluates how wave energy changes as the waves propa- gate inland and are attenuated by obstructions, such as veg- etation and buildings, or augmented by wind energy over open water fetches, such as ponds or lagoons. The primary characteristics of a study area that impact overland wave propagation results are incident wave conditions, depth of inundation, and density of obstructions. Translating Coastal Flood Hazard Modeling Results into Floodplain Mapping Krista Conner Once complete, the results of the coastal flood hazard as- sessment are translated into floodplain mapping that in- cludes base flood elevations (BFEs) and flood zone hazard designations such as VE and AE Zones. VE Zones are coastal high hazard areas where wave action and/or high-velocity water can cause structural damage during the 1-percent-an- nual-chance flood. AE Zones are areas with less hazardous wave action and/or areas of inundation. Reaches of shoreline where wave runup is the dominant wave hazard are mapped with shore-perpendicular flood zone break lines separating segments of shoreline with dif- fering runup elevations. The zone break lines are located at changes in the slope of the ground and orientation of the shoreline. The BFE for a runup reach is the 1-percent-an- nual-chance wave runup elevation. The flood zone desig- nation of Zone VE or Zone AE is based on the magnitude of wave runup above the stillwater level. A VE Zone is mapped for transects with runup heights great- er than or equal to 3 feet; an AE Zone is mapped for transects with runup heights less than 3 feet. The flood- plain is typically narrow with a single flood zone designation and BFE for each transect. Overland wave propagation is typical- ly mapped with zone break lines that are approximately shore parallel and that follow ground topography. The BFE in areas of overland wave propa- gation is the wave crest elevation, or in areas of inundation with minimal wave action, the BFE is based on the 1-percent- annual-chance stillwater elevation. Zone VE is mapped for areas with wave heights greater than or equal to 3 feet; Zone AE is mapped for areas with wave heights less than 3 feet. The floodplain is typical- ly broad with changes in zone designation and BFEs along the transect. BFEs in coastal high hazard areas are shown as whole foot values on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. A single BFE is shown for each area bounded by the zone breaklines. Although the 1-percent-annual-chance water surface ele- vation can vary between 0.5 feet higher and 0.5 feet low- er than the whole foot BFE with the bounded area, FEMA considers the whole foot value to be valid for enforcement of community floodplain management regulations and for flood insurance policy rating purposes. The figure below is an example of overland wave propaga- tion and wave runup mapping (from draft Marin County, San Francisco Bay Study). 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 10f MEETING DATE: December 1, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: December 1, 2014 From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222 Subject: Approval of Annual Report on the Status of Impact Fees Collected as of June 30, 2014, Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code Section 66000 et seq. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve this annual report of the status of the Public Facilities Impact fees, North Burlingame and Rollins Road fees, Bayfront Development fees and Burlingame Avenue Parking In-Lieu fees collected by the City, and make the following findings in regards to these fees and unexpended funds: • Public facilities impact fees, North Burlingame and Rollins Road fees, Bayfront development fees and Burlingame Avenue parking in-lieu fees are collected to mitigate direct and indirect impacts from development. • These funds are expended in a timely manner to fund continued improvements to public facilities related to the increased demand on the facilities resulting from development. • There is a reasonable relationship between these impact fees and their purpose. • These impact fees continue to be required to fund applicable improvements, and as such, these fees will continue to be collected and deposited into the appropriate fund for utilization solely for their intended purpose. In addition, in regards to fees that are collected and remain unexpended for the fifth year following the deposit of the fee, staff recommends these additional findings be made: • There is approximately $98,000 in the North Burlingame and Rollins Road fees that were deposited over five years ago. Projects identified when the fee was established are estimated to cost over $2.2 million, and the collected fees are inadequate for undertaking the identified projects in the north Burlingame and Rollins Road Plan. These outstanding fees, as well as development fees collected in the future, will be accumulated in the North Burlingame & Rollins Road special revenue fund to support these significant projects as the funds become available in sufficient amounts. • Fees of $1,660 have resided in the Bayfront Development Fee Fund for over five years as of June 30, 2014. This balance, as well as fees collected since that time, will be used to reimburse the CIP Fund for ADA sidewalk improvements along the Bayfront area. Construction on these improvements is anticipated to begin later this fiscal year. • Funds collected as Burlingame Avenue Parking In-Lieu fees prior to fiscal year 2009-10, Development Impact Fees Annual Report December 