Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2019.03.04City Council City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda - Final BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, March 4, 2019 CLOSED SESSION - 6:15 p.m. - Conference Room A Approval of the Closed Session Agendaa. Closed Session Community Forum: Members of the Public May Address the Council on any Item on the Closed Session Agenda at this Time b. Adjournment into Closed Sessionc. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6) City Designated Representatives: Timothy L. Davis, HR Director Sonya M. Morrison, City Manager Lisa K. Goldman, City Attorney Kathleen Kane, Finance Director Carol Augustine Employee Organizations: AFSCME Maintenance and Administrative Units, Department Heads and Unrepresented d. Note: Public comment is permitted on all action items as noted on the agenda below and in the non-agenda public comment provided for in item 7. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Mayor may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. All votes are unanimous unless separately noted for the record. 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION 5. UPCOMING EVENTS 6. PRESENTATIONS Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/28/2019 March 4, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Presentation by the Burlingame Neighborhood Network ("BNN")a. Presentation by Home for Allb. 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. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for February 19, 2019a. Meeting MinutesAttachments: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Tentative and Final Subdivision Map (PM 17-03), Resubdivision of Lot 12, Block 50, Map of Easton Addition No. 4 Subdivision at 1431 El Camino Real b. Staff Report Resolution Final Parcel Map February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Tentative and Final Subdivision Map (PM 18-05), Lot Merger and Resubdivision of Lots L, M and N, Block 6, Map of Burlingame Land Company No. 2 Subdivision at 619-625 California Drive c. Staff Report Resolution Final Parcel Map September 24, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the California Drive Complete Streets Project by Chrisp Company, City Project No. 84540 d. Staff Report Resolution Final Payment Summary Project Location Map Attachments: Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/28/2019 March 4, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to Casey Construction, Inc ., for the Easton Addition and City -Wide Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Phase 4, City Project No. 84192 and Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Professional Services Agreement with Bellecci & Associates for Construction Management Services Related to the Project e. Staff Report Resolution Awarding the Construction Contract Resolution Awarding the Professional Services Agreement Bid Summary Construction Contract Professional Services Agreement Project Location Map Attachments: 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment) Public Hearing and Introduction of an Ordinance Establishing Residential Impact Fees on New Residential Development to Support Workforce Housing a. Staff Report November 14, 2018 City Council Minutes February 11, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Ordinance Resolution - Area Standard Wages Seifel Consulting Report Residential Overview - February 2019 Attachments: 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR) on the Implementation of the Housing Element of the General Plan a. Staff Report Housing Element APR 2018 Attachments: Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Debt Management Policy for the City of Burlingame b. Staff Report Resolution Policy Attachments: 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements. Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/28/2019 March 4, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Mayor Colson's Committee Reporta. Committee ReportAttachments: Vice Mayor Beach's Committee Reportb. Committee ReportAttachments: 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at (650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 6:30 p.m. 2018-2019 Mid-Year Budget Study Session Next Regular City Council Meeting - Monday, March 18, 2019 VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT www.burlingame.org/video Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office counter at City Hall at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/28/2019 Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 03/04/19 Burlingame City Council February 19, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting on February 19, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by former Burlingame Mayor Rosalie O’Mahony. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. CLOSED AND SESSION There was no closed session. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Colson reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRESENTATION Mayor Colson introduced SFO Public Information Officer Doug Yakel to give a presentation on SFO’s Airport Development Plan (“ADP”). Mr. Yakel began by stating that SFO is the busiest airport in the Bay Area. He noted that SFO accounts for two-thirds of flights in the Bay Area. He added that it is the seventh busiest airport in the United States and the 23rd busiest in the world. SFO accommodated approximately 57 million passengers in Fiscal Year 2017 Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 03/04/19 Burlingame City Council February 19, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 2 – 2018. He stated that SFO is the largest job center in San Mateo County with 43,000 on-airport jobs; approximately 860 of these jobs are held by Burlingame residents. Mr. Yakel stated that while the airport currently accommodates 57 million passengers, it is forecasted that the airport will accommodate 71.1 million annual passengers. He explained that the ADP will help guide SFO in preparing for this increase in passengers. He noted that the airport will eventually reach a point where SFO’s runway layout will constrain how many passengers they can serve. He explained that SFO believes that this capacity is reached at 71.1 million passengers and that if the airport continues to increase passengers by 2% each year, the maximum will be met in the next ten to eleven years. Mr. Yakel stated that the ADP is a long-range planning study that will guide future development at SFO. He explained that the ADP will be used to seek environmental approval of several potential construction projects. These projects include an additional terminal, roadways, and support facilities. He noted that the ADP does not include plans for runway expansion. He discussed the ongoing projects at SFO including the airport hotel, redevelopment of Terminal 1, and the long-term parking garage that just recently opened. Mr. Yakel stated that the goal of the ADP is to: 1. Continue to modernize SFO 2. Enhance passenger experience 3. Match terminal, parking, and support facilities to existing runway capacity Mr. Yakel stated that the ADP won’t: 1. Change runway configurations or flight paths 2. Expand airport property footprint 3. Increase runway capacity Mr. Yakel discussed the recommended ADP projects that SFO is considering undertaking in the future. He noted that the recommended ADP projects would only be undertaken when the need arises. One of the projects is a redevelopment of SFO’s international terminal building. This project would create one centralized check point in order to create more flexibility inside the airport. Another project is the creation of another boarding area; Boarding Area H. Boarding Area H would be located near the BART terminal. He stated that another project would be to create a central hub garage. Mr. Yakel reviewed the timeline for the ADP: 1. Early 2019: notice of preparation, scoping meeting 2. Mid 2019: notice of public hearing and availability of draft EIR 3. Early 2020: final EIR, notice of availability, certification and adoption 4. Projects triggered only when need arises 5. Projects would likely occur between 2020 and 2035 Councilmember Ortiz stated that one of the items on SFO’s list of projects is a rental car center. He asked when this would be coming on line and what the capacity of the center would be. Mr. Yakel stated that he didn’t have an exact date for the center and that it would depend on the needs. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 03/04/19 Burlingame City Council February 19, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 3 Councilmember Ortiz asked if Uber/Lyft riders would be dropped off and picked up in the central hub garage. Mr. Yakel stated that SFO will have the “pool” shared riders picked up and dropped off in the garage. He added that the airport is considering making the top floor of the garage a commercial ground transportation pick up center. He noted that commercial ground transportation accounts for 45% of SFO’s roadway traffic. He added that 80% are Uber/Lyft riders. Councilmember Keighran asked what the trigger points are for the list of recommended projects in the ADP. Mr. Yakel stated that they don’t know the rate of future airline growth. He explained that they had been on a steady run of growth since 2011, but the airline industry is cyclical and therefore they are unsure what the future will bring. Vice Mayor Beach asked if there is any capacity for rental cars in the recently opened long-term parking garage. Mr. Yakel stated that right now, it is strictly intended for use by the public. However, he noted that the app riders have changed the game, and therefore SFO is studying how the long-term parking garage may be used in the future including potentially housing autonomous vehicles. Vice Mayor Beach asked what the impacts will be of an additional 14 million annual passengers on flights taking off and landing. Mr. Yakel stated that they have made certain assumptions when they look at runway capacity and maximum number of passengers they can serve. He explained that currently SFO has approximately 1250 flights a day, and when SFO reaches its maximum capacity, that would be about 1500 flights a day. He noted that SFO pushes airlines to increase their service by using larger aircraft rather than adding aircraft. He added that since 2011, passenger traffic has grown by 36%, but the number of flights has only grown by 14%. He stated that in 2011, the average airplane held 134 passengers, and today it holds 158. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that previously SFO had planned on building a new rental car site, but as he understands it, that plan has been shelved. He added that the City has an interest in SFO building a rental car site. Mr. Yakel stated that he would further research the issue and get back to Council. Councilmember Brownrigg thanked Mr. Yakel for doing additional research and asked that he also look into if SFO plans on increasing capacity for rental cars on site and when that would be. Councilmember Brownrigg asked about the new hotel at SFO and what the TOT rate would be. Mr. Yakel stated that he didn’t know but would get back to Council with that information. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that sea level rise plans are not included in the ADP and asked if he was correct that this is a separate document. Mr. Yakel replied in the affirmative. He added that SFO is in the process of environmental permitting for sea level rise projects. He explained that SFO is picking a midrange forecast and targeting 36 inches of sea level rise by mid-century. He stated that this will allow SFO to get the work done 30 years before the projections come to fruition. Councilmember Brownrigg thanked SFO for sharing their sea level rise expertise with the City. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 03/04/19 Burlingame City Council February 19, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 4 Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the ADP could include improvements to the barriers that prevent back- blast from the takeoff. Mr. Yakel stated that he would look into it. He noted that Councilmember Ortiz is on a committee that is looking into why the noise level has increased and what can be done to mitigate it. Councilmember Ortiz explained that the committee is trying to identify changes that may have exacerbated the issue, and then they will discuss mitigation strategies. He stated that they have a few more meetings to go, and then he will report the committee’s findings. Mayor Colson asked if the projects are being self-financed. Mr. Yakel stated that SFO pays for its projects through the issuance of airport general revenue bonds. Mayor Colson asked that Mr. Yakel highlight some of the green improvements that SFO is undertaking. He explained that within the airport industry, SFO has been a leader in environmental sustainability. He stated that Terminal 2 was the first LEED Gold airport terminal in the United States. He noted that now what SFO is chasing is the “race to zero,” which is carbon neutrality, zero net energy, and zero waste going into landfills. He stated that the elephant in the room is carbon emissions from airplanes. Therefore, SFO is looking to establish a biofuel hub. Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Colson asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Brownrigg pulled item 8g. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to approve 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, 8e, and 8f; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilmember Brownrigg acknowledged BAWSCA Chief Executive Officer Nicole Sandkulla and Boardmember Rosalie O’Mahony for their work on the water supply agreement (item 8e). He stated that in the short amount of time that BAWSCA has existed, they have done a great job keeping the City residents’ payments focused on the best projects. a. ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2019 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes of February 4, 2019. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 03/04/19 Burlingame City Council February 19, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 5 b. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13.36.020 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH NO PARKING ALONG NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE FROM EDWARDS ROAD TO APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET NORTH OF WHITEHORN WAY BETWEEN 2:00 A.M. AND 5:00 A.M. DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Ordinance Number 1959. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PROCURE SOFSURFACE DURASAFE PLAYGROUND TILES AND INSTALLATION SERVICES AND EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH SUAREZ AND MUNOZ CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE PLAYGROUND AT RAY PARK, CITY PROJECT NO. 8440 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 015-2019. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO SOUTHWEST CONSTRUCTION & PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FOR THE CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE STATION 35 IMPROVEMENTS, CITY PROJECT NO. 84340, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 016-2019. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED AND RESTATED WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND THE WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS IN ALAMEDA, SAN MATEO, AND SANTA CLARA COUNTIES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 017-2019. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE EL PORTAL AND TROUSDALE CHANNELS REHABILITATION PHASE 2, CITY PROJECT N O. 83230 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 018-2019. g. APPROVAL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIORITY PROJECTS IDENTIFIED DURING THE FY 2019 – 2020 GOAL-SETTING SESSION Assistant to the City Manager Blackburn requested Council’s approval of the infrastructure priority projects identified during the FY 2019-2020 Goal-Setting Session. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 03/04/19 Burlingame City Council February 19, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 6 Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he appreciated the Mayor’s Council assignments for the five infrastructure projects discussed at the Goal-Setting Session. He stated that in the future, these five projects should be referred to as “Large Infrastructure Projects” instead of infrastructure projects to avoid any confusion that these are the City’s only infrastructure projects. Additionally, he suggested that instead of calling the City Hall infrastructure project “City Hall Safety Improvements,” it should be called “City Hall Modernization and Safety.” This is because it isn’t enough to make the City Hall seismically better; instead, the Council needs to think about modernizing the facility as well. Mayor Colson stated that she believed those were excellent comments. Vice Mayor Beach stated that she concurred with Councilmember Brownrigg’s comments. Mayor Colson asked the staff to figure out a way to track these projects and the Council’s progress for the public’s edification. Mayor Colson opened up the item for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to approve the infrastructure priority projects identified during the FY 2019 – 2020 Goal-Setting Session with his suggested changes; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. RE-ADOPTION OF AN URGENCY ORDINANCE PROVIDING INTERIM ZONING STANDARDS FOR THE NORTH ROLLINS ROAD MIXED USE DISTRICT AND NORTH BURLINGAME MIXED USE DISTRICT CDD Gardiner stated that “Envision Burlingame” is the combined update of the Burlingame General Plan and the City’s zoning ordinance. He explained that the City Council certified the EIR and adopted the General Plan at its January 7, 2019 meeting. Additionally, the Council adopted an urgency zoning ordinance that provided zoning standards for North Rollins Road and the North Burlingame Mixed Use Zone that were consistent with the updated General Plan. Under the California Government Code, an initial urgency ordinance runs for 45 days and then must be renewed in order to remain in effect. After proper noticing and a public hearing, the local government may extend the urgency ordinance for 22 months and 15 days (for a total of two years). The interim ordinance may be repealed and replaced with a permanent ordinance at any time during the extension period. CDD Gardiner noted that the full update of the zoning ordinance is currently underway. He stated that it is anticipated to take approximately one year. He noted that refinements to the urgency zoning ordinance may become part of the permanent regulations. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 03/04/19 Burlingame City Council February 19, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 7 CDD Gardiner discussed the intent to create a specific plan for Rollins Road. He stated that staff is drafting a work plan and an RFP for the Council’s approval. He noted that the urgency ordinance does include elements more typically found in specific plans such as streetscape. Councilmember Brownrigg asked about the timing of projects coming in and the design that the City is hoping to get from a specific plan. He added he is specifically concerned about public parks. CDD Gardiner stated that it is something that could be a core component of a specific plan. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that one of the elements that characterize all of the neighborhoods in Burlingame is that there are local parks. He stressed the importance of adding one or more parks to these new neighborhoods. Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Keighran asked if the Council will be receiving updates from the zoning ordinance working group. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Brownrigg suggested having the public come up with a name for the new neighborhood being created on North Rollins. Mayor Colson discussed the need to rethink what a park could/should look like as the Rollins Road area is more industrial than other portions of the city. Councilmember Keighran asked if the working group would include Planning Commissioners, TSP Commissioners, and Beautification Commissioners. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Mayor Colson discussed the importance of keeping the school districts updated on the City’s progress in creating these new neighborhoods. Mayor Colson asked the City Clerk to read the title of the ordinance. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer read the title. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayo r Colson opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Vice Mayor Beach made a motion to adopt Ordinance 1960 (adoption of the updated General Plan); seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 019-2019; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 03/04/19 Burlingame City Council February 19, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 8 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. DISCUSSION OF MAYOR COLSON’S RECOMMENDATION TO CONVENE COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS AROUND HOUSING City Manager Goldman introduced the item by explaining that at the February 4, 2019 Council meeting, Mayor Colson brought up under future agenda items the idea of having community conversations around housing. Councilmember Keighran asked the Mayor what she had in mind. She asked if the conversations would be an update on what the City is doing in regards to housing. Mayor Colson gave a brief background on her idea. She explained that as she was perusing social media and attending local gatherings, she noticed that there were a lot of questions concerning the updated General Plan and what the City is doing in terms of housing. Therefore, she thought the Council could hold quarterly conversations with interested citizens in order to provide updates on approved projects. She stated that she saw these conversations being set up similar to the Senior Listening sessions that Parks and Recreation oversee. Councilmember Keighran stated that her preference would be for the conversations to focus on updates of approved projects and not re-open the conversation surrounding housing issues in the city. Mayor Colson agreed with Councilmember Keighran and added that she didn’t want these outreach events to chew up staff time. City Manager Goldman stated that there would need to be a staff coordinating role for these conversations. Vice Mayor Beach stated that one of the things she liked about the Home for All initiative is that it gave people the opportunity to understand the backdrop and the why. She suggested a component to these conversations should be the why. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he shares Councilmember Keighran’s concern that it could turn into people just complaining and not the Council giving updates. He added that he wonders if a written report from staff that provides housing project updates could be helpful. City Manager Goldman stated that staff puts charts on the website that list approved residential and commercial projects. Councilmember Brownrigg suggested also utilizing webinars to get information to the public. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 03/04/19 Burlingame City Council February 19, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 9 Councilmember Ortiz stated that he supports the idea entirely but that he does have some concerns. He explained that the best part about the Home for All initiative was the back and forth conversations. However, that takes time and planning. Therefore, his concern is that the Council needs to be real clear what it is; otherwise, it becomes unmanageable. Vice Mayor Beach asked if it would be a worthwhile investment for the community to utilize the Home for All initiative model and do one more full blown community meeting. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the difficulty is that the Home for All initiative required a huge amount of staff time. Councilmember Keighran stated that she believes these should just be updates on projects. She added that once a month staff could include in the City’s e-newsletter a link to the approved projects. Councilmember Brownrigg suggested that twice annually, the Council could put a 30-40 minute update on the Council’s agenda in place of a study session. Mayor Colson stated that she wanted it to be more of a conversation instead of a presentation to Council. However, she stated that she did like that Councilmember Brownrigg’s idea would have the entire Council there together. She stated that another option would be to film it and then it could be posted. She added that she wanted to ensure that the community gets a consistent message. CDD Gardiner asked about the format of the Senior Listening sessions and how many individuals attend them. Mayor Colson stated that it is usually at the Community Center and there are about 12-20 seniors that show up. Mayor Colson stated that she would work with City Manager Goldman with the direction that the Council gave her. Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS a. MAYOR COLSON’S COMMITTEE REPORT b. VICE MAYOR BEACH’S COMMITTEE REPORT 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no future agenda items. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 03/04/19 Burlingame City Council February 19, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 10 The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Parking & Safety Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Colson adjourned meeting at 8:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8b MEETING DATE: March 4, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: March 4, 2019 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Tentative and Final Subdivision Map (PM 17-03), Resubdivision of Lot 12, Block 50, Map of Easton Addition No. 4 Subdivision at 1431 El Camino Real RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the tentative and final subdivision map (PM 17-03) for resubdivision of lot 12, Block 50, Map of Easton Addition No. 4 Subdivision, subject to the following conditions: 1. All frontage sidewalks, driveways, and curb and gutter within the public right-of-way shall be replaced with new improvements. 2. A final subdivision map must be filed by the applicant within the two-year time period as allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. 3. No developmental approvals are part of this mapping action. 4. All property corners shall be set in the field and be shown on the map. 5. The final map shall show the widths of the right-of-way for El Camino Real, Hillside Drive, and Adeline Drive including the centerlines of right-of-way, bearings and distances of centerline, and any existing monuments in the roadway. 6. The developer is required to underground all utilities that service the project. 7. Permanent onsite stormwater treatment measures and maintenance agreements in compliance with stormwater pollution prevention regulations. Said agreements shall be recorded with the County prior to building permit sign-off. Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Tentative & Final Subdivision Map March 4, 2019 (PM 17-03) at 1431 El Camino Real 2 BACKGROUND The project consists of construction of a new three-story, six-unit condominium building at 1431 El Camino Real. On February 12, 2018, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the tentative subdivision map. Staff has reviewed the map and recommends its approval subject to the above conditions. FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibits: • Resolution • Final Subdivision Map • February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE TENTATIVE AND FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP (PM 17-03), RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 12, BLOCK 50, MAP OF EASTON ADDITION NO. 4 SUBDIVISION AT 1431 EL CAMINO REAL The City Council of the City of Burlingame resolves as follows: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved the tentative parcel map for the property described in this resolution’s title on February 12, 2018; and WHEREAS, the Public Works Department recommends that the City Council approve the parcel map with the following conditions: 1. All frontage sidewalks, driveways, and curb and gutter within the public right-of-way shall be replaced with new improvements. 2. A final subdivision map must be filed by the applicant within the two-year time period as allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. 3. No developmental approvals are part of this mapping action. 4. All property corners shall be set in the field and be shown on the map. 5. The final map shall show the widths of the right-of -way for El Camino Real, Hillside Drive, and Adeline Drive including the centerlines of right-of-way, bearings and distances of centerline and any existing monuments in the roadway. 6. The developer is required to underground all utilities that service the project. 7. Permanent onsite stormwater treatment measures and maintenance agreements are required for the development in compliance with stormwater pollution prevention regulations. Said agreements shall be recorded with the County prior to building permit sign-off. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED BY THE COUNCIL, AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Final Parcel Map (PM 17-03) with the conditions described above is approved. 2. Staff is directed to verify that all conditions of approval are met and arrange for the recording of the tentative and final parcel map. __________________________ Donna Colson, Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4th day of March, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: __________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers Monday, February 12, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gum opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Present 7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Draft Planning Commission Minutes - January 8, 2018 Draft Planning Commission Minutes - January 8, 2018 Attachments: Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Minutes of January 8, 2018. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 7 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. Commissioner Comaroto noted that she would recuse herself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 9b (1206 Lincoln Avenue) as she owns property within 500-feet of the property. Commissioner Kelly noted that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 8c (1245 Cabrillo Avenue) as he resides within 500-feet of the property. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a. 129 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for windows within 10 feet of property line in a new detached accessory structure approved for use as an accessory dwelling unit. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (e). (Su-ling Slaton, SLC Design, applicant and designer; Jerry Zakatchenko, property owner) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 129 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report 129 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 129 Bloomfield Rd - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Terrones noted that he had contact with the property owner regarding access to the property. Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 7 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a. 1431 El Camino Real , zoned R-3 - Application for Environmental Review, Condominium Permit, Design Review, and Parking Variance for the use of mechanical parking lifts for a new 3-story, 6-unit condominium building (Levy Design Partners, applicant and architect; GGH Investment LLC, property owner) (71 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1431 ECR - Staff Report 1431 ECR - Study minutes and response 1431 ECR - Application mtrls- parking lift details 1431 ECR - Resolutions 1431 ECR - Dept Comments, Notice, Aerial 1431 ECR - 02.12.18 - plans 1431 ECR - CEQA doc, Mitigated Neg Dec 1431 ECR - Comment letters 1431 ECR - CEQA - Response to Comments Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: > Clarified that a parking variance is requested because the property lies outside of the Downtown Specific Plan Area. (Keylon: confirmed this fact; policies within the Downtown Specific Plan area permit the lifts to be considered without a variance.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing Toby Levy and Bruce Chen represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > May be difficult to grow grass within the median strip; what does the applicant suggest? (Chen: noted that grass is not proposed, low ground-cover is proposed.) > What is the makeup of the existing units on the property? (Grace: two, two -bedroom, one bath units and two, one-bedroom, one bath units.) > Could the project be developed without the garage? (Levy: wanted an enclosed garage as it is nicer to Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes look at.) > How will delivery vehicles access the property? (Levy: there are adequate turnaround areas.) > Asked about the noise generated by the garage doors? (Levy: referenced other cities' evaluations that show that the noise studies prepared by the provider are accurate.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > The project has been thoroughly vetted. Comfortable with the findings of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. > The site constraints make it difficult to replicate the development that exists on the property currently without losing units. The project will replace and minimally increase the number of units on the property. Other areas near the location are permitted to use car-stackers for parking. > The building is similar in scale and massing as well as finishing to other projects in the area. The project is approvable. > Confirmed that the variance approval will run with the property. > The density proposed is well within the density permitted under the General Plan. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 7 - b. 1455 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a major renovation for a first and second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Art Lierman, property owner) (62 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1455 Cortez Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 1455 Cortez Ave - plans - 02.12.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse and Art Lierman represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no Commission questions/comments. Public Comments: Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Is a very nice project, likes the reduction of the deck. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve Action Item. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 7 - c. 1245 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Chu Design Associates Inc., applicant and designer; Eric and Jennifer Lai, property owners) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1245 Cabrillo Ave - Staff Report 1245 Cabrillo Ave - Attachments 1245 Cabrillo Ave - Plans - 02.12.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Commissioner Kelly was recused from the discussion as he resides within 500 -feet of the property; he left the dais and the chambers. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. James Chu represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > With respect to the left elevation, second floor; the master bedroom and master bath appear co -planar on the floor plan, but not on the elevation. (Chu: is cutting a well into the roof plan.) > Noted that the well would only be under the two tall windows. > Need to prepare a roof plan that more accurately shows the detail of the roof well on the left elevation. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes > Is a nice project. Appreciates that the applicant is retaining the existing siding. The revisions are nicely done. > Need an FYI to finalize the roof plan on the left elevation, second story. > Well articulated project. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve as the application with the added condition that a revised roof plan shall be submitted as an FYI. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto 6 - Recused: Kelly 1 - d. 2683 Summit Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit for building height and Front Setback Variance for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling.The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Samaneh Nili, TRG Architecture + Interior Design, applicant and designer; Sunil and Katherine Koshie, property owner) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal 2683 Summit Dr - Staff Report 2683 Summit Dr - Attachments 2683 Summit Dr - Plans - 02.12.18 Attachments: Commissioner Kelly returned to the dais. All Commissioners had visited the property. Chair Gum spoke to the neighbors to the rear and to the left of the site. Commissioner Terrones noted that he met with the neighbor to the left to gain access to view the story poles. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Randy Grange represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no Commission questions/comments. Public Comments: Debra Cosco, 6 Hillview Court: don't really have an issue with the height, but want to know if they are looking at a wall of windows. Currently has total privacy. Has a view of the Bay Bridge. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Is a good looking project. Appreciates that the architect installed the story poles. Appreciates the neighbor bringing her concerns about privacy forward. Doesn't see that this addition will affect distant Page 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes views. The windows at the rear fit into the design guidelines. The applicant's justification for the variance is supportable. The project is approvable. > Appreciates that the windows are obscured. The windows facing the neighbor do not appear to be in the line of site of the neighbor. > Is a good design solution for the property. Clarified that external lighting cannot fall off of the property. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve the application. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 7 - e. 50 Broderick Road, zoned RR - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for automobile storage for a car rental business. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines SEction 15303. (The Hertz Corporation, applicant; Thomas and Martina Murphy Trust, property owner) (16 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 50 Broderick Rd - Staff Report 50 Broderick Rd - Attachments 50 Broderick Rd - Plans - 02.12.08 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Sargent, Comaroto, Gaul, and Gum spoke with with the applicant. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: > Isn't a timeframe normally imposed upon a conditional use permit like thi s? (Meeker: we're trying to move away from this approach. This use is permitted; conditions have been imposed upon non -conforming uses in the Bayfront. > Will improvements to mechanical systems be required before the use is implemented? (Meeker: yes.) > How will monitoring of vehicle movements be achieved? (Meeker: Code Enforcement will investigate any complaints.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Christian Rotzog and Colin Regan represented the applicant.. Commission Questions/Comments: > Will mechanical improvements be put in place before opening? (Rotzog: have already begun this work.) > Will vehicle repair/maintenance occur on the property? (Regan: no.) > Requested details regarding landscaping materials. (Regan: have a landscape plan that can be submitted.) > What is the design of the opaque fence? (Regan: grey slats in a chain-link fence.) > What is the length of the lease? Is this a permanent storage area? (Rotzog/Regan: ten years; will occupy for at least that period of time.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Page 6 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion: > Will be nice to have something happening on the property. Doesn't appear that the use will impact surrounding properties. Would like to see a landscape plan that shows drought -tolerant materials that will revitalize the site. > Perfectly acceptable use. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application with the additional condition that an FYI shall be submitted for the landscape plan. Chair Gum called for a voice vote on the motion, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 7 - f. 740 El Camino Real, Unit D, zoned R-3 - Application for Design Review to remove and replace/enlarge a second story deck of an existing condominium unit. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(2). (Halle Hagenau, applicant and architect; Chris and Jordan Chavez, property owners) (127 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 740 El Camino Real - Staff Report 740 El Camino Real - Attachments 740 El Camino Real - Plans - 02.12.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Halle Hagenau and Chris Chavez represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no Commission questions/comments. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > The project is approvable. > This is a prominent place on El Camino Real; is technically a front -yard deck. Concerned that the deck could be used as a storage space or other use than intended by this applicant. Is this what is wanted in this highly visible area. Not a good place for a deck of this scale and size. Is not compatible with the pattern in the neighborhood. > There is a homeowners' association that will ensure that the deck is maintained. Page 7 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes > Likes the changes to the rail. > The property is sandwiched between El Camino Real and the activities at McKinley Elementary School. The deck is open-air and unlikely to be used for storage. It's prominent location ensures that it could not be enclosed without being noticed. > Be advised that if the design changes, bring back changes before built. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 6 - Nay: Gum 2 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a. 846 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and Special Permit for a new detached garage in the rear 40% of the lot. (Robert Medan, applicant and designer; Sharyl Wong and Andrew Blanco, property owners) (70 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal 846 Paloma Ave - Staff Report 846 Paloma Ave - Attachment 846 Paloma Ave - Plans - 02.12.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Sharyl Wong and Robert Medan represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Not certain why an angled bay is proposed below the square bay on the right side elevation. (Medan: thought the angled approach on the fist floor would be a bit more playful on the interior.) > The massing is handled nicely. Is there a possibility for extending the roof overhang from the front along the side to the full two-feet, connecting the line, and dropping the stairway windows down; would make the two gables on the front look like a dormer on the roof. (Medan: yes, can do this.) > Had a similar question regarding the right-side elevation. There might be a way to review the bump-out on the master bath to make it a bit smaller; may be some extra space to work with. (Medan: can see making this change to make the bump-out for the bath a bit smaller than the one below.) > With respect to the special permit for the garage; describe the rationale. (Medan: feels that pushing the garage back further will encroach upon an existing tree's roots.) > Any thought given to screening the back more to protect privacy of the adjoining properties? (Medan: this is acceptable.) > Neighbor noted that the fence is in disrepair; any possibility of incorporating a new fence into the project? (Wong: will repair as needed.) > Could the front porch be made larger? (Medan: there is a tree directly in front of the porch that would be impacted. The driveway is also a constraint.) Page 8 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Nice project. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the application on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for action. Discussion of Motion: > Nice project. On the point of the stacked bays; may be better as two identical bays, or a better distiction between the bays. > Suggested engaging the neighbor on the rear fence matter. > The special permit request is supportable since the tree is being preserved. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 7 - b. 1206 Lincoln Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Jack Backos Architects, applicant and designer; Miki and Spencer Behr, property owners) (65 noticed) staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal 1206 Lincoln Ave - Staff Report 1206 Lincoln Ave - Attachments 1206 Lincoln Ave - Plans - 02.12.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the site. Chair Gum spoke to the neighbor on the right. Commissioner Comaroto recused herself from the discussion as she owns property within 500 -feet of the property; she left the dais and the chambers. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: > Are their limitations to the trellis in the rear as far as being close to the property line? (Backos: The trellis is being removed.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Jack Backos represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Windows above the garage and dormer windows are odd in scale. > Will rear lawn go fence to fence or will there be planters there? (Backos: No changes are to be made.) > There were a series of additions to the house before? (Backos: Yes.) Page 9 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes > The existing east elevation is a simple single plane, the addition build s on that making very large flat plane, suggest more articulation instead of one big mass like a bellyband. (Backos: difficult because bathrooms are on that side but will look into it.) Doesn't need to be windows, can be a trim detail or look at the roof. (Backos: Side that faces neighbor and Redwood trees, it's difficult to see that elevation.) Can be convinced of that - not to do anything. > Slender trim works on a small cottage but does not fit as well as the building grows. Suggests widening the trim to relate to the massing. (Backos: the volumes of the house create interest. Would change the overall aesthetic of the house. Feels it is successful as designed.) > Front elevation - two things that strike me with two dormers windows seem smaller than other windows. Should match sizing and muntin pattern to bring it together more. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > There are some scale issues going on with the plan. Several very large planes. The roof seems very huge. > The left elevation is confusing where the roof slopes come together. And west elevation proposed needs to be simplified - it's a lot of gables. > Is a difficult project to start from; the existing mass ing is a bit odd. Is a traditional split-level that wants to appear like a bungalow. Biggest concern is with the east elevation; is there something that can provide relief with this sheer plane. > Will help to have all the windows detailed on the rendering. > Good candidate for a design reviewer. The house looks like it's maxed out but proposed FAR shows that it is not so there should be some ways to move around. > Trellis over front entry, would like it to be addressed. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer the project to a Design Reviewer. Discussion of Motion: > Doesn't understand the trellis over the front entry on the three-dimensional drawing; look at this element more closely. > What is proposed serves to make the home look taller. The added roofline and the space above the garage are the most troubling. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Kelly 6 - Recused: Comaroto 1 - c. 1402 Grove Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc., applicant and designer; Lisa Ley, property owner) (73 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal Page 10 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1402 Grove Ave - Staff Report 1402 Grove Ave - Attachments 1402 Grove Ave - Plans - 02.12.18 Attachments: Commissioner Comaroto returned to the dais. All Commissioners had visited the property. Chair Gum spoke to the neighbor on the left. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > On the left side, the existing family room: is the west wall being preserved to retain the side setback? Looks like its on a brick foundation. (Geurse: intend to rebuild the foundation an d the wall. Was once a patio that was enclosed. Will review this. Keylon: because the lot is only 45-feet wide a three-foot setback is all that is required.) > With respect to the exit to the balcony; it seems strangely centered. Is there a reason it was d esigned that way? (Geurse: keeping the gable out of the declining height envelope, but wanted to center the door over the window below.) > Likes the assymetry of the gable that was referenced. The bedroom gable is a bit quirky, but works okay. Offsetting the doors off of the master bedroom creates a sitting area. (Geurse: added the extra knee-braces to add to the articulation.) > Will the gargoyle be relocated? (Geurse: wasn't aware it was there.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > The front and rear elevations are nice. The side elevations need work; break down the sense that they are pancaked. The siding/shingles running into the stucco does not work. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to bring the item back on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for action. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 7 - d. 250 California Drive, zoned CAR - Application for Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for office use in a portion of the ground floor for construction of a new, 4-story mixed use office building (retail and office) (20 Hobart LLC, applicant and property owner; MBH Architects, architect) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 11 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 250 California Dr - Staff Report 250 California Dr - Attachments 250 California Drive - Plans - 02.12.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Kelly had a brief email exchange with the developer. Chair Gum and Commissioners Terrones, Comaroto, and Sargent met with the applicant to review the plans. Commissioner Loftis noted that he was unable to meet with the applicant. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Ryan Guibara and Andres Grechi represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Is there an attendant that monitors the car lifts? (Guibara: the system is intended to be fully operated by the public, though there will be an attendant available.) > What is meant by "temporary" users; how will they access parking? (Guibara: such users will need to call a receptionist to gain access to the garage. Tenants will have cards to open the garage.) > If some of the space is commercial, will some of the parking be made available to the public? (Guibara: is providing the in-lieu fee for eleven parking spaces. Employees of the first floor retail will likely use the parking, rather than visitors. Noted that 225 California was not required to provide retail parking. > Likes the amount of retail space provided with this project. > What is the height when compared to 225 California Drive? (Guibara: the same height.) > How will traffic impacts be evaluated? (Meeker: the project is categorically exempt, therefore no additional analysis will be provided.) > Will there be an analysis of the need for crosswalks by Public Works? (Meeker: that department has reviewed the project and has not weighed-in on that particular issue.) > Has a concern about a continuation of the trajectory toward building more office space. When do we need to become more concerned about density, scale, etc? (Meeker: noted that the project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA. It complies with all policies and analyses in the Downtown Specific Plan. Are limited only to discussion of the design of the project; there should be no discussion of the jobs/housing balance.) > Noted that the project has been found not to result in any environmental impacts that rise to a level of significance, pursuant to CEQA. (Meeker: the exemption analysis found that the past analysis done for the Downtown Specific Plan assumed this level of development at the site.) > Clarified that the Commission's job is to find the project consistent with zoning. > Feels that collectively a variety of smaller projects and their impacts must be considered. > The Downtown Specific Plan assumed a variety of projects that would be built under the analysis in the Plan. > Requested clarification regarding the design of the window system. (Grechi: designed to break down the windows into a more human scale.) > Seems like the south-facing wall nearest the railroad tracks needs to be broken up a bit more. (Guibara: have broken up that side pretty significantly already. Grechi: is broken into three parts. Can't put windows in the brick wall; will have much texture itself.) Public Comments: There were no public comments: Page 12 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Feels that the brick wall on the southeast face should include some depth rather than just smooth brick. > Feels the use is appropriate. > Likes the materials and the massing. Has a functional design. Likes the parking lifts. > Likes that the vehicle entry and exits will be on the least busy street. > Believes that the use will promote pedestrian activity. > Appreciates the preservation of the mural and the work that has been done with the Historic Society. > Will significantly alter the building skyline in this area of the City. Lies close to the historic Train Depot. > Is concerned that the building looks like it is from the 1980s. Is missing the opportunity to have some interesting details for a brick building. Doesn't buy the oversize window mullions. There is detail missing; doesn't feel welcoming. Part of the problem, per the rendering, is the colors used; the mullions make the project feel somewhat prison-like, where darker mullions would make the windows appear more transparent. Look at treating in another way, perhaps consider using terra-cotta. The supports for the trellis on the top of the building do not appear substantial enough. The building appears very chunky. Missing opportunities to do something very special at the entrance. There is a level of detail that is necessary for a successful brick building. > Is a well-crafted, well-planned project. Though the project will significantly change this area, the project is much better than an underutlized parking lot. > Sees this as a Modern Industrial interpretation of a brick building. Wants be be certain that the brick does not look cheap. Could consider using a Blonde-colored brick. A problem with introducing terra-cotta would remove it from the clean, industrial look that the design embraces. > The trellis does need to be revisited and may be designed to contribute more to the aesthetic of the building. Likes the direction and program for the project. > The color rendering is likely a bit different from what is represented on the sample board. > Feels more work needs to be done on the southeast wall. > Need to look into the concept of adding crosswalks to the area. > Likes the project; is a good location for it. Likes the red brick. The more traditional brick softens the Modern elements and help it fit into the area. > The conditional use permit for office use is supportable since the space will be used by the Historical Society which will have interaction with the public. > Is the third project in this area that is to be built at this height; will fit in as time progresses. > Is not certain if the design needs to be complicated by adding more details. Perhaps a mix of brick coul d be considered. This project represents the direction that the Downtown is going. > There is too much building occurring in the City. The public wishes the building to stop. The project doesn't fit the sight and the surrounding development; overpowers the adjacent Train Depot, the most photographed building in the City. > The project is not compatible with the height, mass and scale of other buildings in the neighborhood. > Happy that the wallscape is being preserved and will be visible to those visiting the building. Although the project will largely block it from pedestrian view; and is a significant impact. > Building heights have been increased when in the past 35-feet was the maximum that would be allowed in the City. > Project is short eleven parking spaces; will be a cumulative effect over time. > The Specific Plan policies are intended to preserve auto -related uses; feels allowing the office is contrary to this intent. > The impact fees that will be collected as a result of the project will not help to alleviate the concerns expressed by community residents. > Would prefer either building nothing on the property, or something significantly smaller. > Noted that in an industrial-style building, the window mullions would have had a smaller profile. Page 13 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes > Statements made in opposition to the project based upon CEQA lead to a misunderstanding of how CEQA is used and its purposes. The project is exempt from further analysis based upon the prior analyses prepared under prior planning efforts. If changes are to be made to CEQA, then the State legislators must be lobbied. No action required as the project will return on the the Regular Action Calendar when ready for action. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Note that the Basecamp users are jaywalking across California Drive in the early morning hours. Who should be contacted to encourage the users to use crosswalks? (Meeker: will determine who should become involved.) 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS There were no Director's Reports. a. 705 Walnut Avenue - FYI for proposed changes to an approved Design Review project. 705 Walnut Ave - Memorandum Attachments: Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:57 p.m. Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on February 12, 2018. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on February 22, 2018, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $533, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 14 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/14/2018 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8c MEETING DATE: March 4, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: March 4, 2019 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Tentative and Final Subdivision Map (PM 18-05), Lot Merger and Resubdivision of Lots L, M and N, Block 6, Map of Burlingame Land Company No. 2 Subdivision at 619-625 California Drive RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the tentative and final subdivision map (PM 18-05) for lot merger and resubdivision of lots L, M and N, Block 6, Map of Burlingame Land Company No. 2 Subdivision, subject to the following conditions: 1. All frontage sidewalks, driveways, and curb and gutter within the public right-of-way shall be replaced with new improvements. 2. The existing structures must be demolished before the map can be recorded. 3. A final parcel map must be filed by the applicant within the two-year time period as allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. 4. No developmental approvals are part of this mapping action. 5. All property corners shall be set in the field and be shown on the map. 6. The final map shall show the widths of the right-of-way for California Drive, Oak Grove Avenue, and Floribunda Avenue including the centerlines of right-of-way, bearings and distances of centerline and any existing monuments in the roadway. 7. The developer is required to underground all utilities that service the project. 8. Permanent stormwater pollution prevent treatment measures and maintenance agreements are required for the development in compliance with State regulations. Said agreements shall be recorded with the County prior to building permit sign-off. BACKGROUND The project consists of demolishing two structures on three separate parcels, merging the parcels to construct a new four-story, 26-unit live/work development with retail commercial space on the Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Tentative & Final Subdivision Map March 4, 2019 (PM 18-05) at 619-625 California Drive 2 ground floor, and completion of a subdivision map for the sale of the units at 615-621 California Drive. On September 24, 2018, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the tentative subdivision map. Staff has reviewed the map and recommends its approval subject to the above conditions. Exhibits: • Resolution • Final Subdivision Map • September 24, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL (PM 18-05), LOT MERGER AND RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS L, M AND N, BLOCK 6, MAP OF BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY NO. 2 SUBDIVISION AT 619-625 CALIFORNIA DRIVE The City Council of the City of Burlingame resolves as follows: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved the tentative parcel map for the property described in this resolution’s title on September 24, 2018; and WHEREAS, City staff recommends City Council approve the parcel map with the following conditions: 1. All frontage sidewalks, driveways, and curb and gutter within the public right-of-way shall be replaced with new improvements. 2. The existing structures must be demolished before the map can be recorded. 3. A final parcel map must be filed by the applicant within the two-year time period as allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. 4. No developmental approvals are part of this mapping action. 5. All property corners shall be set in the field and be shown on the map. 6. The final map shall show the widths of the right-of-way for California Drive, Oak Grove Avenue, and Floribunda Avenue including the centerlines of right-of-way, bearings and distances of centerline and any existing monuments in the roadway. 7. The developer is required to underground all utilities that service the project. 8. Permanent stormwater pollution prevention treatment measures and maintenance agreements are required for the development in compliance with the State regulations. Said agreements shall be recorded with the County prior to building permit sign-off. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED BY THE COUNCIL, AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Final Parcel Map (PM 18-06) with the conditions described above is approved. 2. Staff is directed to verify that all conditions of approval are met and arrange for the recording of the tentative and final parcel map. __________________________ Donna Colson, Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4th day of March, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: __________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, September 24, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Keylon, and Acting City Attorney Sheryl Schaffner. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and TsePresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft August 27, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft August 27, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.pdfAttachments: A motion was made by Commissioner Terrones, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the meeting minutes with corrections previously submitted. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS a.Community Center - Design Presentation Staff Report Community Center Rendering Attachments: Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Karen Hager, represented the applicant, with project architects Jonathan Hartman and Carolyn Carlbert. Commission Questions/Comments: •Do you have an outside bathroom near the playground? (Carlbert: The outside bathroom is located adjacent to the community center.) Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes •Would the outside bathroom be open at all times? Currently there is a bathroom facility by the basketball court. (Hager: The bathroom facility recently replaced by the basketball court will remain . This will be an additional bathroom which will be available to the public even when the community center will not be open, however it will not be open all of the time due to safety concerns. It will be locked automatically by a timer when the park is considered to be closed at sunset.) •In working through the project with the advisory committee, it has been rewarding to see the pavilion aspects to the design and organization come through. •The three identifying masses and features of the building are really coming through both with the organization and functions within the building. •Indoor/outdoor quality of pavilions, the materials and systems the architects are employing emphasize the delightful aspect of the flow of the building. •Richness of materials and the palette will be outstanding. •It’s starting to feel like a featured building for the community that has the potential to be beloved, relative to the existing tired community center. •Heading in the right direction as a people’s place. Public Comments: There were no public comments. There was no action taken by the Planning Commission as this was an informational presentation only. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.1408 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for new construction (major renovation) of a two and a half story single family dwelling with the existing detached garage to remain. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Young & Borlik Architects, applicant and architect; Holli and John Rafferty, property owners) (107 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 1408 Bernal Ave - Staff Report 1408 Bernal Ave - Attachments.pdf 1408 Bernal Ave - Plans - 09.24.18 Attachments: Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve Item 7a on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Recused:Sargent1 - b.2515 Poppy Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc ., applicant and designer; Alvin Yang, property owner) (137 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2515 Poppy Dr - Staff Report 2515 Poppy Dr - Attachments 2515 Poppy Dr - Plans - 09.24.18 Attachments: Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve Item 7b on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1433 Floribunda Avenue, zoned R -3 - Application for Design Review, Condominium Permit, Conditional Use Permit for building height and Tentative Condominium Map for a new 4-story, 8-unit residential condominium building (Melinda Kao, applicant; Levy Design Partners, architect; Accelerate Holdings LLC, property owner) (367 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Sta1433 Floribunda Ave - Staff Report 1433 Floribunda Ave - Attachments 1433 Floribunda Ave - MND Addendum 1433 Floribunda Ave - IS/MND 1433 Floribunda Ave - Plans - 09.24.18 1433 Floribunda Ave - Memorandum - Tentative Condominium Map 1433 Floribunda Ave - Tentative Condominium Map Attachments: Chair Gaul was recused from this item as he owns property within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Casey Feeser of Levy Design Partners, architect, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: •Trying to understand new entry form. Like the change that has been made to the turret. •There is a single door on lower level of wood box element. Door has no glazing, correct? (Feeser: It would be a perforated metal panel door or a wooded slat door.) •Do the two windows above the front entry area look into the lobby area? (Feeser: Two punched openings would be into the double height space with the stairway in it.) •Regarding entry way form, talked about identifying the entry and providing a shelter from the elements . Did you consider adding some type of overhang? (Feeser: Entire stair is covered by the third floor deck . Also added canopy above front entry door; believe it was added after the revised plans were submitted.) •What does the canopy look like and what material will be used? (Feeser: Canopy will be a metal frame with glass or perforated metal, something solid.) Public Comments: Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no public comments. Vice-Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: •Like changes on west elevation façade, regularizing that façade makes a lot of sense. •Still concerned with the front entry, it ’s not very inviting and seems closed. Canopy helps, but feels very solid and not very inviting. •Stairway in modernist apartment building at corner of Adeline Drive and El Camino Real has exposed stairway, is inviting and see pedestrian activity. Entry is threshold between public and private spaces . This project feels extremely private and shut off from Floribunda Avenue. Should reconsider design of front entry element. •Primary entrance is not very inviting and secondary entrance on west side is not identifiable. There is something wrong with the engagement of the building with the public realm; needs to be looked at again and opened up somehow. •Project is greatly improved and has come a long way. •Entry is uninviting; perhaps reducing the planter adjacent to the entry, to allow for double glazed doors, or a glazed door with a sidelight. Needs something to make lobby an inviting space, especially because it’s right on the street. Perhaps these changes can return as an FYI. •Generally program is supportable, reviewed it from a CEQA standpoint and project needs to move forward. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application with the following condition: •that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an FYI for Planning Commission review of a redesigned front entry, with the direction to make the entry and lobby more open and inviting, which could include elements such as an entrance canopy, a wider entry landing and double glazed entry doors. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse6 - Recused:Gaul1 - b.212 Howard Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing two -story single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Steve Lesley, applicant and architect; Jason and Anya Sole, property owners) (133 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 212 Howard Ave - Staff Report 212 Howard Ave - Attachments 212 Howard Ave - Plans -09.24.18.pdf Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Steven Lesley, project architect, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: •On new front elevation, will the existing living room window be kept? (Lesley: Will not be changing this window, but all of the existing white vinyl windows, including the living room window, will be painted to match darker trim. New windows will be a dark fiber glass clad wood window to match trim.) •Plans need to be corrected to indicate that all new windows will be fiberglass clad wood. •Based on fenestration patterns and proportion of windows throughout the house, window assembly in master bedroom facing backyard seems fairly large. Feel that collectively they should be narrower. Can you consider making them narrower to match other window collections in the house? (Lesley: Client prefers a larger window opening because they wanted to bring more natural light and visibility into the room.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: •Project is improved. •Reduced plate heights, simplified roofs, unified eave details and added minor details and character make it a better project; is approvable at this point. •Still concerned with size of master bedroom and front living room windows, could still be improved. •Like changes, project has come a long way, is approvable. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Nay:Comaroto1 - c.2108 Clarice Lane, zoned R-2 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing one -story duplex dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jaime Rapadas, AR Design Group applicant and architect; Janice and Richard Samuelson, property owners) (77 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 2108 Clarice Ln - Staff Report 2108 Clarice Ln - Attachments 2108 Clarice Ln - Plans - 09.24.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jaime Rapadas, project architect, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: •Plans show that vinyl windows will be used. However, applicant's letter indicates another window type will be considered. Please explain. (Rapadas: It’s the same vinyl frame, but will be using the same grid patterns to match existing windows on first floor.) •Will the windows contain simulated true divided lites or grids between the glass? (Rapadas: Windows will be simulated true divided lites.) •Plans should then be corrected to indicate that windows will contain simulated true divided lites. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: •Like the revisions, particularly on left side elevation. Articulation along that fa çade, with the bump outs in bathrooms helps with the massing and gives logical location for terminating the vertical siding. •Add specific condition to project in regards to the simulated true divided lites for clarity. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application with the following condition: •that the simulated true divided lites for the new windows shall consist of dimensional muntins on both the interior and exterior surface of the dual glazing with a dividing bar in between the glazing not muntins in between the glass or on the interior only. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - d.619-625 California Drive, zoned C-2 (North California Drive Commercial District) - Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, Condominium Permit, and Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Parcel Map for a new four -story, 26-Unit live/work development with retail commercial space on the ground floor. (Ellis A. Schoichet, AIA, applicant and architect; Ed 1005 BM LLC, property owner) (239 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 619-625 California Dr - Staff Report 619-625 California Dr - Attachments 619-625 California Dr - Final ISMND 619-625 California Dr - Draft ISMND 619-625 California Dr - MMRP 619-625 California Dr - Renderings - Color Board - Siding Specifications 619-625 California Dr - Plans - 09.24.18 619-625 California Dr - Tentative Condominium and Tentative Parcel Map Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Tse and Loftis met with the applicant. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. •Page 4 of staff report indicates that the maximum building height allowed is 75 feet, is that correct? (Hurin: No, the maximum height allowed is 55 feet, will correct the staff report.) •We don’t have a breakdown of the public impact fees, but is the fee stated in the staff report correct? (Hurin: Yes, it is correctly stated in the staff report.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Ellis Schoichet, project architect, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: •What is the average unit size for the residential units? (Schoichet: Unit sizes vary between 900 and 1,100 square feet; average is approximately 1,000 square feet.) •Point out CERACLAD "Cannonball" siding on proposed building elevations and materials board . (Schoichet: CERACLAD "Cannonball" is noted with a different keynote on plans. It is proposed to be used on panels with a horizontal reveal.) •Rendering is deceiving because it makes the building very grey and monotone. •Concerned that the color disappeared and looks monochromatic. (Schoichet: There will be several stucco colors and a palette of textures, from very smooth to slightly textured. Idea of using CERACLAD fiber cement panels on fourth floor is to have it be fog like. Horizontal CERACLAD is intended to be in more highly visible locations at the base and shaft of the building. Porcelain panels in a gray, stone texture are proposed in and around storefronts on ground floor. Provided examples of similar palette of materials on building in San Francisco.) •What is happening with the glazing? (Schoichet: Want to have maximum glazing for light into the units and also for the aesthetic of the building, but at same time don ’t want people on street looking up into the units. So a spandrel panel, consisting of fritted glazing, would be used across the bottom of the windows . Fritted glazing would also be used on some of the storefronts.) •How deep are fourth floor private terraces? Specifically concerned with the terraces at the rear of the building. At 12 feet wide by 47 and 49 feet long, they seem large. (Schoichet: Yes, they are large. With all that roof space, it’s what we’ve decided to do.) •There is an 8.5 foot wide curb cut on California Drive. Is it just for trash removal? (Schoichet: Yes, it’s just for the dumpsters.) •Is curb cut on California Drive reason for removal of the Magnolia street tree? (Schoichet: This is a 13-inch diameter tree and is not in very good shape. Curb cut would require removal of the tree.) •Have you considered replacing it with another tree? (Schoichet: Believe there is another existing tree next to it, so did not consider adding a new street tree.) •Understand traffic study and traffic flow and am familiar with that intersection. Given that westbound Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Oak Grove Avenue is one lane, am concerned about impacts from someone wanting to turn left into site off Oak Grove Avenue. Has consideration been given to something like painting “keep clear” in the street, like you would see at an approach to a left hand turn? (Schoichet: Would like to leave it to the experts, but my understanding is that the Public Works Department doesn ’t want to make a permanent sign/marker in street.) •Corner plaza area could turn into natural high school meeting spot before and after school for student drop off and pick up; could increase amount of traffic at intersection. (Schoichet: Curb will be painted red at corner to prevent vehicles from stopping there.) •Red zone will be from project driveway to corner along Oak Grove Avenue? (Schoichet: Currently, red zone starts at middle of proposed driveway and extends to the corner and will remain. Mitigation measure from traffic report calls for a red zone from project driveway to west end of property to maximize visibility from driveway and enhance safety of vehicles exiting the site.) •Find balance by brown color shown in commercial space on rendering; compliments and offsets cool, light colors on rest of building. Seems like there should be some counter balance to colors, consider adding warmth to finishes. (Schoichet: Point is well taken.) •Design has moved along nicely. Public Comments: •Danelle Renks: Longtime resident and live around the corner. What buildings are being demolished and are they currently occupied? (Schoichet: Two houses on corner and existing auto shop will be demolished. Corner building is being used as an office, there is a short term tenant in building behind it and an automobile shop in the commercial building). Concerned that current occupants are being moved out. Think this is a beautiful building, should use green building materials and greywater system to irrigate landscaping. Concerned with traffic, Oak Grove Avenue is major thoroughfare to freeway, Carolan Avenue, California Drive and high school. Would like to see construction vehicle parking moved to Caltrain parking lot to alleviate traffic jams. •Sam Jones, Coffee Family Trust: Own apartment building across street. Trying to reconcile results of the traffic study, see backups of 10-15 cars all the time and area of proposed driveway constantly blocked with cars. Perhaps studies were done when school was not in session, there is a lot of traffic generated from parents dropping off and picking up kids. Intersection is a mess, traffic impacts are not just during peak hours. •Elma Kim: Lives in neighborhood, in support of project, important that there are live /work opportunities provided, needed for entrepreneurs coming to this area. Trusting the Commission and community to find the right solution for the traffic. In morning, experience traffic along Oak Grove Avenue wanting to make a left or right turn onto California Drive. Question veracity and honesty of traffic study. Vehicles will not be able to turn left into the project site off Oak Grove Avenue due to vehicles driving towards California Drive . There is a potential for traffic accidents because cars whip around onto Oak Grove Avenue assuming there will be no hindrances. Would like to see ingress on California Drive. Don't think there should be a left hand turn from project driveway. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: •Concerned with traffic impacts in area, should be looked at a bit closer. Didn’t see in traffic study where ingress and egress to the site was addressed. See vehicle backup on Oak Grove Avenue approaching California Drive all the time. •Green zone along California Drive for pick -up and delivery may or may not work, needs to be discussed with Public Works Department. •With 26 live/work units and two commercial spaces, believe there will be deliveries made every day and am concerned there is no area provided for deliveries. A space for delivery vehicles is critical. •Uber and Lyft may also have an impact on traffic. •Is the transportation consultant selected by the applicant or City? (Hurin: After reviewing proposals Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from environmental consultants, the City selects an environmental consultant who has a subconsultant prepare the traffic analysis; the City, not the applicant, manages the environmental consultant.) •Traffic studies often don't match a gut feeling one has about traffic will be impacted by a project . When analyzing projects, need to use best analytical tools available. •Like the direction the architecture has gone, this is a good looking building. The zoning is appropriate for this kind of project in this area. •Like idea of having retail here. Will tie in really nicely to retail node north of this site. •Having a hard time with the corner location and how the architecture is treated. Most visible part of this project is going to be what’s visible from the corner of Oak Grove Avenue and California Drive. •Downtown Specific Plan talks about corner locations as being important and having special architectural requirements. Corner is least architecturally inviting part of the building. •Like direction of architecture, it has an elegant, timeless quality. However, project still needs warmth, needs to be studied further. •Regarding traffic, we shouldn't ever rely on gut feel. We have to rely on engineering and calculations, as required by CEQA. Need to analyze whether or not something rises to the level of impact that causes any further mitigation relative to CEQA. •Should look at traffic controls in an out of the driveway, because of its specific location. Many of the issues of the specific location are relative somewhat to peak periods. •There is a real intensity in mornings because of the elementary school and high school in the area. •Could ask Public Works to comment on whether or not there should be traffic controls at project driveway. •Overall good project and adds housing units in great location. We have an opportunity to create housing in an area where we need it. •Have better potential to serve our downtown area with housing in locations such as this. •Have questions for traffic consultant if he is available. Chair Gaul reopened the public hearing. Gary Black, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, was present to answer questions. •Can you explain how trips are analyzed for live /work developments? Are the morning trips eliminated because residents are working from their units? (Black: Typically treat live /work units as saying that those two factors offset each other, so in the traffic study they are treated as typical apartment units in terms of trip generation.) •That doesn’t mean that you’ve eliminated people leaving to go to work. (Black: No, we haven’t.) •Just because this is a live /work building, there is no guarantee that someone won ’t have a job elsewhere. (Black: There may also be units that have more than one employed person living there . Traffic study reflects people going to work in the morning.) •So this trip generation has been accommodated in the traffic study and in the level of service analysis that’s done for the intersections nearby? (Black: Yes.) •Has any consideration been given to left hand turns into site and blocking Oak Grove Avenue? (Black: Yes, it was addressed in the traffic study on page 14. It discusses the average and maximum queue length at the signal and whether that would extend back to the driveway to create the situation where a vehicle wants to turn left into the site and the driveway is blocked. Traffic study concludes that it would happen rarely and project doesn't generate that much traffic. The busiest time on Oak Grove Avenue heading towards California Drive is in the morning when people are going to school. Generally, residents from this project would be leaving the site in the morning, not coming in; they tend to come into the site in the afternoon. There is not as much traffic on Oak Grove Avenue in the afternoon based on our traffic counts. So the situation you ’re envisioning will be infrequent. The average queue length, even in the morning, based on our observations and calculations, does not go back as far as the driveway . Sometimes, when the maximum queue is reached, it does go back to the driveway and past the driveway . We also have to consider that if we ’re going to have a project, there needs to be a driveway somewhere, and in our opinion the driveway is in the best location that you could put a driveway. It’s as far away from California Drive as you can get it; would not recommend a driveway on California Drive. Driveway controls Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes are not necessary, don’t see that there would be left turn conflicts on a regular basis.) •When preparing a traffic study, you ’re not just using a book and applying the data to the real world, you’re actually taking counts, correct? (Black: Yes, we counted traffic on Oak Grove Avenue and California Drive. The am and pm peak hour counts are provided in the traffic study; also make observations on how traffic operates during these times. The counts were done while school was in session.) •Traffic study as part of General Plan updated noted areas of concern. Was this intersection one of those areas? (Hurin: Believe areas of concern included the intersection at Broadway and the Oak Grove Avenue/Carolan Avenue intersection.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Continued Discussion: •Project has come a long way, no longer feels like a cartoon, feels like a real building now. Don’t think the colors are right yet. However, the materials are much more substantial. Renderings are not helping because they’re so stark. •Materials can be fine-tuned, but that shouldn’t stop the project from moving forward. •Concerned about the large private terraces at rear of building facing the residential neighborhood . Suggest that roof planters be added to reduce size of usable area; should be substantially reduced . Could come back for review as an FYI if we move forward with project. •Like where project is going, appreciate adding more trees in rear yard. Agree that terraces are too large, concerned with noise from activity on terraces traveling to neighbors, size of terraces need to be reduced. •Like design of building, the stepped back fourth floor and dip in roof, takes away from hard edges around building. •No matter what is built, traffic will be a problem for people living in area. City has changed over the years, can’t expect small projects to be built any longer at these locations. •Unfortunate that at some points during the day traffic will be a problem, will be felt by people living in area, but reality is that someone living in a house at that corner is gone. •Live/work in Burlingame is still an experiment, but this building in its high traffic location is proper place to try live/work to see if it will be successful. Think project will be successful. •Concerned with stairwell design at corner, is tallest part of building and is stark and blank. Would like design of stairwell to be looked at again. •Should look at Section 5.2.5.7 of the Downtown Specific Plan regarding fa çade treatments on corner parcels. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application with the following condition: •that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an FYI for Planning Commission review to address the following items: 1) refine the exterior color palette by working in some warmth and depth; 2) revisit the size of the roof terraces, particularly those at the rear of the building facing the adjacent neighbor; and 3) revisit the articulation of the stairwell at the corner of the building, including adding glazing to soften the stairwell. Commission discussion: •Broad to say study articulation on the corner, can we say anything more specific? Perhaps introducing glazing to soften the stairwell, reduce its apparent size and be more interesting. Would not be as solid and would see more life in that corner. •Proposed ground level treatment at corner is significant, this is what most people will see. Pedestrians will experience seating, trees and vegetation. Treatment of stairwell at corner with the vegetation could be very nice. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes •Not in support of motion, feel that approval is premature given concerns with the design of the stairwell at the corner, merits more consideration by the applicant. •FYI can be brought back for further discussion. Have seen project several times and applicant has made significant improvements, need to move on and take action. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Nay:Sargent1 - e.1128-1132 Douglas Avenue, zoned R -4 - Application for Amendment to Design Review and Side Setback Variance for a previously approved new five -story, 27-unit multi-family residential building with below -grade parking (Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc ., applicant and architect; Jianguang Zhang, property owner) (391 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1128-1132 Douglas Ave - Staff Report 1128-1132 Douglas Ave - Attachments 1128-1132 Douglas Ave - Addendum to EIR 1128-1132 Douglas Ave - Final EIR 1128-1132 Douglas Ave - Draft EIR 1128-1132 Douglas Ave - MMRP 1128-1132 Douglas Ave - Plans - 09.24.18 Attachments: Commissioner Terrones and Commissioner Comaroto indicated that they will recuse themselves from the discussion as they have business relationships with the property owner; they left the City Council Chambers. Commissioner Terrones noted that he would not be returning for the remainder of the meeting. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Wayne Lin, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: •Is the whole building shifting over, or just the wing wall? (Lin: It’s a combination of both; based on the shared driveway easement along the right side of the property, preserving the existing trees at the front of the lot and widening the driveway width to the garage as required by code. Architecturally, feel wing wall should shift to match the driveway width.) •You’re saying that because of requirement to maintain the shared driveway, a larger setback is required along the right side of the property than is required by code, correct? (Lin: Yes.) •By setting back fifth floor further, are balconies getting larger? (Lin: Yes, balconies on fifth floor are larger, but massing of building is being reduced.) •Is the building in a different location than it was when it was originally approved? (Lin: No.) Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes •Variance is for wing wall only, correct? (Lin: Correct.) Public Comments: •Alex Mortazavi: Own property immediately adjacent to project site at 1124 Douglas Avenue. Supports project, as a whole project is improved, is much better project for the residents. Helps us by not having additional cars using shared driveway, 8-foot wide driveway is narrow. Most impacts have been eliminated . Was concerned about drainage, but recreation area at rear of site will take a lot of the surface water away . Will have view of solid wall at the kitchen, two metal doors and one roll -up door, will feel like a commercial property. Also concerned that recess in building along driveway will invite vehicle parking for furniture deliveries and catering, any vehicles parked there would disturb ingress and egress to our property . Would like to see a condition of approval to not allow vehicle access to that side of the building or add planters between two metal doors to have view of some greenery. •John Root, 1133 Douglas Avenue: Representing home owner ’s association at 1133 Douglas Avenue. Generally, changes that have been made are positive. Do want to point out a few things that need to be emphasized that have already approved in the mitigation monitoring program. They include development of a plan for providing worker parking off -site and generally off neighborhood streets, designating a community liaison person, active monitoring and enforcement of tree protection program, and acknowledging working hours. Suggest that we be given periodic updates of project construction and inclusion on the advanced notice list for construction noise and vibration. •Danelle Renks, next door neighbor: Concerned that bedroom wall is on property line, how that will be addressed during construction. Also concerned about dumpster behind property, not sure if it ’s on subject property. Agree with concerns raised by previous speakers. Would like existing oak and maple trees to be protected and retained for privacy along right side property line. Would also like arborist to be on-site during construction. Concerned about noise from a /c units and lighting and how that will affect us . Also concerned about the shadow effect of a five story building. Don't want to see any vehicles from this project using the shared driveway. •Neighbor (no name provided): Live next door to proposed building, don't want to see delivery vehicles using the shared driveway and area at rear, is too narrow for large vehicles. Wayne Lin provide the following responses to public comments: Roll-up gate is for electrical room, prevents people or vehicles entering that area. Can consider adding more landscaping in recess area to soften edge and provide something better for neighbors to look at. Off-site parking for workers has been addressed in the construction documents; everyone will be parked off -site unless there are deliveries being made, which will be coned off and noticed in advance of the scheduled delivery. A certified arborist will be on-site during construction of underground garage; monthly reports will be provided regarding the health and condition of the tree. Will be actively involved in notifying neighbors regarding noise, heavy machinery or any planned power outages. Noise in building will be controlled according to industry standards, windows will be double -paned and a/c units will be on rooftop, so there will be minimum noise coming from units. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: •These are all positive changes, building is more articulated, and appears lower than it was. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lofits, to approve the application. Commission discussion: •Think neighbors request for periodic updates and inclusion on advanced notice list is reasonable. Should this be a condition of approval? (Hurin: Will be included in pre-construction meeting with the applicant, don’t need to include as specific condition of approval.) Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes •In this case there is a unique requirement to maintain the existing shared driveway and provide a new driveway to the underground garage, therefore can make findings for side setback variance. •Previous project concerns have been addressed and eliminated, like that parking has been brought down underneath the building. •See neighbor’s concerns about the right side of building being stark, may want to look at screening this area with landscaping. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Tse5 - Recused:Comaroto, and Terrones2 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.229 Bloomfield Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second-story addition to a single -family dwelling. (Dale Meyer Associates, Dale Meyer, applicant and designer; Rob and Kristin Flenniken, property owners) (135 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal 229 Bloomfiled Rd - Staff Report 229 Bloomfield Rd - Attachment 229 Bloomfield Rd - Plans - 9.24.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, project designer, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: •Appears that there is an error on the Front Elevation, existing upper roof should extend to the edge of existing second floor window. (Meyer: Will review and correct plans.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: •Nice, straight forward project. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Chair Gaul, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Tse6 - Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Terrones1 - b.1422 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a major renovation (new construction) for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling and a new detached garage (RC Wehmeyer, applicant and designer; Kamal and Pritee Thakarsey, property owners) (163 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 1422 Capucino Ave - Staff Report 1422 Capucino Ave - Attachments 1422 Capuchino Ave - Plans - 09.24.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Rob Wehmeyer, project designer, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: •Overall this is a nice design. •There appears to be a lot of stone veneer, will it actually get built? (Wehmeyer: Yes, owner intends to build it as shown. Combination of stone veneer and cedar shingles will look really nice and add character to the neighborhood.) •Wrought iron rail not typically seen on craftsman style house. Have you given any thought to using a different material? (Wehmeyer: Wrought iron railing allows more natural light in, looks lighter, is not as heavy and bulky as a wall would be if wood pickets were used. Client would rather see the stonework and not a picket railing.) •Don't typically review color because it can be changed. However, on a metal roof the color will remain for a long time. What color were you think of using on the metal roof? (Wehmeyer: Have discussed using a darker roof color, don't want a reflective quality off roof). •When project returns, provide something that is more definitive on metal roof color, want to avoid bright color. •Why are there two different roof types (Wehmeyer: Looked at different layouts and designs, client prefers metal roof on lower roof and shingles on upper roof, in line with other two story houses in neighborhood.) •Chimney cap on East Elevation looks small for size of chimney, make more proportional and bigger. •Consider using cable rail system instead of wrought iron, would work better with the metal roof. •Add note on plans to place pipe inside wall and recess electrical panel; location could be problematic on driveway side and aesthetically it would look better. (Wehmeyer: Preference is to keep it hidden, but there were a lot of PG&E issues encountered on that block. Preference is to bring main service into garage, then underground from garage to house.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes •Would like to see the general range of the intended roof color, including a sample or picture of the proposed metal roof. •Wrought iron railing doesn't seem appropriate for this house, not sure about the cable rail system because this is not a contemporary design. The right material for this craftsman style house would be wood. •Cable rail would match the metal roof better. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Commission Discussion: As previously noted, we typically don't specify roof color, but this is one area where we have asked for specifications before. I think in this case the plans should specify the roof color. Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Tse6 - Absent:Terrones1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS At their meeting on September 17, 2018, the City Council adopted an ordinance amending the City ’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations and adopted an ordinance regulating cannabis on a permanent basis. The Council also introduced an ordinance amending the hotel /motel parking requirement to allow a reduction in required parking to be requested through a Conditional Use Permit; the Council is scheduled to adopt the ordinance at its next meeting on October 1st. a.815 Maple Avenue - FYI for changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 815 Maple Ave - Memo 815 Maple Ave - Attachments Attachments: Accepted. b.823 Edgehill Drive - FYI for proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 823 Edgehill Dr - FYI - Memo 823 Edgehill Dr - FYI - Attachments Attachments: Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on September 24, 2018. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on October 4, 2018, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $551, which includes noticing costs. Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 10/24/2018 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8d MEETING DATE: March 4, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: March 4, 2019 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the California Drive Complete Streets Project by Chrisp Company, City Project No. 84540 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the California Drive Complete Streets Project by Chrisp Company, City Project No. 84540, in the amount of $441,492. BACKGROUND On July 2, 2018, the City Council awarded the California Drive Complete Streets Project to Chrisp Company in the amount of $438,420. The project is located on California Drive from Broadway to Murchison Drive and consisted of the following: • Construction of dedicated Class II bike lanes for both northbound and southbound directions between Murchison Drive and Mills Avenue. Bicycle lanes included green paint enhancements within the bike lanes and at driveways and intersections for additional safety highlights. • Buffered bike lanes that provide separation between bicyclists and motorists in select sections. • Enhanced pedestrian crosswalks at major crossings and new crosswalks on various side streets. • Newly constructed storm drain inlets on the east side that maintain drainage capacity while improving safety and comfort for bicyclists. • New ADA curb ramp and storm drain inlet at Dufferin Avenue to increase drainage capacity. • Replacement of 800 linear feet of damaged curb and gutter along the east side of California Drive to improve storm water drainage. DISCUSSION The project has been satisfactorily completed in compliance with the plans and specifications. The final construction cost is $441,492, which is $3,072 higher than the original contract award amount, and is within the approved budget contingencies. Cost savings were identified by utilizing an alternative state-approved green paint, which allowed for the repair of 800 linear feet of damaged curb and gutter. Adoption of a Resolution Accepting California Drive Complete March 4, 2019 Streets Project, City Project 84540, by Chrisp Company 2 FISCAL IMPACT The following are the estimated final project expenditures: Construction $441,492 Engineering Design & Administration $23,000 Total $464,492 Funding Availability: There are adequate funds available in the Capital Improvement Program to cover the total project costs. Exhibits: • Resolution • Final Payment Summary • Project Location Map RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ACCEPTING THE CALIFORNIA DRIVE COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT BY CHRISP COMPANY. CITY PROJECT NO. 84540 RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, which finds, orders and determines as follows: 1. The Director of Public Works has certified that the work done by Chrisp Company, under the terms of its contract with the City dated July 24, 2018, has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 2. The work is particularly described as City Project No. 84540. 3. The work is accepted. __________________________ Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4th day of March, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ____________________________ City Clerk CONTRACTOR: Chrisp Company DATE : ADDRESS: 43650 Osgood Road Final FOR THE MONTH OF : Fremont, CA 94539 PURCHASE ORDER #14850 ***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** ITEM ::UNIT :BID :UNIT :BID :QUANTITY :%:AMOUNT :PREVIOUS :AMOUNT #:ITEM DESCRIPTION :PRICE :QUANTITY :SIZE :AMOUNT :TO DATE :PAID :TO DATE :PAID :THIS PMT. ***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** 1 :MOB AND DEMOB (5% ITMES 3-23):11,400.00$ :1 :LS :11,400.00$ :1.0 :100.00%:11,400.00$ :-$ :11,400.00$ 2 :TRAFFIC CONTROL :40,000.00$ :1 :LS :40,000.00$ :1.00 :100.00%:40,000.00$ :-$ :40,000.00$ 3 :REMOVE THERMO STRIPING :1.60$ :12,400 :LF :19,840.00$ :14,237.00 :114.81%:22,779.20$ :-$ :22,779.20$ 4 :REMOVE PAVEMENT MARKINGS :100.00$ :81 :EA :8,100.00$ :90.00 :111.11%:9,000.00$ :-$ :9,000.00$ 5 :REPLACE CATCH BASIN GRATE :2,000.00$ :9 :EA :18,000.00$ :10.00 :111.11%:20,000.00$ :-$ :20,000.00$ 6 :ADJUST CATCH BASIN APRON, :9,000.00$ :9 :EA :81,000.00$ :6.00 :66.67%:54,000.00$ :-$ :54,000.00$ 7 :INSTALL SINGLE SIGN AND POST :450.00$ :13 :EA :5,850.00$ :13.00 :100.00%:5,850.00$ :-$ :5,850.00$ 8 :INSTALL MULTIPLE SIGNS ON POST :400.00$ :5 :EA :2,000.00$ :5.00 :100.00%:2,000.00$ :-$ :2,000.00$ 9 :DOUBLE YELLOW STRIPE :3.50$ :7,200 :LF :25,200.00$ :6,946.0 :96.47%:24,311.00$ :-$ :24,311.00$ 10 :8" WHITE STRIPE :3.00$ :630 :LF :1,890.00$ :680.0 :107.94%:2,040.00$ :-$ :2,040.00$ 11 :6" BIKE LANE STRIPE :2.00$ :17,200 :LF :34,400.00$ :15,733.0 :91.47%:31,466.00$ :-$ :31,466.00$ 12 :6" DASHED BIKE LANE STRIPE :1.60$ :1,300 :LF :2,080.00$ :2,271.0 :174.69%:3,633.60$ :-$ :3,633.60$ 13 :4" STRIPE :1.00$ :600 :LF :600.00$ :1,973.0 :328.83%:1,973.00$ :-$ :1,973.00$ 14 :12" WHITE STRIPE :6.00$ :780 :LF :4,680.00$ :722.0 :92.56%:4,332.00$ :-$ :4,332.00$ 15 :CONTINENTAL CROSSWLAK MARKING :6.00$ :1,500 :SF :9,000.00$ :1,544.0 :102.93%:9,264.00$ :-$ :9,264.00$ 16 :YIELD LINE MARKING :100.00$ :2 :EA :200.00$ :2.0 :100.00%:200.00$ :-$ :200.00$ 17 :BIKE LANE MARKING :90.00$ :55 :EA :4,950.00$ :56.0 :101.82%:5,040.00$ :-$ :5,040.00$ 18 :BIKE BLVD MARKING :150.00$ :7 :EA :1,050.00$ :0.0 :0.00%:-$ :-$ :-$ 19 :SHARROW BIKE MARKING :85.00$ :23 :EA :1,955.00$ :29.0 :126.09%:2,465.00$ :-$ :2,465.00$ 20 :STOP MARKING :150.00$ :4 :EA :600.00$ :4.0 :100.00%:600.00$ :-$ :600.00$ 21 :ARROW MARKING :70.00$ :27 :EA :1,890.00$ :27.0 :100.00%:1,890.00$ :-$ :1,890.00$ 22 :DOOR ZONE MARKING :70.00$ :58 :EA :4,060.00$ :69.0 :118.97%:4,830.00$ :-$ :4,830.00$ 23 :IN LANE WORD MARKING :6.00$ :150 :SF :900.00$ :83.0 :55.33%:498.00$ :-$ :498.00$ 24 :GREEN PAVEMENT MARKING :21.75$ :7,300 :SF :158,775.00$ :0.0 :0.00%:-$ :-$ :-$ 50 :::::-$ :::-$ ::-$ 51 :::::-$ :::-$ ::-$ 52 :::::-$ :::-$ ::-$ 53 :::::-$ :::-$ ::-$ 54 :::::-$ :::-$ ::-$ SUBTOTAL 438,420.00$ 257,571.80$ :-$ :257,571.80$ PROJECT TOTAL 438,420.00$ 257,571.80$ -$ 257,571.80$ CHANGE ORDERS :CCO UNIT :CCO :UNIT :BID :QUANTITY :%:AMOUNT :PREVIOUS :AMOUNT #:DESCRIPTION :PRICE :QUANTITY :SIZE :AMOUNT :TO DATE :PAID :TO DATE :PAID :THIS PMT. ***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** CCO1 :ADD: R&R Curb and Gutter with AC :95.00$ :814 :LF :77,282.50$ :813.5 :100.00%:77,282.50$ :-$ :77,282.50$ CCO1 ADD: New Case C ADA Ramp with 12":14,652.00$ :1 :LS :14,652.00$ 1 :100.00%:14,652.00$ :-$ :14,652.00$ CCO1 Deduct: Recon Catch Basin Top at Inlets :1,012.00$ :-5 :EA :(5,060.00)$ -5 :100.00%:(5,060.00)$ :-$ :(5,060.00)$ CCO1 ADD: Add Sidewalk Replacement :16.00$ :682 :SF :10,912.00$ 682 :100.00%:10,912.00$ :-$ :10,912.00$ CCO1 ADD: Asphalt R&R Include Root Removal :17.00$ :632 :SF :10,735.50$ 631.5 :100.00%:10,735.50$ :-$ :10,735.50$ CCO1 ADD: Transpo Green Color Safe MMA 10.00$ 7,300 SF 73,000.00$ 7300 100.00%73,000.00$ -$ 73,000.00$ CCO2 Deduct: 12" White :6.00$ :-240 :LF :(1,440.00)$ 0 :0.00%:-$ :-$ :-$ TELEPHONE: 510-933-3939 CITY PROJECT NO. 84540 CITY OF BURLINGAME November 26, 2018 PAYMENT NO.November 1, 2018 California Drive Complete Streets Project CONTRACTOR: Chrisp Company DATE : ADDRESS: 43650 Osgood Road Final FOR THE MONTH OF : Fremont, CA 94539 PURCHASE ORDER #14850 ***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** ITEM ::UNIT :BID :UNIT :BID :QUANTITY :%:AMOUNT :PREVIOUS :AMOUNT #:ITEM DESCRIPTION :PRICE :QUANTITY :SIZE :AMOUNT :TO DATE :PAID :TO DATE :PAID :THIS PMT. ***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** TELEPHONE: 510-933-3939 CITY PROJECT NO. 84540 CITY OF BURLINGAME November 26, 2018 PAYMENT NO.November 1, 2018 California Drive Complete Streets Project CCO2 :Deduct: Detail 22 Stripe :3.00$ :-215 :LF :(645.00)$ :0 :0.00%:-$ :-$ :-$ CCO2 Deduct: 4" Yellow Stripe at 45 :1.00$ :-95 :LF :(95.00)$ :0 :0.00%:-$ :-$ :-$ CCO2 ADD: Continental Crosswalks :6.00$ :812 :SF :4,872.00$ :0 :0.00%:-$ :-$ :-$ CCO2 ADD: Relayout Centerline Detail 22 to 23 :4,800.00$ :1 :LS :4,800.00$ :0 :0.00%:-$ :-$ :-$ CCO2 ADD: Rhino Liner & Inlet Patch :6,088.00$ :1 :LS :6,088.00$ :0 :100.00%:-$ :-$ :-$ CC02 ADD: Custom Grate 2,398.00$ 1 LS 2,398.00$ 1 2,398.00$ -$ 2,398.00$ CHANGE ORDERS TOTAL 197,500.00$ 183,920.00$ :-$ :183,920.00$ DEDUCTIONS: ::::::::-$ ::-$ TOTAL DEDUCTIONS -$ -$ :-$ :-$ ***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** PREPARED BY: SUBTOTAL**************************************441,491.80$ :-$ :441,491.80$ LESS FIVE (5%) PERCENT RETENTION (22,074.59)$ :-$ :(22,074.59)$ CHECKED BY: **************************************************--------------------------------:------------------------------:----------------------------------------- APPROVED BY SUBTOTAL WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS 419,417.21$ :-$ :419,417.21$ APPROVED BY *************************************************--------------------------------:------------------------------:----------------------------------------- CONSULTANT: TOTAL THIS PERIOD *************************419,417.21$ :-$ :419,417.21$ **************************************************==================:=================:======================= 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8e MEETING DATE: March 4, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: March 4, 2019 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to Casey Construction, Inc., for the Easton Addition and City-Wide Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Phase 4, City Project No. 84192 and Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Professional Services Agreement with Bellecci & Associates for Construction Management Services Related to the Project RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions as follows: (1) Awarding a construction contract to Casey Construction, Inc., for the Easton Addition Sewer Rehabilitation Project with City-Wide Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation, Phase 4, in the amount of $1,282,978, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the same; and (2) Approving a professional services agreement with Bellecci & Associates in the amount of $170,443 for construction management services related to the project, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the same. BACKGROUND The Easton Addition and City-Wide Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Project is part of the overall sanitary sewer improvements in high-priority neighborhood areas identified in the 2010 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. These areas are known to have high infiltration and inflow of groundwater and storm water into the sanitary sewer system due to the age and dilapidated conditions of the pipelines. Phases 1, 2, and 3 were successfully completed in June 2017, January 2018, and September 2018, respectively. Phase 4 consists of constructing approximately 2,300 linear feet of a combination of 8-inch, 10-inch, 12-inch, and 21-inch sanitary sewer pipe lines in the Eastern Addition neighborhood, and various City-wide neighborhoods using an open-cut and trenchless construction method in the public right-of-way and in the easement areas. Other related work includes installation and replacement of manholes, cleanouts, and laterals by pipe bursting, or open cut, rehabilitation of manholes, temporary bypass pumping, connecting all laterals, and other related work. Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract and Approving a Professional Services March 4, 2019 Agreement for Easton Addition and City-Wide Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Project 2 DISCUSSION Construction Contract The project was advertised for bids on January 17, 2019. The City received seven sealed bid proposals, which were opened on February 19, 2019. The base bids ranged from $1,282,978 to $2,065,033. Casey Construction, Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder with the base bid amount of $1,282,978, which is 18% below the engineer’s estimate of $1,566,157. Staff has reviewed the contractor’s proposal, and the contractor has met all the project requirements. The contractor also has a track record of successfully performing similar work for neighboring public agencies. Professional Services Contract Bellecci & Associates was selected through a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process as the most qualified firm based on their experience with and knowledge of trenchless construction methods, construction within narrow easements, and having successfully completed similar projects, including Phase 2 and Phase 3, of the Easton Addition Project. Staff has negotiated the following scope of professional services with Bellecci & Associates for construction management and inspection services in the amount of $170,443: • Review, process, and approve pre-construction project drawings and submittals; • Attend and manage pre-construction meetings between the City and Contractor; • Review and advise the City on Contractor’s overall and weekly construction schedule; • Perform daily construction inspection and provide construction management services for 75 construction working days; • Prepare daily written construction reports and photographic records of the project; • Attend weekly construction progress meetings, perform necessary field engineering work, and perform independent quality assurance assessments; • Perform project close out inspections and develop final punch list; • Perform coordination of the submittal review and approvals with the design engineer; • Review and respond to requests for information and requests for contract change orders, and process construction progress payments; • Negotiate claims, liquidated damages, and final payment; and • Prepare final project recording drawings. The professional services fee amount represents approximately 13.3% of the estimated construction cost. The fee amount is consistent with industry standards for construction management and inspection services based on the scope and complexity of the project involving various methods of pipeline installation. The project construction is anticipated to begin in April 2019 and is expected to be completed by August 2019, barring no construction delays. Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract and Approving a Professional Services March 4, 2019 Agreement for Easton Addition and City-Wide Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Project 3 FISCAL IMPACT Estimated Project Expenditures The following are the estimated project construction expenditures: Construction Contract $1,282,978 Construction Management and Inspection $170,443 Construction Contingency 15% $218,013 Contract Administration $68,566 Total: $1,740,000 Funding Availability There are adequate funds available in the Sewer Capital Improvement Program to complete the project. Exhibits: • Resolution Awarding the Construction Contract • Resolution Approving the Professional Services Agreement • Bid Summary • Construction Contract • Professional Services Agreement • Project Location Map RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE EASTON ADDITION, SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT WITH CITY-WIDE NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REHABILITATION PHASE 4, TO CASEY CONSTRUCTION, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT CITY PROJECT NO. 84192 WHEREAS, on January 17, 2019, the City issued notice inviting bid proposals for the Easton Addition, Sewer Rehabilitation Project with City-wide Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation, Phase 4, City Project No. 84192; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 2019, all proposals were received and opened before the City Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, Casey Construction, Inc., submitted the lowest responsible bid for the job in the amount of $1,282,978. NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED, and ORDERED, that the Plans and Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted; and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid of Casey Construction, Inc., for said project in the amount of $1,282,978 is accepted; and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that a contract be entered into between the successful bidder and the City of Burlingame for the performance of said work, and that the City Manager is authorized on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute the contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor. ________________________ Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel , City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4th day of March, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: _________________________ City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BELLECCI & ASSOCIATES FOR THE EASTON ADDITION, SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT WITH CITY-WIDE NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REHABILITATION, PHASE 4, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT CITY PROJECT NO. 84192 RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California which FINDS, ORDERS and DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS: 1. The public interest and convenience require execution of the agreement cited in the title above. 2. The City Manager is authorized to sign said agreement on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 3. The City Clerk is instructed to attest such signature. _____________________________ Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4TH day of March, 2019 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: _____________________________ City Clerk BID DATE: FEB. 19, 2019CITY OF BURLINGAMEBID SUMMARYEASTON ADDITION AND CITY-WIDE NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT PHASE 4City Project No. 84192Page 1 of 6ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION OF ITEMESTIMATED QUANTITYUNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST 1 Remove and Replace Sidewalk 20 SF 30$ 600$ 15$ 300$ 30$ 600$ 2 Remove and Replace Curb and Gutter 20 LF 50$ 1,000$ 50$ 1,000$ 100$ 2,000$ 3 Remove and Replace Driveway 80 SF 40$ 3,200$ 20$ 1,600$ 30$ 2,400$ 4 Remove and Replace Valley Gutter 60 SF 50$ 3,000$ 20$ 1,200$ 50$ 3,000$ 5 Additional Asphalt Surface Repair 50 TON 250$ 12,500$ 200$ 10,000$ 250$ 12,500$ 6 Final AC Patching 14 SF 50$ 700$ 10$ 140$ 30$ 420$ 7 Preconstruction Potholing 8 EA 1,500$ 12,000$ 1,000$ 8,000$ 8,000$ 64,000$ 33,000$ 22,240$ 84,920$ A1 NPDES Compliance (not to exceed 1% of Base bid) 1 LS 1.0% 10,300$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$ A2Mobilization and Demobilization (not to exceed 3.5% of Base bid)1 LS 3.5% 35,900$ 21,100$ 21,100$ 27,000$ 27,000$ A3Construction Survey and Site Investigation (not to exceed 3.5% of Base bid)1 LS 3.5% 35,900$ 11,000$ 11,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ A4 Traffic Control 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$ 120,600$ 120,600$ 110,000$ 110,000$ A5 Realign Water Main and Appurtenances 2 EA 20,000$ 40,000$ 19,000$ 38,000$ 30,000$ 60,000$ A6 Abandon Existing Sanitary Sewer 274 LF 5$ 1,370$ 30$ 8,220$ 17$ 4,658$ A7 Remove Existing Sanitary Sewer 37 LF 50$ 1,850$ 250$ 9,250$ 20$ 740$ A8 New 8" SDR 26 PVC Sanitary Sewer (Open Cut) 34 LF 375$ 12,750$ 350$ 11,900$ 330$ 11,220$ A9 New 10" SDR 26 PVC Sanitary Sewer (Open Cut) 362 LF 475$ 171,950$ 220$ 79,640$ 240$ 86,880$ A10 New 12" SDR 26 PVC Sanitary Sewer (Open Cut) 150 LF 475$ 71,250$ 350$ 52,500$ 370$ 55,500$ A11 New 21" PS 115 PVC Sanitary Sewer (Open Cut) 102 LF 475$ 48,450$ 400$ 40,800$ 350$ 35,700$ A12 New 10" HDPE SS (HDD) 570 LF 350$ 199,500$ 200$ 114,000$ 170$ 96,900$ A13Remove and Replace Existing 12” Sanitary Sewer with 12" SDR 26 PVC Sanitary Sewer (Open Cut)18 LF 400$ 7,200$ 300$ 5,400$ 370$ 6,660$ A14Remove and Replace Existing 12” Sanitary Sewer with 15" SDR 26 PVC Sanitary Sewer (Open Cut)143 LF 425$ 60,775$ 300$ 42,900$ 300$ 42,900$ A15Remove and Replace Existing 15” Sanitary Sewer with 21" PS 115 PVC Sanitary Sewer (Open Cut)385 LF 500$ 192,500$ 300$ 115,500$ 350$ 134,750$ A16 Post-Construction Television Inspection 1764 LF 3$ 5,292$ 6$ 10,584$ 7$ 12,348$ A17 Connect to Existing Sanitary Sewer Manhole 4 EA 1,500$ 6,000$ 1,000$ 4,000$ 2,000$ 8,000$ A18Remove and Replace Existing Frame and Cover with Hinged Frame and Cover1 EA 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,400$ 1,400$ 2,000$ 2,000$ A19 Rehabilitate Existing Manhole and Replace Frame and Cover 3 EA 6,500$ 19,500$ 6,900$ 20,700$ 8,300$ 24,900$ A20 New 48” Type 1 Manhole (with or without drop) 3 EA 11,000$ 33,000$ 9,800$ 29,400$ 13,500$ 40,500$ A21 New 48" Type 3 Manhole (with or without drop) 5 EA 13,000$ 65,000$ 12,000$ 60,000$ 13,500$ 67,500$ A22Remove Existing Manhole and Replace with New 48" Type 1 Manhole1 EA 12,000$ 12,000$ 8,000$ 8,000$ 13,500$ 13,500$ A23Remove Existing Manhole and Replace with New 48" Type 3 Manhole3 EA 10,000$ 30,000$ 8,000$ 24,000$ 13,500$ 40,500$ A24 Remove Existing Manhole 1 EA 3,000$ 3,000$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 2,000$ A25 Install Pipe Stub (5-ft min) and Reconnect Existing Pipes 9 EA 1,800$ 16,200$ 1,000$ 9,000$ 2,000$ 18,000$ A26 Traffic Signal Loop Restoration 5 EA 2,500$ 12,500$ 1,200$ 6,000$ 1,000$ 5,000$ 1,108,687$ 848,894$ 940,156$ B1 NPDES Compliance (not to exceed 1% of Base bid) 1 LS 1.0% 3,800$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 2,000$ B2Mobilization and Demobilization (not to exceed 3.5% of Base bid)1 LS 3.5% 13,100$ 6,000$ 6,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ Mellon Engineering Inc. Inc. Engineer's Estimate Location A Subtotal:General Items Subtotal: Casey Construction LOCATION A - Cabrillo Ave; Hillside Drive; Cabrillo and Cortez EasementsGeneral Common Items (1-7)Location B - Chula Vista Ave Easement BID DATE: FEB. 19, 2019CITY OF BURLINGAMEBID SUMMARYEASTON ADDITION AND CITY-WIDE NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT PHASE 4City Project No. 84192Page 2 of 6ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION OF ITEMESTIMATED QUANTITYUNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST Mellon Engineering Inc. Inc. Engineer's Estimate Casey Construction B3Construction Survey and Site Investigation (not to exceed 3.5% of Base bid)1 LS 3.5% 13,100$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ B4 Traffic Control 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ 4,800$ 4,800$ 20,000$ 20,000$ B5 Remove and Replace Curb Drain and Inlet 1 EA 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 3,000$ 3,000$ B6 Abandon Existing Sanitary Sewer 1310 LF 5$ 6,550$ 50$ 65,500$ 9$ 11,135$ B7 New 8" PVC (Open Cut) 508 LF 375$ 190,500$ 300$ 152,400$ 300$ 152,400$ B8 New 10" PVC (Open Cut) 16 LF 400$ 6,400$ 200$ 3,200$ 400$ 6,400$ B9 Post-Construction Television Inspection 524 LF 3$ 1,572$ 6$ 3,144$ 7$ 3,668$ B10 Reconnect to Existing Sanitary Sewer Manhole 1 EA 1,500$ 1,500$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 2,000$ B11 Abandon Existing Manhole 1 EA 3,000$ 3,000$ 3,500$ 3,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ B12 Remove Existing Manhole 1 EA 3,000$ 3,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 2,000$ 2,000$ B13 New 36" Type 1 Manhole 3 EA 7,000$ 21,000$ 9,000$ 27,000$ 8,500$ 25,500$ B14 New 36" Type 2 Manhole 1 EA 7,000$ 7,000$ 9,000$ 9,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ B15 New 48" Type 1 Manhole 1 EA 9,000$ 9,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 13,500$ 13,500$ B16 Not Used - EA 8,000$ --- --- ---B17New 36" Type 1 Manhole and Lateral Extension at Chula Vista Sta 101+791 EA 12,000$ 12,000$ 13,200$ 13,200$ 18,000$ 18,000$ B18Remove Existing Manhole and Replace with New 36” Type 1 Manhole1 EA 7,500$ 7,500$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 8,500$ 8,500$ B19 Abandon Existing Sewer Lateral 8 EA 200$ 1,600$ 1,000$ 8,000$ 100$ 800$ B20 Replace and Extend Existing Sewer Lateral 7 EA 5,000$ 35,000$ 1,500$ 10,500$ 800$ 5,600$ B21 Replace Existing Sewer Lateral 10 EA 4,000$ 40,000$ 2,000$ 20,000$ 1,150$ 11,500$ B22 New or Replace Existing Sewer Cleanout 17 EA 1,000$ 17,000$ 500$ 8,500$ 710$ 12,070$ B23 Install Pipe Stub (5-ft min) and Reconnect Existing Pipes 4 EA 1,500$ 6,000$ 1,000$ 4,000$ 2,500$ 10,000$ 405,122$ 379,244$ 337,073$ C1 NPDES Compliance (not to exceed 1% of Base bid) 1 LS 1.0% 200$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 100$ 100$ C2Mobilization and Demobilization (not to exceed 3.5% of Base bid)1 LS 3.5% 600$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 500$ 500$ C3Construction Survey and Site Investigation (not to exceed 3.5% of Base bid)1 LS 3.5% 600$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 500$ 500$ C4 Traffic Control 1 LS 2,000$ 2,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 800$ 800$ C5 New 4" SDR 26 PVC (Open Cut) 16 LF 375$ 6,000$ 500$ 8,000$ 300$ 4,800$ C6 Post-Construction Television Inspection 16 LF 3$ 48$ 100$ 1,600$ 7$ 112$ C7 New 36" Type 1 Manhole 1 EA 7,000$ 7,000$ 14,000$ 14,000$ 11,000$ 11,000$ C8 Plug Existing Sewer Main 2 EA 200$ 400$ 500$ 1,000$ 100$ 200$ C9 New or Replace Existing 4” Sewer Cleanout 1 EA 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 2,000$ 2,000$ C10 Reconnect to Existing Sanitary Sewer Manhole 1 EA 1,500$ 1,500$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 200$ 200$ 19,348$ 32,600$ 20,212$ 1,566,157$ 1,282,978$ 1,382,361$ EASTON ADDITION PHASE 4 - TOTAL BASE BIDLocation B Subtotal:Location C Subtotal:Location C - Drake Ave Easement BID DATE: FEB. 19, 2019CITY OF BURLINGAMEBID SUMMARYEASTON ADDITION AND CITY-WIDE NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT PHASE 4City Project No. 84192Page 3 of 6ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION OF ITEMESTIMATED QUANTITYUNIT1 Remove and Replace Sidewalk 20 SF2 Remove and Replace Curb and Gutter 20 LF3 Remove and Replace Driveway 80 SF4 Remove and Replace Valley Gutter 60 SF5 Additional Asphalt Surface Repair 50 TON6 Final AC Patching 14 SF7 Preconstruction Potholing 8 EAA1 NPDES Compliance (not to exceed 1% of Base bid) 1 LSA2Mobilization and Demobilization (not to exceed 3.5% of Base bid)1LSA3Construction Survey and Site Investigation (not to exceed 3.5% of Base bid)1LSA4 Traffic Control 1 LSA5 Realign Water Main and Appurtenances 2 EAA6 Abandon Existing Sanitary Sewer 274 LFA7 Remove Existing Sanitary Sewer 37 LFA8 New 8" SDR 26 PVC Sanitary Sewer (Open Cut) 34 LFA9 New 10" SDR 26 PVC Sanitary Sewer (Open Cut) 362 LFA10 New 12" SDR 26 PVC Sanitary Sewer (Open Cut) 150 LFA11 New 21" PS 115 PVC Sanitary Sewer (Open Cut) 102 LFA12 New 10" HDPE SS (HDD) 570 LFA13Remove and Replace Existing 12” Sanitary Sewer with 12" SDR 26 PVC Sanitary Sewer (Open Cut)18 LFA14Remove and Replace Existing 12” Sanitary Sewer with 15" SDR 26 PVC Sanitary Sewer (Open Cut)143 LFA15Remove and Replace Existing 15” Sanitary Sewer with 21" PS 115 PVC Sanitary Sewer (Open Cut)385 LFA16 Post-Construction Television Inspection 1764 LFA17 Connect to Existing Sanitary Sewer Manhole 4 EAA18Remove and Replace Existing Frame and Cover with Hinged Frame and Cover1EAA19 Rehabilitate Existing Manhole and Replace Frame and Cover 3 EAA20 New 48” Type 1 Manhole (with or without drop) 3 EAA21 New 48" Type 3 Manhole (with or without drop) 5 EAA22Remove Existing Manhole and Replace with New 48" Type 1 Manhole1EAA23Remove Existing Manhole and Replace with New 48" Type 3 Manhole3EAA24 Remove Existing Manhole 1 EAA25 Install Pipe Stub (5-ft min) and Reconnect Existing Pipes 9 EAA26 Traffic Signal Loop Restoration 5 EAB1 NPDES Compliance (not to exceed 1% of Base bid) 1 LSB2Mobilization and Demobilization (not to exceed 3.5% of Base bid)1LSLocation A Subtotal:General Items Subtotal:LOCATION A - Cabrillo Ave; Hillside Drive; Cabrillo and Cortez EasementsGeneral Common Items (1-7)Location B - Chula Vista Ave Easement UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST 15$ 300$ 40$ 800$ 25$ 500$ 35$ 700$ 85$ 1,700$ 90$ 1,800$ 20$ 1,600$ 65$ 5,200$ 60$ 4,800$ 100$ 6,000$ 80$ 4,800$ 80$ 4,800$ 200$ 10,000$ 250$ 12,500$ 150$ 7,500$ 11$ 154$ 8$ 112$ 50$ 700$ 1,000$ 8,000$ 800$ 6,400$ 500$ 4,000$ 26,754$ 31,512$ 24,100$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 11,000$ 11,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 20,845$ 20,845$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 10,000$ 20,000$ 15,000$ 30,000$ 15,000$ 30,000$ 20$ 5,480$ 7$ 1,918$ 15$ 4,110$ 20$ 740$ 150$ 5,550$ 350$ 12,950$ 325$ 11,050$ 350$ 11,900$ 450$ 15,300$ 350$ 126,700$ 365$ 132,130$ 500$ 181,000$ 375$ 56,250$ 365$ 54,750$ 600$ 90,000$ 450$ 45,900$ 390$ 39,780$ 650$ 66,300$ 500$ 285,000$ 150$ 85,500$ 275$ 156,750$ 350$ 6,300$ 500$ 9,000$ 600$ 10,800$ 400$ 57,200$ 400$ 57,200$ 625$ 89,375$ 500$ 192,500$ 450$ 173,250$ 650$ 250,250$ 4$ 7,056$ 10$ 17,640$ 5$ 8,820$ 3,000$ 12,000$ 2,000$ 8,000$ 500$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 5,500$ 16,500$ 4,000$ 12,000$ 4,000$ 12,000$ 7,500$ 22,500$ 7,000$ 21,000$ 12,000$ 36,000$ 7,500$ 37,500$ 8,500$ 42,500$ 13,000$ 65,000$ 8,500$ 8,500$ 8,000$ 8,000$ 14,000$ 14,000$ 8,500$ 25,500$ 9,000$ 27,000$ 16,000$ 48,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 3,500$ 3,500$ 4,000$ 36,000$ 2,500$ 22,500$ 2,500$ 22,500$ 1,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 25,000$ 600$ 3,000$ 1,052,676$ 907,618$ 1,215,000$ 500$ 500$ 8,000$ 8,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 45,000$ 45,000$ 18,000$ 18,000$ K.J. Woods Construction Cratus Inc. Seton Pacific Construction BID DATE: FEB. 19, 2019CITY OF BURLINGAMEBID SUMMARYEASTON ADDITION AND CITY-WIDE NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT PHASE 4City Project No. 84192Page 4 of 6ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION OF ITEMESTIMATED QUANTITYUNITB3Construction Survey and Site Investigation (not to exceed 3.5% of Base bid)1LSB4 Traffic Control 1 LSB5 Remove and Replace Curb Drain and Inlet 1 EAB6 Abandon Existing Sanitary Sewer 1310 LFB7 New 8" PVC (Open Cut) 508 LFB8 New 10" PVC (Open Cut) 16 LFB9 Post-Construction Television Inspection 524 LFB10 Reconnect to Existing Sanitary Sewer Manhole 1 EAB11 Abandon Existing Manhole 1 EAB12 Remove Existing Manhole 1 EAB13 New 36" Type 1 Manhole 3 EAB14 New 36" Type 2 Manhole 1 EAB15 New 48" Type 1 Manhole 1 EAB16 Not Used - EAB17New 36" Type 1 Manhole and Lateral Extension at Chula Vista Sta 101+791EAB18Remove Existing Manhole and Replace with New 36” Type 1 Manhole1EAB19 Abandon Existing Sewer Lateral 8 EAB20 Replace and Extend Existing Sewer Lateral 7 EAB21 Replace Existing Sewer Lateral 10 EAB22 New or Replace Existing Sewer Cleanout 17 EAB23 Install Pipe Stub (5-ft min) and Reconnect Existing Pipes 4 EAC1 NPDES Compliance (not to exceed 1% of Base bid) 1 LSC2Mobilization and Demobilization (not to exceed 3.5% of Base bid)1LSC3Construction Survey and Site Investigation (not to exceed 3.5% of Base bid)1LSC4 Traffic Control 1 LSC5 New 4" SDR 26 PVC (Open Cut) 16 LFC6 Post-Construction Television Inspection 16 LFC7 New 36" Type 1 Manhole 1 EAC8 Plug Existing Sewer Main 2 EAC9 New or Replace Existing 4” Sewer Cleanout 1 EAC10 Reconnect to Existing Sanitary Sewer Manhole 1 EAEASTON ADDITION PHASE 4 - TOTAL BASE BIDLocation B Subtotal:Location C Subtotal:Location C - Drake Ave Easement UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST K.J. Woods Construction Cratus Inc. Seton Pacific Construction 3,000$ 3,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 14,600$ 14,600$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 4,000$ 4,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 6,000$ 6,000$ 10$ 13,100$ 10$ 13,100$ 15$ 19,650$ 350$ 177,800$ 300$ 152,400$ 550$ 279,400$ 375$ 6,000$ 350$ 5,600$ 650$ 10,400$ 3$ 1,572$ 20$ 10,480$ 5$ 2,620$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 2,500$ 2,500$ 500$ 500$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 7,000$ 21,000$ 8,000$ 24,000$ 9,000$ 27,000$ 7,000$ 7,000$ 8,500$ 8,500$ 6,000$ 6,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 9,500$ 9,500$ 12,000$ 12,000$ --- --- ---10,000$ 10,000$ 12,000$ 12,000$ 16,000$ 16,000$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 8,000$ 8,000$ 11,000$ 11,000$ 750$ 6,000$ 500$ 4,000$ 1,000$ 8,000$ 5,000$ 35,000$ 8,000$ 56,000$ 4,500$ 31,500$ 5,000$ 50,000$ 7,000$ 70,000$ 3,500$ 35,000$ 700$ 11,900$ 600$ 10,200$ 300$ 5,100$ 4,000$ 16,000$ 2,500$ 10,000$ 2,000$ 8,000$ 396,872$ 500,280$ 521,770$ 100$ 100$ 8,000$ 8,000$ 250$ 250$ 500$ 500$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 900$ 900$ 500$ 500$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 800$ 800$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 300$ 300$ 400$ 6,400$ 350$ 5,600$ 850$ 13,600$ 5$ 80$ 200$ 3,200$ 5$ 80$ 7,500$ 7,500$ 8,000$ 8,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 500$ 1,000$ 250$ 500$ 200$ 400$ 700$ 700$ 800$ 800$ 300$ 300$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 2,500$ 2,500$ 500$ 500$ 20,780$ 58,600$ 27,130$ 1,497,082$ 1,498,010$ 1,788,000$ BID DATE: FEB. 19, 2019CITY OF BURLINGAMEBID SUMMARYEASTON ADDITION AND CITY-WIDE NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT PHASE 4City Project No. 84192Page 5 of 6ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION OF ITEMESTIMATED QUANTITYUNIT1 Remove and Replace Sidewalk 20 SF2 Remove and Replace Curb and Gutter 20 LF3 Remove and Replace Driveway 80 SF4 Remove and Replace Valley Gutter 60 SF5 Additional Asphalt Surface Repair 50 TON6 Final AC Patching 14 SF7 Preconstruction Potholing 8 EAA1 NPDES Compliance (not to exceed 1% of Base bid) 1 LSA2Mobilization and Demobilization (not to exceed 3.5% of Base bid)1LSA3Construction Survey and Site Investigation (not to exceed 3.5% of Base bid)1LSA4 Traffic Control 1 LSA5 Realign Water Main and Appurtenances 2 EAA6 Abandon Existing Sanitary Sewer 274 LFA7 Remove Existing Sanitary Sewer 37 LFA8 New 8" SDR 26 PVC Sanitary Sewer (Open Cut) 34 LFA9 New 10" SDR 26 PVC Sanitary Sewer (Open Cut) 362 LFA10 New 12" SDR 26 PVC Sanitary Sewer (Open Cut) 150 LFA11 New 21" PS 115 PVC Sanitary Sewer (Open Cut) 102 LFA12 New 10" HDPE SS (HDD) 570 LFA13Remove and Replace Existing 12” Sanitary Sewer with 12" SDR 26 PVC Sanitary Sewer (Open Cut)18 LFA14Remove and Replace Existing 12” Sanitary Sewer with 15" SDR 26 PVC Sanitary Sewer (Open Cut)143 LFA15Remove and Replace Existing 15” Sanitary Sewer with 21" PS 115 PVC Sanitary Sewer (Open Cut)385 LFA16 Post-Construction Television Inspection 1764 LFA17 Connect to Existing Sanitary Sewer Manhole 4 EAA18Remove and Replace Existing Frame and Cover with Hinged Frame and Cover1EAA19 Rehabilitate Existing Manhole and Replace Frame and Cover 3 EAA20 New 48” Type 1 Manhole (with or without drop) 3 EAA21 New 48" Type 3 Manhole (with or without drop) 5 EAA22Remove Existing Manhole and Replace with New 48" Type 1 Manhole1EAA23Remove Existing Manhole and Replace with New 48" Type 3 Manhole3EAA24 Remove Existing Manhole 1 EAA25 Install Pipe Stub (5-ft min) and Reconnect Existing Pipes 9 EAA26 Traffic Signal Loop Restoration 5 EAB1 NPDES Compliance (not to exceed 1% of Base bid) 1 LSB2Mobilization and Demobilization (not to exceed 3.5% of Base bid)1LSLocation A Subtotal:General Items Subtotal:LOCATION A - Cabrillo Ave; Hillside Drive; Cabrillo and Cortez EasementsGeneral Common Items (1-7)Location B - Chula Vista Ave Easement UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST 30$ 600$ 73$ 1,460$ 100$ 2,000$ 117$ 2,340$ 40$ 3,200$ 62$ 4,960$ 110$ 6,600$ 75$ 4,500$ 250$ 12,500$ 437$ 21,850$ 20$ 280$ 109$ 1,526$ 1,500$ 12,000$ 1,500$ 12,000$ 37,180$ 48,636$ 12,000$ 12,000$ 6,000$ 6,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 15,200$ 30,400$ 10,000$ 20,000$ 20$ 5,480$ 34$ 9,316$ 100$ 3,700$ 219$ 8,103$ 400$ 13,600$ 293$ 9,962$ 500$ 181,000$ 272$ 98,464$ 550$ 82,500$ 483$ 72,450$ 650$ 66,300$ 425$ 43,350$ 280$ 159,600$ 217$ 123,690$ 500$ 9,000$ 497$ 8,946$ 400$ 57,200$ 481$ 68,783$ 600$ 231,000$ 433$ 166,705$ 3$ 5,292$ 3$ 5,292$ 2,800$ 11,200$ 474$ 1,896$ 3,200$ 3,200$ 474$ 474$ 4,200$ 12,600$ 2,822$ 8,466$ 12,000$ 36,000$ 18,819$ 56,457$ 12,000$ 60,000$ 19,173$ 95,865$ 13,000$ 13,000$ 18,863$ 18,863$ 13,000$ 39,000$ 19,571$ 58,713$ 3,200$ 3,200$ 6,350$ 6,350$ 3,200$ 28,800$ 2,127$ 19,143$ 5,500$ 27,500$ 3,392$ 16,960$ 1,166,572$ 1,234,248$ 4,000$ 4,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ Mitchell Engineering EPS, Inc dba Express Plumbing BID DATE: FEB. 19, 2019CITY OF BURLINGAMEBID SUMMARYEASTON ADDITION AND CITY-WIDE NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT PHASE 4City Project No. 84192Page 6 of 6ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION OF ITEMESTIMATED QUANTITYUNITB3Construction Survey and Site Investigation (not to exceed 3.5% of Base bid)1LSB4 Traffic Control 1 LSB5 Remove and Replace Curb Drain and Inlet 1 EAB6 Abandon Existing Sanitary Sewer 1310 LFB7 New 8" PVC (Open Cut) 508 LFB8 New 10" PVC (Open Cut) 16 LFB9 Post-Construction Television Inspection 524 LFB10 Reconnect to Existing Sanitary Sewer Manhole 1 EAB11 Abandon Existing Manhole 1 EAB12 Remove Existing Manhole 1 EAB13 New 36" Type 1 Manhole 3 EAB14 New 36" Type 2 Manhole 1 EAB15 New 48" Type 1 Manhole 1 EAB16 Not Used - EAB17New 36" Type 1 Manhole and Lateral Extension at Chula Vista Sta 101+791EAB18Remove Existing Manhole and Replace with New 36” Type 1 Manhole1EAB19 Abandon Existing Sewer Lateral 8 EAB20 Replace and Extend Existing Sewer Lateral 7 EAB21 Replace Existing Sewer Lateral 10 EAB22 New or Replace Existing Sewer Cleanout 17 EAB23 Install Pipe Stub (5-ft min) and Reconnect Existing Pipes 4 EAC1 NPDES Compliance (not to exceed 1% of Base bid) 1 LSC2Mobilization and Demobilization (not to exceed 3.5% of Base bid)1LSC3Construction Survey and Site Investigation (not to exceed 3.5% of Base bid)1LSC4 Traffic Control 1 LSC5 New 4" SDR 26 PVC (Open Cut) 16 LFC6 Post-Construction Television Inspection 16 LFC7 New 36" Type 1 Manhole 1 EAC8 Plug Existing Sewer Main 2 EAC9 New or Replace Existing 4” Sewer Cleanout 1 EAC10 Reconnect to Existing Sanitary Sewer Manhole 1 EAEASTON ADDITION PHASE 4 - TOTAL BASE BIDLocation B Subtotal:Location C Subtotal:Location C - Drake Ave Easement UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST Mitchell Engineering EPS, Inc dba Express Plumbing 10,000$ 10,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 8,000$ 8,000$ 225,000$ 225,000$ 5,200$ 5,200$ 4,921$ 4,921$ 20$ 26,200$ 2$ 2,620$ 400$ 203,200$ 233$ 118,364$ 800$ 12,800$ 533$ 8,528$ 3$ 1,572$ 5$ 2,620$ 4,800$ 4,800$ 1,896$ 1,896$ 3,800$ 3,800$ 3,852$ 3,852$ 3,200$ 3,200$ 14,805$ 14,805$ 10,950$ 32,850$ 18,298$ 54,894$ 11,500$ 11,500$ 17,946$ 17,946$ 12,000$ 12,000$ 18,837$ 18,837$ --- ---15,300$ 15,300$ 48,270$ 48,270$ 11,000$ 11,000$ 18,342$ 18,342$ 2,800$ 22,400$ 3,361$ 26,888$ 5,200$ 36,400$ 4,248$ 29,736$ 6,200$ 62,000$ 1,334$ 13,340$ 1,500$ 25,500$ 2,807$ 47,719$ 4,200$ 16,800$ 2,999$ 11,996$ 543,522$ 715,574$ 400$ 400$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,400$ 1,400$ 6,000$ 6,000$ 1,200$ 1,200$ 6,000$ 6,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 400$ 6,400$ 349$ 5,584$ 300$ 4,800$ 170$ 2,720$ 10,950$ 10,950$ 18,298$ 18,298$ 5,400$ 10,800$ 237$ 474$ 950$ 950$ 3,688$ 3,688$ 4,800$ 4,800$ 2,311$ 2,311$ 44,700$ 66,575$ 1,791,974$ 2,065,033$ AGREEMENT - 1 AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT EASTON ADDITION SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT WITH CITY-WIDE NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REHABILITATION PHASE 4 CITY PROJECT NO. 84192 THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into in the City of Burlingame, County of San Mateo, State of California on , 2019 by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter called "City", and Casey Construction, Inc., a California Corporation, hereinafter called "Contractor." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of the public work and improvements herein provided for and to authorize execution of this Contract; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State law and City requirements, a notice was duly published for bids for the contract for the improvement hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, on ____________________, after notice duly given, the City Council of Burlingame awarded the contract for the construction of the improvements hereinafter described to Contractor, which the Council found to be the lowest responsive, responsible bidder for these improvements; and WHEREAS, City and Contractor desire to enter into this Agreement for the construction of said improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work. Contractor shall perform the work described in those Contract Documents entitled: EASTON ADDITION SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT WITH CITY-WIDE NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REHABILITATION PHASE 4, CITY PROJECT NO. 84192. 2. The Contract Documents. The complete contract between City and Contractor consists of the following documents: this Agreement; Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, attached hereto as Exhibit A; the accepted Bid Proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit B; the specifications, provisions, AGREEMENT - 2 addenda, complete plans, profiles, and detailed drawings contained in the bid documents titled “Easton Addition Sewer Rehabilitation Project with City-Wide Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Phase 4, City Project No. 84192” attached as Exhibit C; the State of California Standard Specifications 2010, as promulgated by the California Department of Transportation; prevailing wage rates of the State of California applicable to this project by State law; and all bonds; which are collectively hereinafter referred to as the Contract Documents. All rights and obligations of City and Contractor are fully set forth and described in the Contract Documents, which are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. All of the above described documents are intended to cooperate so that any work called for in one, and not mentioned in the other, or vice versa, is to be executed the same as if mentioned in all said documents. 3. Contract Price. The City shall pay, and the Contractor shall accept, in full, payment of the work above agreed to be done, the sum of one million, two hundred eighty-two thousand, nine hundred and seventy-eight dollars ($1,282,978), called the “Contract Price”. This price is determined by the lump sum and unit prices contained in Contractor's Bid. In the event authorized work is performed or materials furnished in addition to those set forth in Contractor's Bid and the Specifications, such work and materials will be paid for at the unit prices therein contained. Said amount shall be paid in progress payments as provided in the Contract Documents. 4. Termination At any time and with or without cause, the City may suspend the work or any portion of the work for a period of not more than 90 consecutive calendar days by notice in writing to Contractor that will fix the date on which work will be resumed. Contractor will be granted an adjustment to the Contract Price or an extension of the Time for Completion, or both, directly attributable to any such suspension if Contractor makes a claim therefor was provided in the Contract Documents. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events will justify termination of the contract by the City for cause: (1) Contractor’s persistent failure to perform the work in accordance with the Contract Documents; (2) Contractor’s disregard of Laws or Regulations of any public body having jurisdiction; (3) Contractor’s disregard of the authority of the Engineer; or (4) Contractor’s violation in any substantial way of any provision of the Contract Documents. In the case of any one or more of these events, the AGREEMENT - 3 City, after giving Contractor and Contractor’s sureties seven calendar days written notice of the intent to terminate Contractor’s services, may initiate termination procedures under the provisions of the Performance Bond. Such termination will not affect any rights or remedies of City against Contractor then existing or that accrue thereafter. Any retention or payment of moneys due Contractor will not release Contractor from liability. At the City’s sole discretion, Contractor’s services may not be terminated if Contractor begins, within seven calendar days of receipt of such notice of intent to terminate, to correct its failure to perform and proceeds diligently to cure such failure within no more than 30 calendar days of such notice. Upon seven calendar days written notice to Contractor, City may, without cause and without prejudice to any other right or remedy of City, terminate the Contract for City’s convenience. In such case, Contractor will be paid for (1) work satisfactorily completed prior the effective date of such termination, (2) furnishing of labor, equipment, and materials in accordance with the Contract Documents in connection with uncompleted work, (3) reasonable expenses directly attributable to termination, and (4) fair and reasonable compensation for associated overhead and profit. No payment will be made on account of loss of anticipated profits or revenue or other economic loss arising out of or resulting from such termination. 5. Provisions Cumulative. The provisions of this Agreement are cumulative and in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the City. 6. Notices. All notices shall be in writing and delivered in person or transmitted by certified mail, postage prepaid. Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows: Mahesh Yedluri, PE Senior Engineer City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows: Mel Casey, President Casey Construction, Inc. AGREEMENT - 4 619 Sylvan Way Emerald Hills, CA 94062 7. Interpretation As used herein, any gender includes the other gender and the singular includes the plural and vice versa. 8. Waiver or Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Contractor. One or more waivers of any term, condition, or other provision of this Agreement by either party shall not be construed as a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision. 9. Controlling Law. This Agreement is to be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 10. Successors and Assignees. This Agreement is to be binding on the heirs, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto but may not be assigned by either party without first obtaining the written consent of the other party. 11. Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement is deemed invalid, void, or unenforceable by any court of lawful jurisdiction, the remaining terms and provisions of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in full force and effect. 12. Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City, its directors, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the actual or alleged negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Contractor, its employees, subcontractors, or agents, or on account of the performance or character of the services, except for any such claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. It is understood that the duty of Contractor to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any design professional services, the duty to defend and indemnify City shall be limited AGREEMENT - 5 to that allowed by state law. Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Contractor from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two identical counterparts of this Agreement, consisting of five pages, including this page, each of which counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed an original of this Agreement, have been duly executed by the parties hereinabove named on the day and year first hereinabove written. CITY OF BURLINGAME, a Municipal Corporation By Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager Approved as to form: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney ATTEST: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk "CONTRACTOR" By Print Name: Title: Company Name: Casey Construction, Inc. EXHIBIT A CITY OF BURLINGAME EASTON ADDITION SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT PHASE 4, CITY PROJECT NO. 84192 Page 1 of 2 Project Understanding The City of Burlingame is looking for a Construction Management firm experienced in providing complete construction management services including: constructability review on the plans and specifications, construction management, full time construction inspection, budget controls, scheduling, administration, construction engineering, quality assurance, project records, as-built plans and close-out documents. Bellecci clearly understands the City’s requirements because we recently finished the construction management and inspection on the City’s Easton Addition, Ray Park and Neighborhood Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project Phase 3. Project Approach Bellecci & Associates is proposing an experienced team consisting of highly qualified personnel with extensive Constructability Review, Construction Management, Administration and Inspection Support services experience. We will provide the construction coordination, administration and support services including oversight, scheduling and coordination. We will also be responsible for coordinating aspects of construction support and overall construction management, construction inspections, and materials testing coordination. Based on our experience we understand the importance of keeping the public informed about the project. That is why we will ensure that affected residences and businesses receive a written notice of work to be performed, which may impact them, and meet with them as required to ensure the best public relations during construction of the project. We assume that we are being retained to provide turnkey Construction Support and Construction Management services to the City of Burlingame, with responsibility to conduct all activities and provide all services necessary to ensure successful, timely completion of the planned construction activities. We anticipate that the services our team will provide will include, but not be limited to the following: A. Pre-construction Phase • Coordinate the review of Contractor’s submittals with the design team • Conduct the pre-construction meeting with the Contractor, City and project stakeholders • Respond to Contractor Request for Information (RFI) with feedback from the Design Engineer • Review and comment on the Contractor’s construction schedule • Coordinate traffic control plans with City Staff • Coordinate and plan the staging areas for the project construction with City Staff • Verify that the construction complies with City’s permit requirements and conditions • Perform a preconstruction site inspection of the project sites to document existing conditions • Assist Contractor and City with public notifications, public relations & public outreach regarding the project, respond to questions and concerns from the residents B. Construction Phase (Construction Contract Assume 75 Working Days) • Provide inspection services for the duration of the construction of the project to ensure that provisions of the contract documents are being fulfilled • Prepare daily inspection reports documenting observed construction activities • Take digital photographs providing documentation of construction • Document changes in the field to compare to the Contractor record drawing markups EXHIBIT A CITY OF BURLINGAME EASTON ADDITION SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT PHASE 4, CITY PROJECT NO. 84192 Page 2 of 2 • Measure quantities of items constructed and prepare progress payment applications • Conduct weekly project meetings, prepare minutes, and distribute to designated parties • Coordinate with appropriate City staff to discuss project issues • Public relations with residents impacted by construction • Prepare a project budget spreadsheet and monitor spending • Provide the City with copies of the construction management documentation • Review the Contractor’s schedule and notify the City of changes that affects the on-time completion of the project • Prepare weekly reports of working days and provide them to the Contractor • Prepare and assist the City in negotiation of change orders • Review, comment and facilitate responses to requests for information (RFI) • Monitor and enforce Construction Contractor’s compliance with BMPs • Monitor safety and health requirements and enforce applicable regulations and contract provisions for the protection of the public and project personnel • Facilitate utility coordination conflicts with the City, the applicable utilities and the Construction Contractor • Prepare a monthly progress report for the City Project Manager describing key issues, cost status, and schedule status • Coordinate final project inspection • Prepare closeout documents • Prepare a final funds balance report C. Quality Assurance and Contract Management • Provide and coordinate quality assurance materials testing to verify compliance of the work with the contract documents • Review material test reports to substantiate contract compliance • Compare Certificates of Compliance or source release tags with the applicable delivered materials at the project site • Spot check submitted certified payroll from the Contractor D. Post-Construction Phase • Prepare initial punch list and consolidate comments into final punch list • Perform final project inspection • Prepare final progress payment for the project including the costs all bid items constructed and approved change orders • Finalize project accounting • Oversee completion of record drawing (as-built) • Transmit all project files and record drawing to the City for archiving Change Order Management Our approach to change order management is to have a clear understanding of the requirements of the contract construction documents so we can anticipate potential claims and address them before they occur. If there is situation when a potential claim might be submitted by the contractor , the project inspector clearly documents all work associated with that potential claim. Once a claim letter has been submitted by the contractor we quickly respond to the contractor in writing on the validity of their claim. If the contractor’s claim is determined to be valid because of an unforeseen condition or an omission in the contract documents, we use the documentation from the inspector’s daily reports and prepare the contract change order. BUDGET/COST PROPOSAL PROJECT BUDGET ESTIMATE TASK RATE ($/HR)190 148 132 122 1.075 64 #TASKS DESCRIPTION CONST.RESIDENT MATERIAL CONST.HRS./DIRECT TOTAL MNGR.ENGR.TESTING ADMIN.TASK COST COST A Pre-construction Phase 1.01 Overall Project Coordination 10 4 14 $2,156 1.02 Preconstruction Meeting 4 4 4 2 14 $2,008 1.03 Construction Submittal Review and Coordination 2 12 2 4 20 $2,676 1.04 Preconstruction Site Documentation (Photos and/or Videos)2 4 4 6 16 $1,884 1.05 Miscellaneous Expenses (Mileage, Prints, Postage, etc.)$250 $250 Subtotal Preconstruction Phase 18 20 10 0 16 64 $250 $8,974 B Construction Phase (Assumes a Construction Work Time of 75 Working Days) 2.01 Public Notification Coordination and Public Relations 4 8 24 16 52 $6,136 2.02 Weekly Construction Meetings & Project Coordination (Assume 15 Meetings) 12 24 24 14 74 $9,896 2.03 Construction Support (Weekly Report, RFI, CO, Partial & Final Pay Verification)10 24 24 72 130 $13,228 2.04 Construction Inspection (Assumes Full Time Inspection for 75 Working days)8 60 684 80 832 $105,808 2.05 Miscellaneous Expenses (Mileage, Prints, Postage, etc.)$750 $750 Subtotal Construction Phase 34 116 756 0 182 1088 $750 $135,818 C Quality Assurance 3.01 Material Testing Coordination, Review, Project Administration and Documentation 2 8 8 18 $2,076 3.02 Material Testing (Allocation) 2 7,500$ 4 6 $8,699 3.03 Certified Pay Roll Review 2 4 30 36 $2,892 3.04 Miscellaneous Expenses (Mileage, Prints, Postage, etc.)$250 $250 Subtotal Quality Assurance Phase 6 12 0 0 7,500$ 42 60 $250 $13,917 D Post-Construction Phase 4.01 Post Construction Site Inspection and Punch List 4 4 8 4 20 $2,664 4.02 Project Close-out Documentation 4 12 8 24 $3,048 4.03 Oversite of Record Drawing Preparation 2 16 4 22 $3,004 4.04 Final Reports and Transmittal of all Project Files and Record Drawings 2 12 8 22 $2,668 4.05 Miscellaneous Expenses (Mileage, Prints, Postage, etc.)$350 $350 Subtotal Post-Construction Phase 12 44 8 0 24 88 $350 $11,734 Construction Management Total 70 192 774 0 $7,500 264 1,300 $1,600 $170,443 2290 Diamond Blvd., Ste. 100 Concord, CA 94520 925-685-4568 NOTE: BREAKDOWN OF HOURS SHOWN IS FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLY. DISTRIBUTION OF HOURS WILL VARY. rbroestl@bellecci.com City of Burlingame Easton Addition Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project Phase 4 Construction Management Services SR. PW INSPECT PW INSPECT Easton Addition and City-Wide Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Phase 4 City Project No. 84192 Project Location Map 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9a MEETING DATE: March 4, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: March 4, 2019 From: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204 Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253 Subject: Public Hearing and Introduction of an Ordinance Establishing Residential Impact Fees on New Residential Development to Support Workforce Housing RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council consider an ordinance establishing Residential Impact Fees for new residential developments to support workforce housing in the City. In order to do so, the Council should: A. Receive the staff report and ask any questions of staff. B. Request that the City Clerk read the title of the proposed ordinance. C. By motion, waive further reading and introduce the ordinance. D. Conduct a public hearing. E. Following the public hearing, discuss the ordinance and determine whether to bring it back for second reading and adoption. If the Council is in favor of the ordinance, direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before its proposed adoption. BACKGROUND Affordable housing impact fees are used to support and build new homes for lower-income residents. The fees can be charged to developers of new residential projects and used for land purchase, construction costs, or site rehabilitation related to providing workforce housing. Jurisdictions may tailor the fees so they meet local needs. The fees can be adjusted for a wide variety of reasons, so long as they are not arbitrary or capricious, and so long as the fees for all projects remain below the legal maximum. As part of the San Mateo County “21 Elements” multi-jurisdictional effort, a Residential Impact Fee Nexus Study was prepared for the City of Burlingame, together with a Commercial Linkage Fee Nexus Study. These studies describe and quantify how the development of homes, offices, and commercial space creates a need for housing, particularly for very low-, low- and moderate-income residents. The maximum impact fees that can be legally charged were calculated by estimating the number of new worker households associated with new development. A final analysis was then completed that considered factors like local conditions and the fees of neighboring jurisdictions to Residential Impact Fees Ordinance March 4, 2019 2 determine a potential range of impact fees. These studies enable the City Council to consider the adoption of commercial linkage and/or residential impact fees that would be used to provide affordable housing. On June 19, 2017, the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing commercial linkage fees for new commercial development in Burlingame. The adopted fees are $7.00 per square foot for new retail development, $12.00 per square foot for new hotel development, $18.00 per square foot for office projects of 50,000 square feet or less, and $25.00 per square foot for office greater than 50,000 square feet. For developers who utilize prevailing wages or area standard wages, the fees are $5.00 per square foot for new retail development, $10.00 per square foot for new hotel development, $15.00 per square foot for office of 50,000 square feet or less, and $20.00 per square foot for office greater than 50,000 square feet. Over time, these fees will provide a dedicated source of funding for programs supporting workforce housing in Burlingame. On February 12, 2018, the City Council considered the establishment of residential impact fees that would apply to new residential development in Burlingame. The City Council directed staff to further study potential fee levels and structures, consider an on-site “in-lieu” option for providing affordable units within development projects, and obtain input from housing developers and other stakeholders. Following direction from the City Council, staff engaged Seifel Consulting Inc. to prepare an analysis on options for residential impact fees. A key focus of the Seifel Consulting work program was to develop recommendations related to the potential adoption of new fees on residential development and the best strategies to incentivize the on-site provision of affordable housing within new development as part of the City’s housing program. Seifel Consulting subsequently prepared a memorandum reflecting findings of the analysis and input from the City Council (attached). On November 14, 2018, the City Council held a special meeting to review the Seifel Consulting report and provide direction on establishing residential impact fees (November 14, 2018 City Council Meeting Minutes attached). On February 11, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the residential impact fees analysis, proposed ordinance, and accompanying area standard wage resolution. The Commission provided a recommendation to the City Council to approve the ordinance and resolution as proposed (February 11, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Excerpt attached). DISCUSSION Housing Need: For years, housing development in Burlingame and San Mateo County has not kept up with the thousands of new jobs added, and the problem has gotten worse in recent years. Between 2010 and 2016, San Mateo County added 79,000 new jobs, but only 4,941 new homes of all types. The resulting jobs-housing gap ratio was 1 to 16. In other words, only one new housing unit was built for every 16 new jobs created. This jobs-housing gap drives up the cost of housing for homebuyers and renters alike, produces congestion and long commutes for workers, and forces friends and family members to move away because they can no longer afford to live in Burlingame or San Mateo County. Residential Impact Fees Ordinance March 4, 2019 3 A significant number of new jobs pay wages that are not sufficient to cover local housing costs. This includes jobs generated by new development. The region’s driving economic sectors are increasingly split between high-wage jobs in industries such as professional and technical services, and low-wage jobs in hospitality, childcare, retail, and others. Those in the low-wage workforce increasingly commute into the area from long distances, which results in increased traffic in the region and ultimately limits the pool of employees for local businesses. For a worker earning minimum wage, the cost of gas and bridge tolls together with long commute times make it difficult (if not infeasible) to justify employment in a low wage local job. Local service businesses have reported difficulty hiring and retaining employees, even when offering wages well above minimum wage. The City of Burlingame has been proactive in addressing the supply aspect of the housing situation through the encouragement and approval of significant numbers of new housing units. The Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, together with the 2015 Housing Element and recently adopted General Plan Update, have emphasized the construction of new housing units to address the increased demand for housing units near employment in Burlingame and San Mateo County. Per the City’s most recent Residential Projects Overview document (attached), 645 units have been approved, and an additional 644 units are currently under review by the Planning Commission, for a total of 1,289 units. Of these, 243 would be priced below market rate for households in the Moderate, Median, Low, or Very Low income categories.1 Looking to the future, the General Plan Update has had a strong emphasis on promoting housing production, with increased residential densities and the addition of new housing areas in the northern portion of the city. Legal and Policy Context: Impact fees are charges imposed by jurisdictions that can be used to support and build new development. Since the 1970s, California cities have used impact fees to reduce costs paid by the public for items like roads, parks, schools, water, and sewer. The money generated by housing impact fees is placed into a fund to help pay for new affordable housing. Fees can be set per square foot, per unit, or by some other measure, and can only be applied to new development projects. Before being adopted, jurisdictions must show that there is a connection, or nexus, between the impacts of development and the fees charged. A nexus study assesses the connection between new development and the need for new affordable housing. This is accomplished by calculating the number, type, and salaries of jobs that will result from a new development. The study then establishes the maximum impact fee that can legally be charged to a developer for each type of development being studied. Residential developments include townhomes, condominiums, and apartments. The logic behind impact fee nexus studies is that residents of new housing spend money on goods and services like landscaping, childcare, and restaurants. Many of the workers providing these 1 By government definition, “Moderate-Income” means a household with an income that is 120% of the “Area Median Income” (AMI), “Low-income” means a household with an income that is 80% of AMI, “Very-Low Income” means a household with an income that is 50% of AMI, and “Extremely-Low Income” means a household with an income at 30% of AMI. In 2018 (the most recent year data is available), the San Mateo County AMI was $82,900 for a single-person household, $94,700 for a two-person household, and $118,400 for a household of four. Residential Impact Fees Ordinance March 4, 2019 4 services and working at these new businesses earn lower wages, and cannot afford to buy or rent a home at market-rate. Nexus studies calculate the maximum fees that would be necessary to bridge the difference between what these new worker households can afford to pay, and the cost of developing housing units to accommodate them. While a nexus study will inform a jurisdiction about the maximum amount it can legally charge as an impact fee, the maximum fee level may not be appropriate given local housing market conditions, existing fee levels in the region, or the jurisdiction’s current fee structure. A feasibility study considers these conditions and recommends a more appropriate range of fees that does not unduly burden or lessen the profitability of new development. The study prepared by Seifel Consulting evaluates the feasibility of residential impact fees on both rental and for-sale development, utilizing recently obtained market data. Proposed Fee Structure: At the November 14th City Council meeting, the Council provided direction for a tiered fee structure, with tiers based on residential density and whether a project is rental or for sale. The Planning Commission concurred with this fee structure in its recommendation for approval to the City Council. As demonstrated in the Seifel Consulting study, rental projects have a significantly lower developer margin/return compared to for sale projects: therefore, the feasibility of a rental project is more sensitive to variables in cost such as impact fees. Likewise, the feasibility of a lower density project is more sensitive to fees than a higher density project because the fixed costs are distributed over fewer units. Table 1 summarizes the fee structure proposed by the City Council at its November 14th meeting, and further recommended by the Planning Commission: TABLE 1: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEE STRUCTURE Impact Fee – Per Square Foot Base With Prevailing / Area Wage Rental Multifamily – 11 units and above Up to 50 du/ac $17.00 / sq ft $14.00 / sq ft 51-70 du/ac $20.00 / sq ft $17.00 / sq ft 71 du/ac and above $30.00 / sq ft $25.00 / sq ft For Sale Multifamily (Condominiums) – 7 units and above $35.00 / sq ft $30.00 / sq ft Notes: 1. Rental Multifamily with total of 10 units or fewer are exempt. 2. For Sale Multifamily (Condominiums) with total of 6 units or fewer are exempt. 3. Rental projects that convert to condominiums within 10 years of completion of construction would be subject to the fee differential as a condition of conversion. In-Lieu Option: Developers would have an “in-lieu” option where the developer could choose to provide an affordable unit or units on site in lieu of submitting the impact fee. Whether a developer would choose an on-site option would depend on a number of factors such as the amount of the impact fee, the size of the development, the comparable cost of underwriting the affordable units Residential Impact Fees Ordinance March 4, 2019 5 for the designated time period and affordability level, and whether the ownership of the development is expected to be retained or sold at completion of construction. For example, a developer building apartments that it intends to own and manage for an extended time frame may have a different perspective and make a different choice than a developer building condominiums to be sold at completion of construction. At the November 14th City Council meeting, the Council provided direction for in-lieu options for both rental and for sale projects: • Rental Multifamily – 10% of the units affordable to Moderate Income households (80% - 120% AMI) for a period of 55 years • For Sale Multifamily (Condominiums) – 10% of the units affordable to Above-Moderate Income households (120% - 150% AMI, with the price set at the 135% AMI level) for a period of 55 years FISCAL IMPACT Estimating potential fees anticipated to be collected depends on a number of variables, including the residential densities, sizes of units (since the fees are typically based on square feet, not number of units), and the sliding scale of the fees themselves. The proposed ordinance would also provide discounts for projects paying prevailing construction wages, similar to the model the City adopted for commercial linkage fees. Furthermore, if an in-lieu option is offered, the impact fees collected would be lower depending on how many units are built with projects. Upon adoption, residential impact fees will apply to new residential projects that have not had applications deemed complete as of the effective date of the ordinance implementing the fee. In the near term (within the next five years), staff estimates that there could be potentially 400 to 600 new units that have been discussed in conjunction with the update of the General Plan, based on property owner input, and factoring the residential densities proposed in the Draft General Plan. Over the course of the General Plan, up to 2,951 units are projected through the year 2040. Table 2 below provides rough estimates of the range of potential fees that could be collected, working with the assumption that applications for 400 to 600 new units may be contemplated in the near term (approximately 5 years). For purposes of the estimate, the assumption is an average unit size of 850 square feet. The estimate provides a range of potential fees based on: • Lowest fee - $14.00/sq ft for a rental project 50 units/acre or less with prevailing/area wage • Medium/Average fee - $23.50/sq ft based on an average of all fee levels • High fee - $30.00/sq ft based on prevalence of higher density rental projects and/or for sale/condominium projects Residential Impact Fees Ordinance March 4, 2019 6 TABLE 2: ESTIMATE OF POTENTIAL NEAR-TERM HOUSING IMPACT FEES Units Floor Area (assuming 850 sf/unit) Housing Impact Fees – Low ($14.00/sf) Housing Impact Fees – Medium/Average ($23.50/sf) Housing Impact Fees – High ($30.00/sf) 400 340,000 $4,760,000 $7,990,000 $10,200,000 600 510,000 $7,140,000 $11,985,000 $15,300,000 Table 3 below includes three scenarios that adjust for the in-lieu option, whereby some or most projects would choose to provide an affordable unit or units on site in lieu of submitting the impact fee. These scenarios are hypothetical, as it is not possible to forecast what proportion of new projects would choose the in-lieu option; the scenarios are presented for informational purposes. TABLE 3: ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL NEAR-TERM HOUSING IMPACT FEES Units Housing Impact Fees – Low ($14.00/sf) Housing Impact Fees – Medium/Average ($23.50/sf) Housing Impact Fees – High ($30.00/sf) 400 Units 25% projects utilize in-lieu option $3,570,000 $5,992,500 $7,650,000 50% projects utilize in-lieu option $2,380,000 $3,995,000 $5,100,000 75% projects utilize in-lieu option $1,190,000 $1,997,500 $2,550,000 600 Units 25% projects utilize in-lieu option $5,355,000 $8,988,750 $11,475,000 50% projects utilize in-lieu option $3,570,000 $5,992,500 $7,650,000 75% projects utilize in-lieu option $1,785,000 $2,996,250 $3,825,000 Exhibits: • City Council Meeting Minutes – November 14, 2018 • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Excerpt – February 11, 2019 • Proposed Ordinance • Proposed Resolution – Area Standard Wage Policy • “Financial Analysis of Proposed Affordable Housing Program, City of Burlingame” – Seifel Consulting • Residential Applications Overview – February 2019 Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Approved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Residential Impact Fee Study Session on November 14, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. 5. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. DISCUSSION OF RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEES Mayor Brownrigg noted that the Council’s discussion on residential impact fees was an important part of the General Plan. He asked that the Council come to a decision so that the residential impact fees would be in place prior to the adoption of the updated General Plan. He added that it is important that affordable housing be an outcome of the General Plan. CDD Gardiner stated that in 2017, the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing commercial linkage fees for new commercial development in Burlingame. These fees were established to account for the impact that new commercial development has on housing for the workforce. CDD Gardiner stated that in February 2018, the City Council considered establishing residential impact fees. The Council asked staff to look at the economics of an onsite in-lieu option as an alternative to impact fees. Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Approved Minutes 2 The City’s consultant, Libby Seifel, stated that the purpose of the study her firm conducted was to determine how best to encourage developers to build affordable housing in lieu of paying fees. She noted that the cost of construction and land has made it more difficult to deliver housing in the Bay Area. Ms. Seifel stated that predevelopment is the most difficult part of the process. This is because at this stage in the project, capital is most expensive and requires significant returns to attract investment. For development to move forward, the cost has to be lower than the value of the development in order to provide a developer margin of return. Councilmember Keighran stated that the margin could be affected by the construction timeline. She noted that the construction timeline can often extend past its original date, which causes an increase in construction costs. Ms. Seifel replied in the affirmative. Ms. Seifel reviewed development costs. She stated that soft costs like environmental review, land issues, and parking are unpredictable. She explained that what a developer pays for the construction depends on the type of project. Two to five story developments are the least expensive, with eight stories and above being the most expensive because of the need for below-grade parking and reinforced structures. Ms. Seifel explained that generally the cost of parking increases dramatically the further below grade a project goes. She noted that it is much more cost effective to build parking on a podium above grade. Ms. Seifel discussed land acquisition costs. She explained that land value is determined by either the sales price, negotiated purchase based on appraised value, or residual land value analysis based on new development potential. She stated that from a property owner’s perspective, the value of the land is based on revenues generated. She added that the value of land in Burlingame ranges from $6.8 million to $16 million per acre. She stated that for this analysis, her team chose a conservative range of $200-260 per square foot (approximately $9 million per acre). Ms. Seifel explained that her team studied three typical development types: 1. Multifamily apartments on a 3-acre site (density range of 50-120 du/acre) Ms. Seifel explained that they looked at a 3-acre site with 150 units and at alternative densities of 210 and 360 units. She stated that in order to obtain institutional capital, the project usually needs to be more than 200 units. She explained that her team studied requiring 10% to 15% affordable housing as the in-lieu of fees option. Her team also looked at the effects of a project being done at 100% market rate. She noted that in Burlingame, the average unit size is 850 net square feet, and the market rate is approximately $3,750/month. She added that the parking ratio is 1.45 spaces per unit. Therefore, a project with 150 units would have 220 parking spaces. 2. Condominiums on a .5 acre site (50 du/acre) Ms. Seifel explained that for condominiums, her team studied a .5 acre site with 25 units, with the onsite option requiring 10% to 15% affordable. She noted that the average unit size was 1,000 net square feet, with an average sales price of $940,000, and a parking ratio of 2 spaces per unit. Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Approved Minutes 3 3. Single family attached homes on a 1.7 acre site (18 du/acre) Ms. Seifel explained that for single family attached developments, her team studied a 1.7 acre site with 31 units. The average unit size was 1,500 net square feet, average sales price is approximately $1.63 million, and the parking ratio is 2 spaces per unit. Ms. Seifel reviewed the housing fees in other San Mateo County jurisdictions. She stated that the middle range of fees is $15 to $25 per square foot for housing fees. She noted that the higher end of fees for apartments is $35 per square foot, and the lower end is $10 per square foot. She explained that her team reviewed the feasibility of the City adopting $10, $15, and $20 per square foot fees for apartments. Mayor Brownrigg stated that many of the cities in San Mateo County have inclusionary housing. He asked if other cities were giving developers the option of fees or onsite affordable housing. Ms. Seifel explained that because of the decision in Palmer/Sixth Street Properties L.P. v. City of Los Angeles, many jurisdictions were no longer able to have inclusionary housing over both rental and for sale. Therefore, many jurisdictions went through a nexus process and adopted a fee for their residential rental program. The impact fee could apply for rental and for sale, or just for rental. She noted that some jurisdictions had inclusionary housing requirements that have been in place for a long time, with the option of paying a fee in lieu of providing housing. CDD Gardiner added that jurisdictions that have both fees and inclusionary housing requirements often have tiered fees. For example, in Redwood City, the developer pays a fee for projects up to 20 units; if the project is more than 20 units, the developer must provide inclusionary housing. Councilmember Keighran asked if there are any cities that have a tiered fee system. Ms. Seifel responded that every city is unique. She explained that usually there is a threshold below which inclusionary housing does not apply. Councilmember Keighran asked about property values in Burlingame compared to other Peninsula cities. Ms. Seifel explained that her team didn’t obtain the best sample size of land transactions. She added that many of the commercial land owners have owned their property for a long time, thereby invoking Prop 13. She noted that for these land owners, there needs to be an incentive to sell. Ms. Seifel discussed apartment development feasibility at alternative housing fee levels. She stated that if there is a feasibility gap at the $15 impact fee level, it will get exacerbated if the fee is increased. She explained that the reason the 120 unit per acre project is penciling is because the developer is able to amortize the $10 million cost across more units. Ms. Seifel stated that in order to get to the density that is needed in Burlingame, the City will need to look at decreasing parking requirements. Ms. Seifel showed a slide that depicted developers’ return on costs for an apartment building. She explained that return on cost is how the developers are measuring their supportable project costs. She noted that the slide shows that the 50 dwelling units per acre or 70 units per acre aren’t penciling. However, if the density is increased to 120 dwelling units per acre, developers are able to obtain a return on costs and pay housing impact fees. Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Approved Minutes 4 Mayor Brownrigg stated that 120 dwelling units per acre is a seven story building. Ms. Seifel stated that with a tighter parking configuration, it could be six stories. Mayor Brownrigg stated that seven stories is approximately 75 feet and asked if the City would run into FAA limits in any areas of the city. CDD Gardiner replied in the negative and stated that the FAA height limit at the Bayfront is 160 feet, and at El Camino Real it is 130 feet. Ms. Seifel reviewed condominium development feasibility and single family attached developments at alternative housing fee levels. She stated that the fee is a relatively small piece of the total price, and there is little to no feasibility gap. Councilmember Beach asked Ms. Seifel to discuss how the State Density Bonus program impacted her findings. Ms. Seifel explained that under the 35% Density Bonus, a site that had been zoned for 50 dwelling units per acre could be increased to approximately 70 dwelling units per acre. She explained that when her team did this analysis, they assumed that every unit would be paying the fee regardless of whether or not it was density bonus. She added that if the developer chose the inclusionary housing in lieu of the fee, it would be on the base number of units, not the density bonus. Ms. Seifel reviewed a chart of the 2018 household income levels in San Mateo County. She explained that a studio unit is assumed to have a one-person household, a one bedroom unit is assumed to have a two-person household, and a two bedroom is assumed to have a three-person household. She stated that this is a standard that a lot of communities adopted. She pointed out that what the chart is saying is that a typical family of four earns $118,000. She explained that low income is typically 80% of the median income. However, on the chart 80% of median income for a family of four is $117,000. The reason for this is that the cost of housing has increased, and HUD has set the low income threshold to correspond with the housing costs and incomes. Therefore, low income levels have increased. Ms. Seifel stated that her team reviewed what households at various levels of income can afford to pay for rent. She explained that a household at 80% AMI can afford $2400 per month. Someone at 60% AMI can afford approximately $1700 per month. However, she stated that the average market rent in Burlingame is $3,750 per month. Ms. Seifel explained that every time developers have to provide affordable housing, they have to figure out how to make up the gap between market rate and affordable. Ms. Seifel stated that in reviewing the market value of an apartment unit, for 50% AMI, the restricted value is $275,000 while the market rate is $700,000. Therefore, it creates a gap of $425,000. She noted that the higher the AMI percentage, the smaller the gap. Mayor Brownrigg stated that if a project with 100 units was asked to build 15% affordable, the cost would be spread out over the entire project. Therefore, the gap would be smaller. Ms. Seifel replied in the affirmative. Ms. Seifel reviewed a chart that showed the apartment affordability gap at alternative onsite requirements. She stated that if the requirement was 10% of the units affordable at 110% AMI, it would equate to a fee of $20 per square foot. If 10% of the units were affordable at 50% AMI, it equates to approximately $50 per square foot. She noted that this analysis was undertaken because Council asked how the City can incentivize developers to build onsite rather than pay a fee. She added that developers typically prefer to pay the fee. Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Approved Minutes 5 Ms. Seifel stated that condominiums and single family homes can afford impact fees but not necessarily onsite housing. Ms. Seifel stated that after reviewing different scenarios, the main takeaway is that with increased density, the fees are more feasible because the costs are spread across more units. Additionally, if the City wants to incentivize onsite housing, it should be no more than a 10% requirement. Ms. Seifel reviewed the key findings from the apartment analysis: 1. Apartment rents are not keeping pace with construction and land cost increases 2. Depending on project costs, apartment projects do not yield sufficient returns to attract capital (feasibility gap) 3. Burlingame has a significant apartment affordability gap (gap between market rents and affordable rents) 4. Higher density alternatives are more feasible as cost of land can be spread across more units 5. 10% onsite affordable housing requirements focused on moderate income households (80% to 120% AMI) are most feasible and best correlate to housing fee levels between $15 to $25 per square foot. Ms. Seifel next reviewed the key findings from the for-sale analysis: 1. Housing prices have been increasing rapidly, but most buyers need significant cash or “trade-up” value in homes to afford new units 2. For-sale developments are more financially feasible than apartments given high price points 3. Housing fees at $25 per square foot on for-sale units can likely be supported by new development 4. For-sale housing affordability gap is significant particularly for large single family attached units 5. 10% onsite affordable housing requirements focused on households between 100% and 135% AMI are most feasible and best correlate to housing fee levels of about $25 per square foot. Ms. Seifel stated that the potential strategies to encourage onsite affordable housing are: 1. Develop a more streamlined and predictable process for land use and design review 2. Allow more housing units to be built in a development to encourage onsite units a. Density bonus and height modifications b. Incentives and concessions c. Allow smaller affordable unit sizes, especially for ownership d. Smaller parking space dimensions e. Significant parking reductions for residential and retail, especially near transit and public parking 3. Limit the total cost of City imposed permit, processing, and development impact fees to levels that are close to current levels 4. Provide developers with certainty regarding how much these fees will increase annually until building permits are pulled (e.g. link future increases to published inflationary indices). Councilmember Beach stated that one of the suggestions is to look at parking requirements near transit. She asked if the City was to loosen parking requirements in parts of the city would this be an added incentive for a developer to create affordable units onsite. Ms. Seifel explained that the parking ratio impacts how many units can be built under a city’s height limits. Therefore, by loosening the parking requirement, the developer would be able to build more units (potentially affordable housing) and also decrease construction costs and type. Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Approved Minutes 6 Councilmember Keighran asked if in Ms. Seifel’s experience, projects built close to transportation corridors require fewer parking spaces. Ms. Seifel responded in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg asked Ms. Seifel to talk about the State Density Bonus. Ms. Seifel explained that the California State Density Bonus allows developers to provide a certain amount of affordable housing in exchange for additional density. She added that the additional density must be onsite and includes special provisions for land dedication and senior housing. She explained that if a developer has 100 units, and 11 units are affordable to 50% AMI (very low income), the developer is eligible for a state density bonus of 35%. In this example, that would be an additional 35 units. Mayor Brownrigg asked if it was a by-right bonus entitlement. Ms. Seifel responded in the affirmative. Ms. Seifel stated that developers are mostly using the bonus for the very low income units. She explained that the requirement for low income is that 20% of the units must be affordable to 60% AMI for rental and 70% for owner. She added that for moderate income it is 40% of the units must be affordable to 110% AMI. Mayor Brownrigg asked if a city also created an incentive program for very low income units, can the developer use the same units for both State and local incentives. Ms. Seifel stated that if the developer provides units onsite that meet the requirements, they get the state density bonus. The city could do a density bonus that is above the state requirement. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Mario Muzzi discussed his concern about residential impact fees and how they might diminish a developer’s ability to build housing. Burlingame resident Vince Muzzi discussed his concern about residential impact fees and the updated General Plan. Housing for all Burlingame member Mike Denham stated that more housing needed to be created in Burlingame and asked that it be made a priority. Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment. Councilmember Keighran stated that there are good points made on all sides of this topic. She explained that part of the issue is that a developer may have something in mind that pencils out, but when it comes before the Planning Commission, it is remodeled and loses a few units. She suggested that because the General Plan is being updated, the City should focus on higher densities outside of the established communities. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he was thinking the City should have a tiered system for impact fees based on density, with different schedules for apartments, condominiums, and single attached homes. Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Approved Minutes 7 Mayor Brownrigg stated that the Council should go product by product for the conversation. He added that he was struggling with making decisions about condominiums versus apartments because it’s just a different ownership type. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the City has three projects (Bayswater, Summerhill, and Douglas) which all voluntarily included inclusionary housing. CDD Gardiner stated that typically the reason they’ve seen the projects come in with affordable units is not for the density bonus but for the concessions. He explained that the reason that projects are voluntarily including 10% at moderate income is because pursuant to State Density Bonus, this qualifies the project for a concession, such as additional height. Mayor Brownrigg stated that each of the projects had about 10% dedicated to moderate income. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative and added that it was done to obtain a concession. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the market is the best indicator of what the market can bear. She suggested that Council focus on the missing middle, 10% of units at 80% to 120% AMI. Ms. Seifel stated that if the Council is trying to stay in the $20-25 per square foot range, they would be looking at 10% at 80% to 110% AMI. Councilmember Ortiz stated that previously the Council had discussed creating a fee structure as to encourage building inclusionary housing. Mayor Brownrigg stated that if the City charges $30, it is a break-even point for the developer. If the City charges $40 per square foot, it begins to incentivize the creation of onsite units. Ms. Seifel replied in the affirmative, with the caveat that her team didn’t find that it was feasible to charge $40 per square foot. She explained that $40 per square foot was barely feasible at 70 dwelling units per acre and wasn’t feasible at 50 dwelling units per acre. Mayor Brownrigg stated that 50 dwelling units per acre doesn’t work in any of Ms. Seifel’s charts. Councilmember Keighran stated that this is making the assumption that the Mayor is focusing on an area of Burlingame that has higher density. Mayor Brownrigg stated that this is a good question, whether the City is focusing on certain areas of Burlingame or the city as a whole. Councilmember Ortiz stated that this report articulates the need to set up a tiered system based on density. He noted that he wasn’t in favor of charging no fee at the lower end of the density. Councilmember Beach stated that affordability isn’t happening on its own, and therefore this is one way the City can help. She noted that on page 27 of the staff report, the takeaway is that a fee of $20-$25 per square foot should be focused on higher density rental developments of 100 units per acre or more. She stated that this is a decent place to start. She added that the City should also consider the value of obtaining fees instead of inclusionary housing. She explained that the fees could be used to assist nonprofits to build housing for low to very low income. Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Approved Minutes 8 Councilmember Beach stated that she agreed that higher density makes sense near transit in the northern part of Burlingame. Vice Mayor Colson stated that in working with Home for All, she has learned that Measure K funds, federal funds, and state funds are being utilized for affordable housing projects. Therefore, the City’s fees would be gap fillers. She noted that the City fees could be used to leverage state or federal funding. However, the City fees won’t be the panacea that others might think they will be. She stated that Home for All has been focused on low income to very low income. She noted that when talking to HEART, it is clear that assistance for the middle is missing. Vice Mayor Colson discussed the possibility of creating a toggle around parking. She suggested reducing parking requirements if the developer includes affordable housing. City Attorney Kane stated that some of the parking incentives are built into the State Density Bonus. Therefore, the City could amplify the benefits. Councilmember Keighran suggested that Council start with where they know impact fees work, which is 90- 120 unit projects. She added that she liked giving developers the choice of either fees or onsite housing. She explained that the fees could be utilized to preserve the existing units, and in return owners would be required to keep rent at a certain level for a certain number of years. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he agreed with Councilmember Keighran. Mayor Brownrigg stated that what he has heard is that while it is unusual to have tiered residential impact fees, his colleagues believe this is the best option. He suggested that the fee for 50 dwelling units and below is $20 per square foot. Councilmember Beach stated that she didn’t believe a 50 unit or below project would pencil if the fee was $20 per square foot. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he thought the fee for 50 dwelling units or below should be $18 per square foot, and decreased to $15 for prevailing wage. He added that for 69 dwelling units to 51 dwelling units, it should be $20 per square foot, and decreased to $17 for prevailing wage. Mayor Brownrigg stated that at some point he wanted to see the fee become a little bit more of a bite so that developers were encouraged to create onsite affordable housing. Councilmember Ortiz explained that the balance to that is that the City wants to encourage people to build. Mayor Brownrigg suggested that for 70 dwelling units and more, the fee should be $30 per square foot. Mayor Brownrigg stated that what he was hearing from his colleagues is that the program should incentivize the middle, which is 80% to 120% AMI. He noted that HUD’s statement that an individual who makes median income or less in California is low income was a staggering acknowledgment of the problem. Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Approved Minutes 9 Councilmember Beach stated that from Ms. Seifel’s analysis, the highest the fees can go for the project to pencil out is $25. She suggested instead of higher fees, the City create a lower parking requirement within a certain radius of a fixed transit station. Mayor Brownrigg asked if State Density Bonus included a parking incentive. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. He added that if the City’s fee structure is such that it tilts towards developers using the State Density Bonus, thereby obtaining decreased parking and other concessions, then the State Density Bonus might help the City get more onsite units. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the City should lower parking ratios throughout the city and not use them as incentives. Councilmember Beach stated that the important thing about using lower parking ratios as incentives is that the City can use it as a way to obtain affordable housing. Ms. Seifel stated that under State Density Bonus, a developer only gets the parking concession if they are at the 35% density bonus threshold, meaning that the developer has 11% of their units going to very low income AMI. However, she explained that this doesn’t mean that the City couldn’t have a local parking benefit. Additionally, she noted that non-profits have done a lot of research that shows that affordable units do not require as much parking. She explained that under State Density Bonus law, if a project is 100% affordable, the parking requirement is .5 spaces per unit. For mixed income, the requirement is .5 spaces per bedroom. Therefore, the City could create an incentive that for affordable housing units, the developer is only required to provide .5 spaces per unit. Councilmember Ortiz suggested that if the idea is to incentivize inclusionary housing, then the City could give developers the option of either paying the fee or building 10% affordable to middle income with a parking variance. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the Council has set a range of between 80% and 120% AMI to focus on, which means that everyone will build to 120%. Therefore, maybe the parking incentive is the incentive to build for 80% AMI. Mayor Brownrigg asked if it was feasible for staff to administer Vice Mayor Colson’s suggestion. CDD Gardiner explained that staff will be contracting a housing provider to administer the program. Vice Mayor Colson stated that if a developer chooses to build onsite, then the requirement should be that those units must stay affordable for at least 55 years. The Council agreed. Mayor Brownrigg stated that if a project has only 10 units, with 5 units being affordable to 80% AMI, then the savings in decreased parking requirement would only be 2 spaces. City Attorney Kane stated that this was one of the incentives that Ms. Seifel posed which is that the lower parking ratio could apply to the whole project. Mayor Brownrigg suggested that if the developer does 10% affordable, the City waives the fees, and if the developer does 15% to 20% affordable, then the parking ratio changes. Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Approved Minutes 10 Ms. Seifel noted that the 80% AMI is very close to the 100% AMI. Therefore, it is important to maintain a range as it actually limits who can qualify for those units. She stated that it is normal to set the affordability level at somewhere in the middle of the range. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she liked the Mayor’s suggestion of getting the parking concession if the developer goes above the 10%. Councilmember Beach asked if it would make more sense to offer the parking variance at a larger percentage of affordability or for deeper levels of affordability. Ms. Seifel replied that she hasn’t run the numbers on the difference. Councilmember Beach stated that parking requirements are changing, and the City needs to lean in to decreasing parking requirements. Mayor Brownrigg stated that this is the reason for not making the parking an incentive and instead changing the ratio citywide. Mayor Brownrigg reopened public comment. Burlingame resident Vince Muzzi suggested having Ms. Seifel come up with five scenarios that work, and then the Council can choose from that. Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment. Vice Mayor Colson suggested that the Council bifurcate this process and start with percentages and fees. Then take a second look with more data about the parking incentive. Councilmember Keighran stated that it depends on the timeframe, as she wanted to ensure that the parameters were in place prior to the General Plan being adopted. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he believed the Council has enough information to come up with the first layer, which is the fees, and then later add parking. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he wanted to stipulate that the Council was talking about the area within a half mile of rail (BART and Caltrain). He asked if the General Plan has parking ratios. CDD Gardiner replied in the negative but stated that staff is creating parking ratios to go with the interim zoning. Mayor Brownrigg asked what the timing is for the interim zoning. City Attorney Kane stated that interim zoning will go with the adoption of the General Plan. She added that cities don’t get in trouble for lessening requirements; they get in trouble for increasing requirements. She explained that the Council could come to a decision about fees and add the caveat that they plan on discussing decreasing parking ratios at a later date. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the reason to make a decision at the meeting is that if the General Plan is adopted prior to adoption of the impact fees, there could be projects moving forward without residential Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Approved Minutes 11 impact fees. City Attorney Kane stated that in looking at the calendar, the residential impact fees will lag a little behind adoption of the General Plan. Mayor Brownrigg stated that for apartments the suggested residential impact fees based on Council discussion were: Units per acre Fee Fee with Prevailing Wage Up to 50 units $18 per square foot $15 per square foot Up to 70 units $20 per square foot $17 per square foot Above 70 units $30 per square foot $25 per square foot The Council agreed that the requirement was either pay the fee or provide 10% affordable onsite. Councilmember Ortiz stated that the $30 fee is a big jump. He stated that he would be more comfortable with above 70 units being $28, and $25 with prevailing wage. Councilmember Keighran stated that she was more concerned with the up to 50 units. She believed it was too high. Vice Mayor Colson stated that other cities have a minimum project size for residential impact fees. She suggested exempting projects with under ten units. The Council agreed that rental projects with 10 units and below would be exempt from residential impact fees. Vice Mayor Colson asked if Councilmember Keighran would be comfortable with the 11-50 dwelling units at $18 per square foot, or $15 per square foot with prevailing wage. Councilmember Keighran stated that there wasn’t much of a difference in the fees between the first tier and second tier, so she wondered if the first tier should be lowered by a dollar or two. She suggested $16 per square foot, and $13 per square foot with prevailing wage. Councilmember Ortiz stated that it was too low. The Council agreed that the tiers should be as follows: Units per acre Fee Fee with Prevailing Wage 11 to 50 units $17 per square foot $14 per square foot Up to 70 units $20 per square foot $17 per square foot Above 70 units $30 per square foot $25 per square foot Ms. Seifel stated that their analysis was stating that $25 per square foot was feasible at 120 dwelling units per acre, not $30 per square foot at 70 dwelling units per acre. Mayor Brownrigg stated that Council is giving developers a way to waive the fee by doing the 10% onsite. Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Approved Minutes 12 Vice Mayor Colson noted that there are extraneous factors that make construction costs cheaper or more expensive and are beyond the control of the Council. Mayor Brownrigg next directed his colleagues to discuss impact fees for single family homes and condominiums. Councilmember Ortiz stated that his suggestion was that single family attached and condominiums should have a fee of $22 per square foot. Councilmember Beach stated that she believed that the developers for single family attached could afford $25 per square foot. She added that this is what they will probably choose because they can’t afford to offer 10% inclusionary housing. She stated that realistically, they will be getting fees from single family attached and condo developments. Mayor Brownrigg stated that fees ranging from $15 to $25 per square foot are doable for condominium developments. Ms. Seifel replied in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the City could charge $35 per square foot. Ms. Seifel stated that she didn’t look at this, and it would depend on the price of land. Vice Mayor Colson stated that a complaint that the City receives is that there are no entry level homes to purchase in Burlingame. Therefore, she would increase the fees because the margin of return is still pretty high. She explained that this is an area where the City should incentivize construction. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the economics are clear that the developer will just pay the fee. He added that he was worried that the fees for condos would incentivize developers to build condos over apartments. Vice Mayor Colson asked if incentivizing developers to build condos over apartments was bad or good. Councilmember Keighran stated that 52% of the City’s housing stock is apartments. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she had no problem incentivizing entry level condos. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he would want a percentage of the condos to be affordable. Vice Mayor Colson stated that then the City has to have a higher impact fee. Ms. Seifel stated that for condominiums, the policy choice the City has is to allow not just moderate income units but also 120% to 150% to provide more of an incentive. She stated that this is meeting another part of the missing middle. Mayor Brownrigg stated Ms. Seifel’s slide concerning the Condominium Affordability Gap stated that the fee could be set at $40 to $50 per square foot to encourage onsite housing. Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Approved Minutes 13 Vice Mayor Colson asked how her colleagues felt about not charging a fee for projects with 10 condos or less. Councilmember Beach asked if it is a lot more profitable to have the condos, or is it the same as the apartments. Vice Mayor Colson stated that you had to look at it not from the fee generation view point but from trying to add in needed housing stock. Ms. Seifel suggested that the Council might set a threshold by which the City states that if units are delivered to the market close to 120% AMI (approximately $700,000), there wouldn’t be a fee. However, once the developer decides to build to the market, then the fee is triggered. Therefore, it isn’t just based on the size but also on your price point. City Attorney Kane stated that she worried about staff’s ability to track Ms. Seifel’s suggestion. Councilmember Beach asked Ms. Seifel if it would be reasonable to set a $35 per square foot fee for condos but allow it to be in a range of 135% to 150% AMI. Ms. Seifel stated that the range should be 100% to 150% AMI. Vice Mayor Colson discussed condo projects that are rented. She stated that she didn’t want the developer to build them under the auspices of being condos to avoid the residential impact fees of apartments. Councilmember Beach asked how the City could control this. Vice Mayor Colson stated that you charge higher fees for condominiums. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he thought the fee should be $35 per square foot above a certain number of units. Councilmember Ortiz thought $35 was way too high. He added that he didn’t see any reason to exempt any number of condos from the fee. Mayor Brownrigg asked if a developer could tell staff that they are building apartments and then once built, sell them as condos. CDD Gardiner replied in the negative, stating that condos have a condo map associated with them. City Attorney Kane stated that her experience at the Planning Commission is that most of the condo projects are small: 5 to 10 units. CDD Gardiner agreed. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he thought the City should exempt projects with fewer than 10 condos from the fee. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he didn’t think that any number of condos should be exempted. Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Approved Minutes 14 Councilmember Beach agreed with Councilmember Ortiz. Councilmember Keighran and Vice Mayor Colson believed that fewer than 10 should be exempt. Mayor Brownrigg asked if he was correct that the City used to discourage condo conversions. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative and explained that it was done to preserve rental housing. Mayor Brownrigg asked if this ordinance was still on the books. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg stated that if this ordinance was still on the books, then it seems to him that the City Council should not exempt smaller condo projects from the residential impact fees. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she believed that the City might want to revisit this policy. She stated that the City is going to be adding 2,000 to 3,000 multi-family units and very few ownership opportunities. Therefore, allowing older housing stock to convert to ownership is a good thing. Councilmember Keighran stated she would be open to relooking at this ordinance. Mayor Brownrigg suggested a compromise where the first five condo units are exempt from fees. Vice Mayor Colson suggested going to six. Councilmember Beach stated that the market shows that they can bear the fee, and while she leans towards no, she would compromise. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the Council wanted to give condos an in lieu of fee option. City Attorney Kane stated her understanding was that there was an in-lieu option of 10% up to 150% AMI. Council agreed. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the fee should be higher if the AMI is higher. Ms. Seifel stated that the average should be lower than 150% AMI, but it has to be expressed as a range. City Attorney Kane stated that because one or two units will be made in a project, that becomes the range. Ms. Seifel stated that a household can qualify that earns 120-150% AMI, but the affordable price is set at 135% AMI. Councilmember Beach stated that she agreed that 135% AMI would be the target. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was curious how much money the City would be leaving on the table. He asked what the square footage is that Ms. Seifel assumed for the condos. Ms. Seifel replied 1,000 square feet. Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Approved Minutes 15 Mayor Brownrigg stated that the impact fee at $35 per square foot would be $35,000 a unit. Therefore, the City would be giving up $120,000 to $150,000 for one affordable unit. He wondered if it was worth it or if the City should not allow developers to avoid the fee. Councilmember Keighran stated that currently there isn’t an option for entry level buying, and therefore it would be good to create affordable housing. Councilmember Ortiz stated that the more affordable units that get built, the better, and therefore he would prefer the units over the money. Mayor Brownrigg stated that what he was hearing is that the City would set the fee at $35 per square foot, and if the developer builds 10% of their units targeting 135% AMI, the fee is waived. Vice Mayor Colson stated that if a developer builds apartments and within ten years converts them to condos, they have to pay the condominium fee. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he liked the Vice Mayor’s suggestion. CDD Gardiner suggested that the fee be tied to the map. He explained that if it was a condominium map, whether or not they rented them, the condo fee would be charged. Therefore, the only projects that would have the apartment fees would be the ones that don’t have condominium maps. City Attorney Kane stated that for administration purposes, CDD Gardiner’s suggestion was sound. Mayor Brownrigg suggested that staff use Council’s discussion on condos to propose a similar scheme for townhouses. CDD Gardiner asked if the Council had a prevailing wage discount for condos. Mayor Brownrigg stated that it should be $30 per square foot. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the residential impact fees would help with the middle. However, she noted that low and very low income would be addressed in other ways such as ADUs and the Lots F and N project. Mayor Brownrigg added that the State Density Bonus would assist low and very low income. Councilmember Beach discussed public versus private land and if there is a difference in how they should be treated. She stated for example what happens if the school district decided to build units. She also asked about the timing of the fees. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the Council had to address institutional land now. CDD Gardiner stated that he would look into it. Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Approved Minutes 16 Vice Mayor Colson stated that with the Peninsula Healthcare District project, the City should talk about how to treat their land. Additionally, she stated if the City is doing a project where they are contributing the land, would the City be able to waive the fee. City Attorney Kane stated that the City’s default is that the impact fees are a universal policy. She noted that there are certain procedural steps that need to occur prior to applying fees to a project. Mayor Brownrigg thanked staff and colleagues for their time. 5. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Brownrigg adjourned meeting at 10:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, February 11, 2019 b.Consideration of an Ordinance Adopting Residential Impact Fees for New Residential Development Staff Report Residential Impact Fee Ordinance - Exhibit A Seifel Consulting Report Proposed Resolution - Residential Impact Fees Proposed Resolution - Prevailing Wages Public Notice Attachments: Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >In Figure 1-1 in the Seifel financial analysis, why is the maximum justifiable fee per square foot $85.00 when the unit fee is much lower? (Gardiner: The analysis indicates a maximum fee based on the demand for additional workforce housing, however that maximum fee may be higher than what the market can support.)(Kane: It is a dilution factor, in that the higher occupancy housing has a greater impact on the jobs balance than lower occupancy housing such as single family homes. It can be counterintuitive.) >What is the difference between base impact fee and impact fee with prevailing /area wage? (Gardiner: A discount is applied to projects that utilize prevailing wage labor and enter into a prevailing wage agreement. It is meant to encourage the use of prevailing wage labor, but also recognize that prevailing wages has a benefit on the workforce. Therefore there is a tie-in in justifying the discount.) >The fees would only apply to projects with applications deemed complete upon the effective date of the ordinance. What establishes the effective date of the ordinance? (Kane: The ordinance will go forward to the City Council with two readings. Since it is a development impact fee, it would become effective 60 days after final adoption by the City Council.) >How was the threshold of 11 units for the rental multifamily and 7 for the condominiums determined? (Gardiner: There was discussion among the Council to determine a threshold for small projects for each development type. In particular, they would be smaller projects that would have a harder time absorbing the impact fees.)(Kane: The thinking was also that smaller projects would have less impact on neighborhoods, so the Council did not want to risk disincentivizing small projects. The fees would apply where there were greater economies of scale that could absorb the fees more easily.) >Is the 55 year affordability period a common timeframe? (Kane: It reflects structure in State Law, as well as tax credit financing. There are a lot of things that hinge off of a 55-year covenant.) >Can the Planning Commission provide additional input on items to include in the ordinance? (Gardiner: Yes, the overall structure of the fees has been set by the City Council, but the Planning Commission is welcome to make suggestions that will be forwarded to the Council.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Public Comments: Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 2/24/2019 February 11, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >On the last page of the Seifel report, likes the list of Policy Considerations to Encourage Onsite Affordable Housing. In particular likes the suggestion of developing a more predictable and streamlined process for land use approval and design review in order to reduce the time and risk associated with infill development. This seems like it would be beneficial to provide to developers, a means to outline more of what to anticipate from the dais. In advance of a presentation to the Planning Commission a lot of time goes into developing plans, and even something as simple as materials could be clarified. Perhaps a "pre-presentation " before coming to design review. There could be a list of acceptable materials, window specifications, landscaping, sizes of decks, etc. There could be a collection of general findings made in recently approved projects. It could also be done at the staff level. >Report references a preference for providing on -site units. From the report, it appears the only densities where that is economical is at the highest densities of 120 units per acre or more. Where would that be? Would that be the Rollins Road Mixed Use area? (Gardiner: The highest densities under the new General Plan are in the North El Camino Real area, near the Millbrae Caltrain /BART station. Downtown also allows high densities. The Rollins Road area has a slightly lower density, but an additional variable is when projects utilize State Density provisions, which can change the economics and make the lower densities more viable as well. There is currently a proposal in the Rollins Road area at around 90 units per acre, and it has affordable units consistent with the specifications in the ordinance so presumably pencils out. The economics of each project will vary, but generally the higher -density projects are more able to absorb the cost and spread them ) >Shares the desire to encourage below -market units rather than the fees. It will take a while to build up the fees, and when considering the cost of land and construction it will not go very far. Whatever the City can do to encourage building the units rather than collect the fees would be worthwhile. >Has been a proponent of getting the fees program in place. It is a place to start, and is necessary for addressing housing issues. Supports the ordinance as proposed. >The ordinance is responsibly written, with the intent of maintaining a healthy mix of socioeconomic households in the population. >The ordinance also has an option for appeal; if someone wants to build a project and the requirements would hinder that, they can make their case. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to recommend to the City Council that the ordinance and resolution be approved as proposed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 2/24/2019 ORDINANCE NO. __________ ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADDING CHAPTER 25.82 TO THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEES FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows: Division 1. Legislative Findings WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65580(d) states that all cities have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing and to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community; and WHEREAS, the provision of safe and stable housing for households at all income levels is essential for the public welfare of the city. The current shortage of affordable housing has caused many lower- and middle-wage workers to commute longer distances from less expensive areas resulting in increased traffic in the City, and has also caused local residents’ housing costs to increase due to high levels of demand for existing housing resulting in a severe housing cost burden for many residents; and WHEREAS, the City's 2015-2023 Housing Element states that it is the City's policy to establish programs to provide direct financial and technical assistance to facilitate the development of affordable workforce housing. The City can achieve its goal of assisting in the development of new housing that is affordable at all income levels only if adequate funding is available to support the development of such housing; and WHEREAS, to ensure that future development projects mitigate their impact on the need for affordable housing in Burlingame, and to ensure that any adopted residential impact fees do not exceed the actual affordable housing impacts attributable to the development projects on which the fees relate, the City agreed to participate in the preparation of a nexus study through the countywide 21 Elements collaboration project; and WHEREAS, in order to meet the needs of Burlingame’s workforce, dwelling units will need to house a variety of household types, incomes, and age groups; and WHEREAS, the City has received and considered a Residential Impact Fee Nexus Study (the “Nexus Study”), dated November 2015, prepared by Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc.; and 2 WHEREAS, the Nexus Study uses widely used, appropriate methodology to determine the maximum amount needed to fully mitigate the burdens created by residential development on the need for affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the findings provided in the Nexus Study have been further supported in the Financial Analysis of Proposed Affordable Housing Program (the “Financial Analysis”), dated November 2018, prepared by Seifel Consulting, Inc.; and WHEREAS, to ensure that development projects remain economically feasible, the residential impact fees specified in the Residential Impact Fee Ordinance codified in this chapter are lower than the maximum amount needed to fully mitigate the burdens created by new development on the need for affordable housing as determined in the Nexus Study and Financial Analysis; and WHEREAS, the Residential Impact Fee Ordinance codified in this chapter will substantially advance the City's legitimate interest in providing additional housing affordable to all income levels in the city by providing funds for the development of housing affordable to very low, low, and moderate income households; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the Residential Impact Fee should be administered consistent with the requirements applicable to fees for public facilities in California Government Code Section 66000 et seq., commonly referred to as the “Mitigation Fee Act,” without determining that it is required to do so; and WHEREAS, at least ten days prior to the date this ordinance is being heard, data was made available to the public indicating the amount of cost, or estimated cost, required to provide the service for which the fee or service charge is levied and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the service, including general fund revenues, in accordance with Government Code Section 66019; and WHEREAS, at least fourteen days prior to the date this ordinance is being heard, notice was provided to any persons or organizations who had requested notice, in accordance with Government Code Section 66019; and WHEREAS, notice of the hearing on the proposed fees was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the manner set forth in Government Code Section 6062a as required by Government Code Section 66018; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, after proceedings duly and regularly held and noticed as provided by law, did on February 11, 2019 review and consider the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing, and recommended to the City Council that it adopt the Residential Impact Fee Ordinance; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Burlingame, after proceedings duly and regularly held and noticed as provided by law, did on March 4, 2019 review and consider the 3 Planning Commission’s recommendation, the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; and WHEREAS, based on the findings above, the City desires to further the public health, safety and welfare by requiring residential development projects in Burlingame to mitigate their impact on the need for affordable housing in the city; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Division 2. Section 1: Chapter 25.82 is added to the Burlingame Municipal Code as follows: Chapter 25.82 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEES 25.82.010 Purpose. 25.82.020 Def initions. 25.82.030 Residential impact fees. 25.82.040 Fee payment. 25.82.050 State Density Bonus. 25.82.060 Exemptions. 25.82.070 Alternatives. 25.82.080 Affordable housing plan and agreement. 25.82.090 Standards for development. 25.82.100 Affordable housing fund. 25.82.110 Administrative relief/appeal. 25.82.120 Enforcement. 25.82.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: (a) Encourage the development and availability of housing affordable to a broad range of households with varying income levels within the city as mandated by State law, including California Government Code Section 65580 and related provisions. (b) Offset the demand for affordable housing that is created by new development and mitigate environmental and other impacts that accompany new residential development by protecting the economic diversity of the City’s housing stock; reducing traffic, transit and related air quality impacts; promoting jobs/housing balance; and reducing the demands placed on transportation infrastructure in the region. (c) Promote the City’s policy to provide an adequate number of affordable housing units to the city’s housing stock in proportion to the existing or projected need in the community, as identified by the Housing Element. 4 (d) Support the Housing Element goal of providing housing opportunities for those who work in Burlingame. (e) Support the Housing Element goal of achieving increased affordability of housing. (f) Support the Housing Element policy of developing of a variety of housing types that are affordable to very low and extremely low income households. (g) Support the Housing Element goal of preserving residential character by encouraging maintenance, improvement and rehabilitation of the City’s neighborhoods and housing stock. 25.82.020 Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the f ollowing meanings: (a) "Administrator" means the Community Development Director of the City or other person designated by the City Manager. (b) “Affordable housing fund” means a separate fund or account designated by the City to maintain and account for all monies received pursuant to this Chapter. (c) “Affordable ownership cost” means the sales price of a for-sale affordable unit resulting in projected average monthly housing payments, during the first calendar year of a household's occupancy, including interest, principal, mortgage insurance, property taxes, homeowners insurance, homeowners' association dues, if any, and a reasonable allowance for utilities, property maintenance, and repairs, not exceeding the sales prices specified by Section 50052.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and California Code of Regulations Title 25, Sections 6910-6924, as they may be amended from time to time. (d) “Affordable rent” means the total monthly housing expenses for an affordable rental unit not exceeding the rents specified by Section 50053 of the California Health and Safety Code and California Code of Regulations Title 25, Sections 6910-6924, as they may be amended from time to time. As used in this Chapter, "affordable rent" shall include the total of monthly payments by the tenant for all of the following: (1) use and occupancy of the rental unit and land and all facilities associated with the rental unit, including but not limited to parking, bicycle storage, storage lockers, and use of all common areas; (2) any additional separately charged fees or service charges assessed by the owner, other than security deposits; (3) an allowance for utilities paid by the tenant as established by the San Mateo County Housing Authority, including garbage collection, sewer, water, electricity, gas, and other heating, cooking. and refrigeration fuel, but not telephone service or cable N; and (4) any other interest, taxes, fees or charges for use of the land or affordable unit or associated facilities and assessed by a public or private entity other than the owner, and paid by the tenant. 5 (e) “Affordable unit” means a dwelling unit which a builder proposes as an alternative to payment of the residential impact fee, as defined in this Chapter and which is required to be rented at a rate affordable to very low, low or moderate income households, or sold at an affordable ownership cost to very low, low or moderate income households. (f) "Builder" (may also be referred to as developer) means any person, firm, partnership, association, joint venture, corporation, or any entity or combination of entities which seeks City approvals for all or part of a residential development project. (g) "Building permit" includes f ull structural building permits as well as partial permits such as f oundation-only permits. (h) “Decision-making body” means the City staff person or body authorized to approve or deny an application for a planning or building permit for a residential development project. (i) "First approval" means the f irst discretionary approval to occur with respect to a residential development project, or, for residential development projects not requiring a discretionary approval, the issuance of a building permit. (j) "For-sale unit" means a residential dwelling unit that may be sold individually in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act. For-sale units also include units that are converted from rental units to for-sale units. (k) “Low income households" means households with incomes no greater than the maximum income for low income households, as published annually by the County of San Mateo for each household size, based on United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) income limits for San Mateo County, unless stated otherwise in this chapter. (l) “Market rate unit" means a new dwelling unit in a residential development project that is not an affordable unit. (m) "Median income" means the median income applicable to San Mateo County, as published annually by the County of San Mateo for each household size, based on median income data for San Mateo County published by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), unless stated otherwise in this chapter. (n) "Moderate income households" means households with incomes no greater than the maximum income for moderate income households, as published annually by the County of San Mateo for each household size, based on United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) income limits for San Mateo County, unless stated otherwise in this chapter. 6 (o) "Planning permit" means any discretionary approval of a development project, including but not limited to a comprehensive or specif ic plan adoption or amendment, rezoning, tentative map, parcel map, conditional use permit, variances, or architectural review. (p) "Rental unit" means a dwelling unit that is intended to be offered for rent or lease and that cannot be sold individually in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act. (q) "Residential development project" means an application for a planning permit or building permit at one location to create one or more additional dwelling units, convert nonresidential uses to dwelling units, subdivide a parcel to create one or more separately transferable parcels intended for residential development, or implement a condominium conversion, including development constructed at one time as well as in phases. “One location” includes all adjacent parcels of land under common ownership or control, the property lines of which are contiguous at any point, or the property lines of which are separated only by a public or private street, road, or other public or private right-of-way, or separated only by the lands owned or controlled by the builder. (r) “Residential floor area” means all horizontal areas of the several floors of such buildings measured from the exterior faces or exterior walls or from the center line of party walls separating two (2) buildings, minus the horizontal areas of such buildings used exclusively for covered porches, patios, or other outdoor space, amenities and common space, parking, elevators, stairwells or stairs between floors, hallways, and between-unit circulation. (s) "Very low income households" means households with incomes no greater than the maximum income for very low income households, as published annually by the County of San Mateo for each household size, based on United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) income limits for San Mateo County, unless stated otherwise in this chapter. 25.82.030 Residential Impact Fees. (a) Initial fees shall be imposed on new residential development projects as follows: Impact Fee – Per Square Foot Base With Prevailing / Area Wage Rental Multifamily – 11 units and above Up to 50 du/ac $17.00 / sq ft $14.00 / sq ft 51-70 du/ac $20.00 / sq ft $17.00 / sq ft 71 du/ac and above $30.00 / sq ft $25.00 / sq ft For Sale Multifamily (Condominiums) – 7 units and above $35.00 / sq ft $30.00 / sq ft (b) Fees shall be based on the calculation of the residential floor area as defined in this chapter, and shall include a credit for existing uses. The Council may amend these fees through the public hearing process for the City’s Master Fee Schedule. Residential impact 7 fees shall not exceed the cost of mitigating the impact of the residential development projects on the need for aff ordable housing in the city. (c) Rental projects that convert to condominiums within 10 years of completion of construction would be subject to the fee differential between rental and for sale units as a condition of conversion. 25.82.040 Fee payment. Any residential impact fee shall be paid in f ull prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the residential development project subject to the f ee or at a time otherwise specified by Council resolution. The fee shall be calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued. 25.82.050 State Density Bonus. For residential development projects that are granted a density bonus pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915, et seq. (the “State Density Bonus Law”), the residential impact fee shall apply to all market-rate units, including any additional market-rate units provided under the State Density Bonus Law. The required residential impact fee shall be reduced to the extent that any affordable units mitigate the market rate units’ impact on the need for affordable housing in the City. The Community Development Director may issue guidelines from time to time regarding the calculation of any fee reduction. 25.82.060 Exemptions. (a) The following residential development projects are exempt from the provisions of this chapter: (1) Rental Multifamily projects with a total of ten (10) units or fewer. (2) For Sale Multifamily (Condominiums) with a total of six (6) units or fewer. (3) Projects that have established a vested right not to be subject to this chapter. (4) Applications under review by the Planning Commission or Community Development Department that had been deemed complete at the time of adoption of the residential impact fees provided for in this Chapter. (b) The City Council may elect to waive payment of the residential impact fee if it finds that: (1) the residential development project is dedicated to a public use owned and operated by other public agencies or a nonprofit public benefit corporation; and (2) the benefits to the community provided by such public use exceed those that would be provided by the payment of the residential impact fee. If the City Council elects to waive residential impact fees pursuant to this provision, the public use of the site shall be guaranteed by a recorded document in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. 8 (c) The City Council by resolution may adopt additional exemptions from time to time. 25.82.70 Alternatives. (a) Alternatives available to projects requiring an impact fee. As an alternative to compliance with the impact fee requirements included in this Article, developers of residential development projects may propose to mitigate the affordable housing impacts of such development through the construction of affordable units on site or through an alternative mitigation program proposed by the developer and the Community Development Director, such as the provision of off-site affordable units, donation of land for the construction of affordable units, or purchase of existing units for conversion to affordable units. Any such conversion must include a guarantee of affordability for a period of 55 years. (1) If a Rental Multifamily project provides ten percent (10%) of the units on site to be affordable to moderate income households (in this instance 80% - 120% AMI) for a period of 55 years, the impacts of residential development on the need for affordable housing shall be deemed mitigated. (2) If a For Sale Multifamily (Townhome/Condominium) project provides ten percent (10%) of the units on site to be affordable to above-moderate income households (in this instance 120% - 150% AMI, with the price set at the 135% AMI level) for a period of 55 years, the impacts of residential development on the need for affordable housing shall be deemed mitigated. (3) Any affordable rental or for-sale units proposed as an alternative to the payment of the residential impact fee shall be subject to the requirements described in Chapter 25.82.070. (b) Approval of off-site affordable units. If a developer proposes off-site affordable units or any other alternative in the affordable housing plan required under Chapter 25.82.080 (Affordable housing plan and agreement), the review authority may approve such a proposal if it finds the proposal meets all of the following conditions: (1) Financing or a viable financing plan, which may include public funding sources, is in place for the proposed affordable housing units; and (2) The proposed location is suitable for the proposed affordable housing, is consistent with the Housing Element, general plan, and zoning, and will not cause residential segregation; and (3) The proposed units will be maintained as affordable for a period of 55 years. (c) Other alternatives. The City may consider an alternative mitigation program proposed by the developer and the Community Development Director, such as the provision of off-site affordable units, donation of land for the construction of affordable units, purchase of 9 existing units for conversion to affordable units or alternatives to Section 25.82.090 (Standards for development). (d) Agreement with City for financing. If the City enters into a financing agreement with the applicant, the parties may agree to alter the requirements of Section 25.82.090 (Standards for development). (e) Significant number of affordable units. If an applicant exceeds the maximum percentage of affordable units set forth in the State Density Bonus law for low or very low income rental or moderate income ownership units, the City will consider an applicant’s request to alter the requirements of Section 25.82.090 (Standards for development) in conjunction with its review of the planning application for the project and may reject or accept the request in its sole discretion. 25.82.80 Affordable housing plan and agreement. (a) If the builder seeks an alternative to the payment of the residential impact fee pursuant to Section 25.82.70 (Alternatives), the application for the first approval of a residential development project for which the alternative is sought shall include an "affordable housing plan" that describes how the alternative will comply with the provisions of this Chapter. No affordable housing plan is required if the builder proposes only to pay the residential impact fee. (1) Residential development projects requesting an alternative to payment of the residential impact fee require that an affordable housing plan be submitted in conformance with this Chapter prior to the application being deemed complete. (2) The affordable housing plan shall be processed concurrently with all other permits required for the residential development project. Before approving the affordable housing plan, the decision- making body shall find that the affordable housing plan conforms to this Chapter. A condition shall be attached to the first approval of any residential development project to require recordation of an affordable housing agreement, as described in this subsection, prior to the approval of any final or parcel map or building permit for the residential development project. (3) The approved affordable housing plan may be amended prior to issuance of any building permit for the residential development project. A request for a minor modification of an approved affordable housing plan may be granted by the Community Development Director if the modification is substantially in compliance with the original affordable housing plan and conditions of approval. Other modifications to the affordable housing plan shall be processed in the same manner as the original plan. (4) If required to ensure compliance with the approved affordable housing plan, affordable housing agreements acceptable to the Community Development Director or designee shall be recorded against the residential development project prior to or concurrently with and as a condition of approval of any final or parcel map, or issuance of any building permit, whichever occurs first. The affordable housing agreement shall specify the number, type, location, size, and phasing of all affordable units, provisions for income certification and 10 screening of potential purchasers or renters of units, and resale control mechanisms, including the financing of ongoing administrative and monitoring costs, consistent with the approved affordable housing plan, as determined by the Community Development Director r designee. (b) After approval of the application, applicant shall enter into a regulatory agreement with the City. The terms of this agreement shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney’s Office, and reviewed and revised as appropriate by the reviewing City official. This agreement shall be on a form provided by the City, and shall include the following terms: (1) The affordability of very low, lower, and moderate income housing shall be assured in a manner consistent with this chapter. (2) An equity sharing agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(c)(2). (3) The location, dwelling unit sizes, rental cost, and number of bedrooms of the affordable units. (4) A description of any bonuses and incentives, if any, provided by the City. (5) Any other terms as required to ensure implementation and compliance with this section, and as applicable sections of State Density Bonus law. 25.82.090 Standards for development. (a) All affordable units provided pursuant to Chapter 25.82.070 shall meet the following standards: (1) The required affordable dwelling units shall be constructed concurrently with market-rate units unless both the final decision-making authority of the City and developer agree within the affordable housing agreement to an alternative schedule for development. (2) The exterior design and construction of the affordable dwelling units shall be consistent with the exterior design and construction of the total project development, and be consistent with any affordable residential development standards that may be prepared by the City. (3) The affordable units shall have the same amenities as the market rate units, including the same access to and enjoyment of common open space, parking, storage, and other facilities in the residential development, provided at an affordable rent as defined in Chapter 25.82.020 or at affordable ownership cost as defined in Chapter 25.82.020. Developers are strictly prohibited from discriminating against tenants or owners of affordable units in granting access to and full enjoyment of any community amenities available to other tenants or owners outside of their individual units. (4) A regulatory agreement, as described in Section 25.82.080 (Affordable housing plan and agreement), shall be made a condition of the discretionary permits for all 11 developments pursuant to this chapter. The regulatory agreement shall be recorded as a restriction on the development. 25.82.100 Affordable housing fund. (a) Special Revenue Fund. A fund for the deposit of fees established under this chapter shall be established and may also receive monies for housing from other sources. (b) Purpose and Limitations. Monies deposited in the fund shall be used to increase and improve the supply of housing affordable to moderate-, low-, very low-, and extremely low-income households. Such purpose includes the purchase of affordability covenants or similar initiatives whose purpose is to preserve existing affordable housing that may otherwise be lost due to market conditions. Monies may also be used to cover reasonable administrative or related expenses associated with the administration of this chapter. (c) Administration. The fund shall be administered by the Administrator, who may develop procedures to implement the purposes of the fund consistent with the requirements of this chapter and subject to any adopted budget of the City and generally applicable accounting and procurement processes. (d) Expenditures. Fund monies shall be used in accordance with the City’s Housing Element, or subsequent plans adopted by the City Council to maintain or increase the quantity, quality, and variety of affordable housing units or assist other governmental entities, private organizations or individuals to do so. Permissible uses include, but are not limited to, land acquisition, debt service, parcel assemblage, gap financing, housing rehabilitation, grants, unit acquisition, new construction, and other pursuits associated with providing affordable housing. The fund may be used for the benefit of both rental and owner-occupied housing. 25.82.110 Administrative Relief/Appeal. (a) The builder of a project subject to this chapter may request that the requirements of this chapter be waived or modified by the City Council, based upon the absence of any reasonable relationship or nexus between the impacts of the development and either the amount of the fee charged or the type of facilities to be financed. (b) The application shall be made in writing and filed with the Community Development Director not later than: (1) Twenty (20) days prior to the public hearing before the Planning Commission on the development project application under this title, or (2) If no hearing before the Planning Commission is required by this title, at the time of the filing of the application for a development permit. (3) The application shall state in detail the factual basis for the claim of waiver, reduction, or adjustment. 12 (c) The City Council shall consider the application at a public hearing held within sixty (60) days after the filing of the fee adjustment application. If a reduction, adjustment or waiver is granted, any change in use within the development project shall invalidate the waiver, adjustment or reduction of the fee. The decision of the City Council is final. 25.82.120 Enforcement. (a) Payment of the residential linkage fee is the obligation of the builder of a residential development project. The City may institute any appropriate legal actions or proceedings necessary to ensure compliance herewith, including, but not limited to, actions to revoke, deny, or suspend any permit or development approval. (b) The City Attorney shall be authorized to enforce the provisions of this chapter and all below market rate housing agreements, regulatory agreements, and all other covenants or restrictions placed on affordable units, by civil action and any other proceeding or method permitted by law. (c) Failure of any official or agency to fulfill the requirements of this chapter shall not excuse any builder or owner from the requirements of this chapter. No permit, license, map, or other approval or entitlement for a commercial development project shall be issued, including without limitation a final inspection or certificate of occupancy, until all applicable requirements of this chapter have been satisfied. (d) The remedies provided for in this chapter shall be cumulative and not exclusive and shall not preclude the City from any other remedy or relief to which it otherwise would be entitled under law or equity. Division 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Division 4. This Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4), which indicates that administrative actions that do not result in physical changes to the environment are not considered “projects” requiring review. The proposed Ordinance is also exempt per Section 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), which is a categorical exemption that applies to code amendments that will not have any significant environmental effects. Division 5. 13 This ordinance, or a summary as applicable, shall be published as required by law and shall become effective 60-days thereafter. ____________________________________ Donna Colson, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ______day of _________________ 2019 and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ______ day of _________________ 2019, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ___________________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. __________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ESTABLISHING AN AREA STANDARD WAGE POLICY FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS SUBJECT TO THE IMPOSITION OF IMPACT FEES UNDER CHAPTER 25.82 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65580(d) states that all cities have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing and to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Burlingame has determined that the development of an area standard wage policy, in addition to the City's commitment to enforcing prevailing wage requirements as to public works projects, as such projects are defined in California Labor Code Section 1720 et seq., is necessary to protect local job opportunities and to increase wages of workers and residents in the city; and WHEREAS, the Council has adopted a residential impact fee ordinance (Municipal Code Section 25.82) that authorizes the imposition of residential impact fees for certain residential development projects to mitigate the impact of such projects on the need for affordable housing in the city (the "Residential Impact Fee Ordinance"); and WHEREAS, in connection with its Residential Impact Fee Ordinance, the City has received and considered reports from the Residential Impact Fee Nexus Study dated November 2015, prepared by Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the Nexus Study demonstrates that new residential development projects create a need for affordable housing in the city by creating many jobs paying such low wages that workers cannot afford market rate housing in the city; and WHEREAS, the findings provided in the Nexus Study have been further supported in the Financial Analysis of Proposed Affordable Housing Program (the “Financial Analysis”), dated November 2018, prepared by Seifel Consulting, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the payment by residential development projects of "Area Standard Wages," which shall be defined as the general prevailing wage determinations for San Mateo County as made by the State of California Director of the Department of Industrial Relations, will increase certain households' ability to afford housing in the city, thereby reducing the impact of those residential development projects on the need for affordable housing in the city; and WHEREAS, in recognition of the reduced impact of projects paying Area Standard Wages, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt an Area Standard Wage Policy that will reduce the Residential Impact Fee for all residential development projects 2 that voluntarily enter into an agreement with the City to pay Area Standard Wages consistent with this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the staff report accompanying this Resolution and referenced documents have been presented to and considered by the City Council in support of the findings and approvals set forth in this Resolution; are hereby incorporated by reference to this Resolution; and, together with the above recitals any public testimony received, form the evidentiary basis and establish the analytical route for reaching the ultimate findings and conclusions contained in this Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Burlingame as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated into this Resolution by this reference. 2. The provisions of this Resolution shall apply to all residential development projects, as such terms are defined in the Residential Impact Fee Ordinance, where the developer voluntarily enters into an "Area Standard Wage Participation Agreement" (an “Agreement”) with the City. The Agreement shall apply to construction of the development project and related public works that are within the customary jurisdiction of the construction trades and crafts, whether performed on or off-site, but need not include off-site work performed by materialmen, as defined under California law. 3. Upon execution of an Agreement that conforms to the requirements of this Resolution, initial fees shall be imposed on new residential development projects as follows: With Prevailing / Area Wage Rental Multifamily – 11 units and above Up to 50 du/ac $14.00 51-70 du/ac $17.00 71 du/ac and above $25.00 For Sale Multifamily (Condominiums) – 7 units and above $30.00 If the developer commits a material breach of such Agreement, the difference in residential impact fees between the adopted fees and the reduced amount under this Resolution shall become due and payable to the City, in addition to all other remedies set forth herein. 4. All employees performing construction work for a project subject to an Agreement shall be paid not less than the Area Standard Wage or the highest prevailing rate of per diem wages as determined and published by the California Department of Industrial Relations subject to California Labor Code Section 1733 from the commencement of construction until the issuance of the latter of either a final certificate of occupancy or a final 3 inspection. Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed to prohibit payment of more than Area Standard Wages. 5. The Agreement shall apply to the employees of any employer, including the developer, any general contractor or subcontractor, or other contractor engaged in construction including their successors or assignees (collectively, the "employer"), but it shall not apply to supervisory or managerial personnel or to persons employed in the rental, operation, or maintenance of the residential development project. 6. The initial Area Standard Wage for each of the employer's employees shall be the published wage rate as of the date the employee commences work on the residential development project. The employer shall be responsible for checking on a quarterly basis whether the Area Standard Wage has been adjusted. In the event that the Area Standard Wage has been adjusted, the employer shall pay such adjusted Area Standard Wage; provided, however, that in no event shall the employer pay less than the initial Area Standard Wage. 7. The employer shall keep an accurate payroll record as specified in California Labor Code Section 1776(a). Certified copies of the payroll records shall be available for inspection at all reasonable hours at a local office of the employer. Copies of the Area Standard Wage Participation Agreement and the records granting the permits authorizing the residential development project shall be provided upon request of a City representative. Any employee, his or her designee, or the public may also request copies of the payroll records from the City. The addresses and social security numbers of the employees may be masked or deleted so as to prevent disclosure in copies furnished to the public. The failure of an employer to comply with the requirements of this section shall create a presumption that Area Standard Wages have not been paid. 8. Nothing in this Resolution shall prevent the employment of any number of properly registered apprentices, as defined in Chapter 4, Division 3 of the California Labor Code. Every such apprentice shall be paid not less than the Area Standard Wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the crafts or trade at which he or she is employed and shall be employed only at the work of the craft or trade to which he or she is registered. The employment and training of each apprentice shall be in accordance with the provisions of the apprenticeship standards and apprentice agreements under which he or she is in training. 9. The provisions of this Resolution shall be incorporated into the Agreement for all residential development projects where the developer voluntarily agrees to enter into an Agreement. The developer shall also cause the provisions of this requirement to be incorporated into each contract and subcontract which would be subject to this requirement. In the event the provisions are not so incorporated, the developer shall be liable to the worker in any action or proceeding for the difference between the Area Standard Wage rate required to be paid and the amount actually paid to the worker, including costs and attorney fees, as if the developer were the actual employer. 4 10. The Community Development Director, or his or her designee, shall maintain for public inspection the current Area Standard Wages. All bid specifications and contracts subject to the provisions of this Resolution shall reference the obligations imposed under this Resolution. A copy of the applicable wage rates together with a copy of a "Notice to Employees," which notice shall be prepared by the developer and approved by City staff, shall be given to any employer subject to the provisions of this Resolution, and all such employers shall post a copy of the Area Standard Wages applicable to the work to be done at the job site in a prominent, visible place readily accessible to the workers employed in the construction of the improvements. 11. No laborer or employee to whom the wage, salary, or other labor standards of this Resolution are applicable shall be discharged or in any other manner discriminated against by the employer because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted, or caused to be instituted, any proceeding or has testified or is about to testify in any proceeding under or relating to the provisions of this Resolution. 12. In the event of a breach of this Resolution or an Area Standard Wage Participation Agreement, the employer shall be liable to the employee for any unpaid wages overtime wages, and benefits established by this Resolution. 13. In the event of failure to pay any employee, laborer, or mechanic (including any apprentice, trainee, or helper) employed in the construction of a residential development project subject to this Resolution all or part of the wages required by this Resolution, the developer shall, upon written demand of the Community Development Director, withhold or cause to be withheld from any moneys payable on account of work performed by a contractor an amount as may be considered necessary to pay laborers and mechanics employed by such contractor or subcontractor the full amount of wages, overtime wages, and benefits required by these labor standards after providing 10-days written notice of such intent to the contractor or subcontractor who has failed to pay the applicable Area Standard Wages to any worker. The developer shall, after such written notice to the contractor, disburse such amounts withheld for and on account of the contractor to the respective employees to whom they are due. If the employee cannot be found to satisfy the unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, and benefits, all such sums shall be remitted to the City's general fund, including a credit for applicable accrued penalties. 14. Nothing in this Resolution shall preclude enforcement by the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement for any matter over which the Division has jurisdiction. 15. The Community Development Director shall have the authority to issue guidelines, rules or regulations from time to time in furtherance of this Resolution. 5 16. Adoption of this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the adoption of this Resolution is not a project, in that it is related to a government funding mechanism which does not involve any commitment to any specific project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4)), and because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Area Standard Wages provisions may have a significant effect on the environment, in that this Resolution contains no provisions modifying the physical design, development, or construction of residences or residential structures (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)). 17. This Resolution shall take effect only if the Residential Impact Fee Ordinance is adopted and effective. _______________________________________ Donna Colson, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ____ day of _____________, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ________________________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk Financial Analysis of Proposed Affordable Housing Program City of Burlingame For many years, new housing development in the Bay Area has not kept pace with the growing demand for housing. This is particularly true of San Mateo County, where strong economic growth has intensified housing demand, leading to rapid increases in home prices and rents. As a result, many local residents and workers are not able to afford housing in the County and the City of Burlingame. The local jurisdictions within San Mateo County commissioned a coordinated set of residential nexus studies to help mitigate the impacts that new residential development has on the provision of affordable housing. Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates prepared the City of Burlingame Residential Impact Fee Nexus Study in 2015 (Nexus Study) as part of this countywide effort. The Nexus Study evaluated development revenues (rents and sales prices), development costs and potential housing impact fees for the three most typical types of development in the City of Burlingame— single family attached, condominiums and apartments. The Nexus Study also performed a financial feasibility analysis of these three housing prototypes in order to develop recommendations regarding the feasible range of fees per square foot of residential development that the City could consider adopting. In general, the recommended fee levels in the Nexus Study for Burlingame range from $25 to $50 per square foot, while the maximum justified fee amounts according to the Nexus Study for Burlingame range from $50 to $85 per square foot, as shown below in Figure I-1 from the Nexus Study. The City of Burlingame asked Seifel Consulting Inc. (Seifel) to prepare an updated financial analysis to help the City evaluate the potential adoption of new impact fees on residential development and the best strategies to incentivize the onsite provision of affordable housing within new development as part of the City’s affordable housing program. This report summarizes the findings from Seifel’s financial analysis, which was initially presented to the City Council in July 2018. This report is organized into the following sections, which are accompanied by tables and charts as further described below: A. Summary of Findings ....................................................................................................................... 2 B. Infill Development Challenges and Opportunities ........................................................................... 3 C. Current Development Conditions in the City of Burlingame ........................................................... 7 D. Financial Analysis of Housing Fee Alternatives ........................................................................... 12 E. Financial Analysis of Onsite Affordable Housing Provision ........................................................ 17 F. Financial Feasibility of Onsite Affordable Housing Provision ..................................................... 24 G. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 27 DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Page 2 A. Summary of Findings This report presents the key financial considerations associated with achieving new residential development in the City of Burlingame and an updated development feasibility analysis to help the City evaluate how to incentivize the onsite provision of affordable housing within new development as part of its affordable housing program, which is proposed to include the adoption of housing fees on new residential development. The report concludes with potential policies that the City may want to consider implementing in order to encourage the provision of onsite affordable housing. As rents and prices have continued to increase, the difference between the cost of housing and what many households can afford to pay for housing has increased, leading to a widening “affordability gap” for new housing. In order for new development to be financially feasible when including onsite affordable housing units, the cost of providing new affordable housing must be able to be factored into the total costs of developing housing while still leaving sufficient developer margin or return to allow development to go forward. Developing infill housing development in Bay Area cities like Burlingame is typically challenging and risky to undertake given the uncertainties of the development process, and is costly due to the broad range of development cost factors discussed in this report. For example, land prices and construction costs (including parking) have risen rapidly in recent years, significantly affecting development feasibility for new housing, particularly for multifamily apartments where apartment rents have not been increasing as fast as construction costs. Depending on the total development costs associated with new apartments, rental units may not yield sufficient returns to attract capital (creating a development feasibility gap). Higher density alternatives, however, are more feasible when land values are significantly less on a per unit basis, providing greater opportunities for developers to pay for public requirements such as affordable housing. Onsite affordable housing requirements that are focused on moderate income households (earning between 80% and 120% of Areawide Median Income) are more financially feasible and best correlate to citywide housing fee levels ranging from $15 to $25 per square foot on residential development. (This range of fee levels was tested in this financial analysis based on guidance from City staff, and takes into account housing fee levels in surrounding cities.) Housing prices in the Bay Area have been increasing rapidly, and most buyers need significant cash or “trade-up” value in homes to afford new units, making it much more difficult for first-time homebuyers to purchase a new home. Constructing for-sale housing units is typically more financially feasible in Burlingame as compared to constructing apartments given the high prices for new homes. However, the affordability gap for new homes is significant, particularly for large single family attached units (townhomes). The financial analysis indicates that housing fees at $25/SF can be supported by new ownership development, and onsite affordable housing requirements focused on households between 110% and 135% AMI are financially feasible, assuming reasonable land and construction costs. This analysis finds that the City of Burlingame may want to consider providing an onsite housing development alternative to the payment of housing fees that is primarily focused on addressing the housing needs of households earning between 80% and 135% Areawide Median Income and that requires the provision of 10 percent of total units as affordable housing units. For apartments, the provision of onsite housing is best accomplished with projects that provide a higher range of densities and have parking requirements similar to what is allowed in State Density Bonus Law for mixed income developments. For single family attached units, allowing affordable housing units to be a smaller size than what is typically built in single family attached developments significantly enhances the ability of developers to provide onsite housing units at affordable sales prices while maintaining development feasibility. DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Page 3 B. Infill Development Challenges and Opportunities As described by the Urban Land Institute, the infill development process is complex and challenging but provides significant opportunities to create vibrant mixed-use neighborhoods.1 As demand for urban living continues to increase, developers are increasingly undertaking new housing development that replaces or intensifies existing uses, often as part of mixed-use developments with housing above ground- floor retail or other commercial uses. In order to develop new infill housing, developers must prepare a proposed residential development program, undertake a series of technical analyses, refine the development program based on input from a broad variety of stakeholders, and secure government approvals prior to starting construction. This pre- development period is typically the most risky phase of development, and developers typically need to raise private investor capital (equity) to fund pre-development costs. Given the high risks associated with new development not occurring or not occurring as planned, developers must be able to generate sufficient returns or profit to attract private equity commensurate with these risks. Private equity must also be raised during the construction and the sales or lease-up period, as private lenders typically require a 35% to 40% equity contribution for infill housing projects. Throughout the predevelopment process, and most importantly prior to initiating construction, a developer must be able to demonstrate to its private capital sources (private investors and lenders) that there is sufficient developer margin (return) to take into account potential risks and to repay capital at specified levels of return. In most capital structures, the priority of capital repayment is as follows: 1) construction and permanent lenders, 2) private investors who typically receive a preferred return and a share of profits that are generated by the development and 3) the developer.2 Figure B-1 below illustrates the development feasibility framework for new development, which shows the typical costs of development, the supportable project costs based on a target return, and the projected developer margin (or return) after taking into account all development costs. Figure B-1 Development Feasibility Framework Per Residential Unit 1 https://urbanland.uli.org/development-business/making-infill-work-floridas-urban-cores/ 2 The developer is often allowed to receive a reimbursement for developer project management and overhead costs to manage the development process out of the construction loan proceeds. $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 Developer Margin Government Fees Other Soft Costs Construction Financing Parking Construction Hard Construction Cost Demolition and Site Improvements Land Developer Margin Project Costs Supportable Project Costs Project Value DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Page 4 Figure B-2 illustrates the typical development costs associated with infill development, which include the direct costs of new development (demolition costs, site improvement, parking, and building hard construction) and the indirect costs of new development (also known as soft costs, which include government fees, architecture and engineering, construction financing, and other soft costs). Figure B-2 Typical Development Costs for Infill Development Building construction costs are the most significant cost component to developing housing. Residential building costs increase based on the type of construction, with wood-frame development (referred to as “Type V” construction) being the least expensive, and concrete/steel, fire-resistive development (referred to as “Type I” construction) being the most expensive on a per square foot basis. Most of the new residential development in Burlingame is Type V wood-frame construction built over a concrete podium slab with parking below, or underground parking. Parking costs are a major contributor to residential construction costs as the costs of constructing a parking space within a building can range from $40,000 to $70,000 per space depending on the location of the parking and the site conditions, as shown in Figure B-3. (For example, the cost of building underground parking is higher in locations that require significant environmental remediation and/or have high water tables.) Requiring substantial amounts of ground floor retail space and associated parking also significantly increases costs. Figure B-3 Typical Parking Construction Cost Per Space Land Demolition and Site Improvements Hard Construction Cost Parking Construction Construction Financing Other Soft Costs Government Fees Developer Margin $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 Surface With Carport Above Grade Podium Structure Partially Below Grade Structure Below Grade Structure, 1 Level Below Grade Structure, 2+ Levels Mechanical Lift Parking (Podium) DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Page 5 Residential construction costs have increased significantly since 2015 due to rapid increases in material costs (including lumber, concrete and steel) and robust demand for construction labor and subcontractors. Some construction experts report that construction costs on the Peninsula have annually increased between 10% and 15% over the past two to three years. Land costs are also a major contributor to development costs, and they vary widely for infill development. Land costs are determined by the marketplace based on the price at which property owners are willing to sell their property and what developers can afford to pay for land after taking into account all non-land related development costs including a sufficient allowance for developer margin or return. This “residual” value of land for future residential uses (often referred to as “residual land value”) must exceed the property’s value given its current use. Figure B-4 below illustrates how developers typically calculate residual land value to determine how much they can afford to pay for property acquisition. Figure B-4 Residual Land Value Per Residential Unit Since most infill sites in Burlingame that might be developed as housing have existing buildings generating rental income, the developer must typically pay an amount that is significantly higher than the existing property value based on this rental income to incentivize the owner to sell. Some property owners require developers to purchase property outright, while others are willing to allow developers to pay for the opportunity to develop property in the future by entering into an option to purchase property. Typically, land purchase options provide for a certain period of time during which a developer can undertake pre-development activities, and option payments typically increase over time, particularly if performance milestones are not met. At some point, most property owners require developers to purchase property outright or let the option expire if the pre-development process extends for a long time. In summary, developing residential infill development is costly in cities like Burlingame and others on the Peninsula due to the following cost factors: • Expensive property acquisition costs, particularly in areas of high demand such as Burlingame. • Significant environmental mitigation and remediation costs. $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 Developer Margin Government Fees Other Soft Costs Construction Financing Parking Construction Hard Construction Cost Demolition and Site Improvements Land Developer Margin Project Costs (except land) Residual Land Value Project Value DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Page 6 • Public infrastructure and facility upgrades to accommodate new development. • Complex governmental approval process that can take a long time to complete and can result in significant modifications to the development program and architectural design from what is originally proposed. • Public fees for municipal costs related to land use planning, application processing, permits and public infrastructure/facilities (development impact fees). • Higher cost of capital and investor return thresholds as projects take longer and often have unique project components that are more difficult to underwrite. • Expensive construction costs due to the inclusion of structured parking (particularly underground parking) and the vertical integration of multiple uses with different design and construction requirements. These development costs have rapidly increased in the Bay Area since 2015, making it much more difficult for residential infill development to be financially feasible than what was analyzed and reported in the Nexus Study. Based on discussions with real estate professionals, infill development in the Bay Area is likely going to continue to be challenging to undertake for the following reasons: • Despite the fact that the United States has experienced a very long economic expansion since the last recession, the Federal Reserve continues to think that the United States is still in a period of moderate economic expansion.3 • Interest rates have been at historic lows but are anticipated to continue to increase over time as evidenced by the recent interest rate increases by the Federal Reserve. • Capitalization rates, which are used to measure property values, tend to increase over time as interest rates increase. As cap rates increase, underwriters typically lower their expectation of future property values.4 • Construction costs are anticipated to continue to increase given the high demand for construction, particularly given the rebuilding activity after the recent fires in California. • Housing supply in the Bay Area is not keeping pace with demand. For example, in high employment growth, Bayside areas like San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, only one housing unit was built for every 15 jobs created between 2011 to 2015, according to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.5 • Due to high housing demand, the housing affordability gap has widened for many households in the Bay Area. • Apartment rent growth has flattened on the Peninsula, in part due to the housing affordability crisis, as many households cannot afford to pay higher market rate apartment rents. • While moderate economic expansion is projected in the near term, an economic recession will likely emerge sometime in the next few years based on historical experience, which will significantly affect future housing development conditions. 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20180406a.htm 4 A capitalization rate is equal to the ratio of a property’s net operating income to its purchase price or value. Low cap rates mean that properties are perceived by the market place to have a high value in relationship to their income producing potential. 5 https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/san_francisco_cma_board_presentation.pdf DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Page 7 C. Current Development Conditions in the City of Burlingame As described earlier, the Nexus Study evaluated development conditions in the City of Burlingame for the purpose of developing housing fee recommendations. The first step in the financial analysis was to review the Nexus Study in order to understand the core development assumptions and methodologies used in the Nexus Study for the three most typical types of development in the City of Burlingame—apartments, condominiums and single family attached units (townhomes). City staff provided a variety of information and input regarding recent residential development in Burlingame for each of these residential types, including residential densities and development programs. Seifel also collaborated with The Concord Group to assemble residential market data for Burlingame and surrounding cities for the three housing types. Seifel interviewed developers undertaking projects in Burlingame and nearby cities in order to gather recent data regarding local development conditions, residential unit sizes, residential revenues, development costs and land prices. In consultation with City staff, Seifel has evaluated the same three housing types and parcel sizes as previously analyzed in the Nexus Study, but the development characteristics for each prototype have been modified to reflect recent development experience in the City of Burlingame as follows: • Multifamily apartments on a 3-acre site– three apartment scenarios have been analyzed at densities of 50, 70 and 120 dwelling units per acre (dua) • Condominiums on a .5-acre site– one condominium (condo) scenario at 50 dua • Single family attached (SFA) homes on a 1.7-acre site– one SFA scenario at 18 dua Table C-1 below summarizes the key characteristics of each residential prototype. Table C-1 Summary of Development Characteristics for Residential Prototypes Building Characteristics Apartments (50 dua) Apartments (70 dua) Apartments (120 dua)Condominiums Single Family Attached (For Sale) Building Type Wood-Frame Wood-Frame Wood-Frame Wood-Frame Wood-Frame Total Residential Units 150 210 360 25 31 Residential Net Square Feet (NSF)127,500 174,300 288,000 25,000 46,500 Average Unit Size (NSF)850 830 800 1,000 1,500 Parking Type Podium Podium Podium Underground Tuck-Under Efficiency Factor a 70%70%70%80%85% Residential Gross Square Footage (GSF)182,143 249,000 411,429 31,250 54,706 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) b 1.4 1.9 3.1 1.4 0.7 Land Area (SF)130,680 130,680 130,680 21,780 74,052 Land Area (Acres)3.00 3.00 3.00 0.50 1.70 Units per Acre 50 70 120 50 18 Notes: (a) Ratio of residential net square footage to residential gross square footage (b) Floor area ratio (FAR) measures density by dividing residential gross building area by total site area Source: The Concord Group, Seifel Consulting Inc. DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Page 8 1. Development Revenues Revenues from new residential development are generated from the following sources: • Rental revenues, which are generated by the monthly rental of apartments, and the associated market value of an apartment unit, based on this rental income.6 • Sale of residential units, either from the sale of single family attached homes or condominiums. The Concord Group (TCG) assembled residential market data for the three housing product types for the City of Burlingame and surrounding cities in the northern part of San Mateo County as of May 2018. TCG gathered residential market data on apartments and for-sale communities in these areas to inform their analysis. Table C-2 below summarizes the anticipated revenues to be generated by the residential prototypes based on the residential market analysis prepared by TCG, which has been adjusted to reflect the typical unit mix being developed in Burlingame. (The supporting market data and analysis prepared by TCG is included in Appendix 1.) Table C-2 Summary of Residential Revenues for Residential Prototypes 6 The value of an apartment unit is based on standard appraisal valuation technique using capitalized net operating income (net operating income divided by an assumed cap rate for apartments). Prototype Residential Net Square Feet (NSF) Unit Sales Price/ Monthy Rent Apartments (50 dua) Type V Wood Frame Average 850 $3,734 50 units per acre Total 127,500 Podium Apartments (70 dua) Type V Wood Frame Average 830 $3,651 70 units per acre Total 174,300 Podium Apartments (120 dua) Type V Wood Frame Average 800 $3,569 120 units per acre Total 288,000 Podium Condominiums Average 1,000 $939,000 Type V Wood Frame Total 25,000 50 units per acre Underground Single Family Attached (For Sale) Type V Wood Frame Average 1,500 $1,632,000 18 units per acre Total 46,500 Tuck-Under Source: The Concord Group, Seifel Consulting Inc. DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Page 9 a. Apartment Rents and Values Monthly market rents for new apartments in Burlingame are anticipated to range between $2,300 for studios to about $4,600 for three-bedroom units. Based on a typical mix of units, average market rents for an apartment building with a typical 800-850 square feet average unit size are estimated to range from approximately $3,600 to $3,700 per month. The potential value of an apartment unit is estimated by capitalizing the annual net operating income using a 4.25% capitalization rate (cap rate) for residential apartments and deducting sales-related expenses in order to project net apartment revenues for the financial analysis. Net operating income (NOI) is equal to project revenues less a 5 percent vacancy allowance less operating expenses (including property taxes). As described earlier, current cap rates are at historically low levels, and this low, 4.25% cap rate reflects the robust market conditions for housing on the Peninsula. Sales expenses are assumed at 3% of value and include sales/brokerage fees, title/recording fees and other sales related expenses. b. Condominium and Single Family Attached Sales Prices Sales prices for condominiums and single family attached units vary based on location, unit size, building amenities, and whether or not units have a view premium, among other factors. Sales prices for each housing prototype are based on anticipated sales value per net square foot (NSF) for a typical new development of comparable height, target market and unit size in developments located in or near Burlingame. As the average size of units, design features and amenities typically differ between condominium and single family attached developments, the projected market pricing takes this into account. Condominium market sales prices typically range from $900 to $1,000/NSF, and the average price for condominium units has been assumed to be about $939,000. Single family attached units are typically higher priced, ranging from $1,000 to $1,100/NSF, and the average price for these units is projected to be about $1.63 million. (These sales prices are assumed to include the cost of parking.) 2. Development Costs Development cost assumptions were developed based on a review of the prior Nexus Study assumptions and interviews with real estate professionals who are actively developing residential projects in the Peninsula. Development costs vary from project to project but generally consist of three major cost categories: land, direct costs to improve and construct buildings (also known as hard costs) and indirect costs that are required to prepare for development (also known as soft costs). a. Land Costs As described earlier, most residential infill sites in Burlingame have existing buildings that generate rental income. Given this, developers must typically purchase property at prices that are significantly higher than the existing property value based on this rental income to incentivize the owner to sell while maintaining development feasibility. Property values in the City of Burlingame (and the Peninsula) vary widely depending on the existing use of the property and the future use of the property. Based on a review of market data compiled by TCG and interviews with developers, land values are assumed to range from $200 to $260 per square foot of land, or about $8.7 million to $11.3 million per acre. However, land costs may be much higher than this level, particularly when a developer is purchasing a commercial property that achieves high retail and office rents such as in downtown Burlingame. DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Page 10 For residential development, developers evaluate how much they can afford to pay for land based on the supportable residual land value per unit under alternative development programs assuming the ultimate value of the development is sufficient to support development costs and achieve sufficient developer margin or return thresholds to attract private capital. Developments that can achieve higher numbers of dwelling units per acre (du/ac) can spread the cost of land over a greater number of housing units, which typically improves development feasibility. b. Direct Costs (Hard Costs) Direct costs include all of the hard construction costs that are associated with new development. • Demolition and site improvement costs include all of the costs that are required to ready the site for development, including the demolition of existing structures, completion of the environmental remediation work and the provision of public and private pathways and landscaped areas of the project. • Building hard construction costs include the construction costs related to residential, parking and any ground floor retail uses. Residential hard construction costs are based on wood-frame construction over podium or below-grade parking. All of the hard construction costs include costs related to general conditions plus general contractor (GC) overhead, profit, insurance and other GC costs. No additional hard cost contingency factor was assumed in this analysis. c. Indirect Costs (Soft Costs) Indirect costs include all of the soft costs that are associated with new development. These include government fees for planning, permitting and development impact fees, construction financing and other soft costs, such as professional services (architectural design, engineering, environmental studies, market analysis, legal, marketing, etcetera). City staff provided estimates of the potential government fees that would need to be paid for each prototype to cover fees charged by the City, local School Districts and other public agencies. Developers use construction loans to finance a large share of the development costs during construction. The construction financing assumptions take into account today’s low-interest rate environment for construction loans and relatively conservative equity requirements. Other soft costs are based on representative percentages of hard construction costs based on a review of pro formas, interviews with real estate professionals and the prior Nexus Study. Table C-3 below summarizes the projected development costs associated with each residential prototype based on these assumptions. DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Page 11 Table C-3 Summary of Development Cost Assumptions for Residential Prototypes 3. Developer Return Metrics Developers, lenders and investors evaluate and measure returns in several ways. Based on input from real estate developers, equity investors and lenders, development returns are based on two key measures typically used by the real estate community: Developer Margin (or Return) and Yield on Cost. a. Developer Margin or Return Developer margin or return is equal to the difference between net potential revenues and total development costs (before consideration of developer return or profit). As described earlier, a developer will not proceed to build a project unless the project generates sufficient developer margin or return to warrant the risk and to attract the private capital investment needed to undertake the project. Developers and investors use different target return on cost (ROC) thresholds depending on the level of complexity of the project, construction types, construction schedule, sales/rental absorption timeline, potential equity sources including the use of tax credits. Projects with longer timelines have higher risk and as a result require a higher return on cost. The lowest return threshold for mixed income apartments is based on the allowable developer fee (or return) according to the relevant tax credit regulations used by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee to implement Federal and State tax credit laws. These regulations allow a maximum developer fee for new construction 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credit projects that is equal to 15% of the project’s unadjusted eligible basis, which is approximately 14% of total development costs. (The unadjusted eligible basis excludes land acquisition costs and a portion of other project costs.) Market rate return (ROC) to attract private capital investment for market rate developments typically range from 15% to 25% on total development cost depending