1, 2014 2 as well as subsequent parking in-lieu fee revenue, will be used for the purpose of paying the cost (or a portion of the cost) of constructing additional parking facilities in the Downtown parking district, which generally encompasses the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan Area. BACKGROUND Cities and counties often charge fees on new development to fund public improvements, public amenities and public services. For example, transportation mitigation fees are used to fund transit facilities, streets, bike lanes and sidewalks. These fees are commonly known as development impact fees. In 1989, the State Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1600 (AB1600), which added Sections 66000 et seq. to the California Government Code, commonly known as the Mitigation Fee Act. The Mitigation Fee Act sets forth a number of requirements that local agencies must follow if they are to collect and retain fees from developers to defray the cost of the construction of public facilities related to development projects. 1. In establishing, increasing or imposing a fee, the local agency must make certain determinations regarding the purpose and use of the fees and to establish a “nexus” or connection between a development project or class of project and the public improvement being financed with the fee. 2. The fee revenue must be segregated from the General Fund in order to avoid commingling of public improvement fees and the General Fund. 3. For the fifth year following the first deposit of a fee and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make the following findings with respect to that portion of the account or fund remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted: a. Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be used; b. Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged; c. Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements; and d. Designate approximate dates on which the funding identified in (c) is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund. These findings need only be made for money in possession of the local agency. The Public Facilities Impact fees, North Burlingame and Rollins Road fees, Bayfront Development Fees and Burlingame Avenue Parking In-Lieu fees collected by the City of Burlingame qualify as development impact fees and, therefore, must comply with the Mitigation Fee Act. As required by law, these fees are segregated and accounted for as Special Revenue Funds. Government Code Section 66006 requires the City to make available to the public the following information regarding development impact fees for each fund within 180 days after the end of each fiscal year: • A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund; • The amount of the fee; • The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund; • The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned; • An identification of each public improvement on which the fees were expended and the amount of the expenditure on each improvement, including the total percentage of the Development Impact Fees Annual Report December 1, 2014 3 cost of the public improvement that was funded with the fees; • An identification of the approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determined that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement and the public improvement remains incomplete; and • A description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from an account or fund in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act. This report meets the requirements to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act. Because this is the first year that staff has compiled this report for the City of Burlingame, it also complies with the requirement that certain findings be made every five years specifying the intended use of any unexpended impact fees, regardless of whether the fees are committed or uncommitted. DISCUSSION Public Facilities Impact Fees The Public Facilities Impact Fee, which commenced in November 2008, is a general category of fees based on the uses, number of dwelling units and amount of square footage to be located on the property after completion of a development project. The fees are committed to public improvements, public services, and community amenities affected by new development. The purpose of the fee is established upon approval of a permit for construction or reconstruction, and is intended for improvement in one or more of seven categories. The fee for each of the seven categories was set upon adoption of the fees in 2008 and remains as shown below: The following table summarizes the activities associated with public facilities impact fees from fiscal year 2009-10 through the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014: Development Impact Fees Annual Report December 1, 2014 4 Note that the first public facilities impact fees were collected in fiscal year 2010-11, and applied immediately to capital improvement projects expenditures in that same year. Of the total $1.8 million transferred to the City’s CIP (Capital Improvement Projects) Fund in fiscal year 2010-11, $650,000 funded Public Facilities projects. The balance of public facilities impact fees as of June 30, 2014, reside in the facility categories as shown below: North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee: Properties lying within the geographical boundaries of the study area for the “North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan”, adopted in 2004, are subject to payment of a specific development impact fee applicable only to that study area at the time the property is developed or redeveloped. One-half of the fee is payable before issuance of a building permit, and the balance is payable when a certificate of occupancy is requested. Ordinance No. 1751 (2005) provides for annual adjustment of the fee based on the construction cost index published in the Engineering News Record (ENR) as of July 1st of each year. Currently, the fees are as follows: Public Facilities Impact Fees 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Beginning Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Developer Fees 0 73,057 749 0 129,634 Interest Income (Expense)0 0 0 0 3,120 Expenditures 0 (73,057)(749)0 (6,195) Encumbrances - Current Year 0 0 0 0 0 Ending Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $126,559 Public Facilities Impact Fees ________________________ Balance at June 30, 2014 General Facilities $38,859 Library 34,311 Police 9,265 Parks & Recreation 8,341 Streets & Traffic 10,348 Fire 16,499 Storm Drain 8,936 Ending Balance $126,559 North Burlingame & Rollins Road Development Fee SERVICE FEE (A) Rollins Road Area of Benefit ) (B) El Camino North Area of Benefit: i. Multiple family dwelling or duplex ii. Any use other than multiple family dwelling or duplex $0.53 per square foot of building $0.68 per square foot of building $0.53 per square foot of building Development Impact Fees Annual Report December 1, 2014 5 Funds collected are to be used to pay the cost of improvements to the City’s infrastructure in the area, including: sanitary sewers, water, storm drains and streetscape. The following table captures the activities associated with the North Burlingame/Rollins Road development impact fees from fiscal year 2009-10 through the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014: As the expenditure of these funds did not begin until fiscal year 2011-12, it is apparent that, of the $324,318 balance as of June 30, 2014, approximately $98,000 (the fiscal year 2008-09 ending balance less expenditures and interest earnings in the most recent five years) is attributable to fees collected more than five years ago. Projects identified when the fee was established, including medians and a linear park along El Camino Real at Trousdale, Adrian Road landscaping and a City gateway at Rollins Road, are estimated to cost over $2.2 million. (Expenditures in fiscal years 2011-12 and 2012-13 relate to the El Camino Real Medians project.) Therefore, staff recommends that the Council make the finding that fees collected in the future be accumulated in the North Burlingame & Rollins Road special revenue fund to support these significant projects as the funds become available in sufficient amounts. Bayfront Development Fees Similar to the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee, this fee (adopted by ordinance in 1979), applies only to properties lying within the geographic boundaries of the study area for the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan. Per the ordinance, the fees collected are to be used to pay for “future construction, improvement, and enlargement of major arterials and traffic control devices for the primary purpose of carrying through traffic and providing a network of roads within the Bayfront area on the east side of US 101.” Ordinance No. 1739 (2004) provides for annual adjustment of the fee based on the construction cost index published in the Engineering News Record (ENR) as of July 1st of each year. Currently, the fees are as follows: Bayfront Development Fee North Burlingame & Rollins Road 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Beginning Balance $197,780 $218,641 $375,794 $386,968 $298,064 Developer Fees 20,861 157,153 14,686 0 23,579 Interest Income (Expense)0 0 4,002 (434)2,675 Expenditures 0 0 (7,514)(88,470)0 Encumbrances - Current Year 0 0 0 0 0 Ending Balance $218,641 $375,794 $386,968 $298,064 $324,318 SERVICE FEE Office Restaurant Hotel Hotel, Extended Stay Office, Warehouse, Manufacturing Retail – Commercial Car Rental Commercial Recreation All Other $2,430.00/TSF $9,786.00/TSF $796.00/room $774.00/room $3,684.00/TSF $8,946.00/TSF $56,775.00/acre $17,620.00/acre $1,832.00 per p.m. peak hour trip as detailed by traffic study Development Impact Fees Annual Report December 1, 2014 6 The following table summarizes the activity for the Bayfront Development Fee Fund from fiscal year 2009-10 through June 30, 2014. Note that the fund had a zero beginning balance as of the start of the most recent five year period. The balance of fees collected prior to June 30, 2009 (approximately $78,000) was transferred to the General Fund to reimburse the General Fund for the Anza Overpass. Although this project was identified in the Bayfront Development Fee project when the fee was first established, there was insufficient funding to draw on when the project construction was complete. Fees collected since that time will be used to reimburse the CIP Fund for ADA sidewalk improvements along the Bayfront area, included in the fiscal year 2014-15 budget. Although this $200,000 project is in the planning stages at this time, construction should begin later this fiscal year. Burlingame Avenue Parking In-Lieu fees: Resolution 48-2000, adopted by the City Council on April 17, 2000 established a policy regarding in-lieu parking fees within the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District in connection with Planning Commission applications. The in-lieu fee can be imposed as mitigation for granting of a parking variance when the available on-site parking is not adequate for the number of spaces required to accommodate a proposed use. The fee was established at a rate that would cover the cost of building a space in a decked structure on a City parking lot. The fee is updated annually based on the Consumer Price Index, and is currently $48,433.06 per parking space. The following table summarizes the activity for the Burlingame Avenue in-lieu parking fees from fiscal year 2009-10 through June 30, 2014. Burlingame Avenue Parking In-Lieu fees were first collected in fiscal year 2008-09. Fees collected on one of the projects were refunded because the project that triggered the need to pay the fee was not built. Since the $212,285 in the fund was not expended in fiscal year 2013-14, staff recommends that the Council make a finding that additional parking accommodations are necessary for the benefit of the Burlingame Avenue area, and that funds collected as Burlingame Bayfront Development 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Beginning Balance $0 $1,660 $1,660 $1,706 $1,699 Developer Fees 1,660 0 0 0 0 Interest Income (Expense)0 0 46 (7)41 Expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 Encumbrances - Current Year 0 0 0 0 0 Ending Balance $1,660 $1,660 $1,706 $1,699 $1,740 Burlingame Avenue Parking In-Lieu 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Beginning Balance $212,285 $212,285 $212,285 $215,089 $214,659 Developer Fees 0 0 0 0 39,873 Interest Income (Expense)0 0 2,804 (430)3,007 Expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 Encumbrances - Current Year 0 0 0 0 0 Ending Balance $212,285 $212,285 $215,089 $214,659 $257,539 Development Impact Fees Annual Report December 1, 2014 7 Avenue Parking In-Lieu fees will be used for the purpose of paying the cost of designing and constructing a parking facility of some kind in the future. Although additional parking accommodations in this area have long been recognized as an unfunded need for the City, these findings are necessary to allow the continued accumulation of these in-lieu fees for eventual construction of this type of project. FISCAL IMPACT Compilation of this report has no impact on City resources, as all impact fees held by the City for over five years have either been spent or are committed to specific purposes per appropriate findings made by the City Council. If findings associated with funds held for a period of over five years are not made, the City must refund the fees to the developers from which they were received. Exhibits: Resolution of Findings related to the City’s Development Impact Fees 2 RESOLUTION NO. _____ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPTING FINDINGS AS REQUIRED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001, REAFFIRMING THE NECESSITY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 66001, the City of Burlingame is required to make certain findings every five years with respect to the unexpended fund balance of certain development impact fees; and WHEREAS, the City’s first annual report of development impact fees reflects the balance in each development impact fee fund or account, accrued interest in said fund or account and the amount of expenditure by public project for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014; and NOW, THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve, determine and find as follows: Section 1. That the recitations above are true and correct. Section 2. That the following findings are made as required under the Government Code Section 66001: A. The purpose to which each development impact fee is to be put has been identified. B. The funds are expended in a timely manner to fund continued improvements to public facilities related to the increased demand on the facilities resulting from development C. There is a reasonable relationship between the fee and impacts for development for which the fees are collected. D. The fees continue to be required to fund applicable improvements, and as such, these fees will continue to be collected and deposited into the appropriate fund for utilization solely for their intended purpose. Section 3. That the following findings are made as required under the Government Code Section 66001 for fees held by the City for a period of 5 years or more: A. Outstanding fees in the North Burlingame and Rollins Road Plan, as well as these development fees collected in the future will be accumulated in the North Burlingame & Rollins Road special revenue fund to support the significant public projects identified when the fee was established. B. Outstanding fees in the Bayfront Development fee Fund will be used to reimburse the CIP Fund for ADA sidewalk improvements along the Bayfront area, as provided in the 2014-15 Capital Improvement Projects Plan, once this project is complete. C. Funds collected as Burlingame Avenue Parking In-Lieu fees prior to fiscal year 2009-10, as well as subsequent parking in-lieu fee revenue, will be used for the purpose of paying the cost (or a portion of the cost) of constructing additional parking facilities in the Downtown parking 2 district, which generally encompasses the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan Area. _____________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 1st day of December, 2014, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Councilmembers: Councilmembers: _____________________________ Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk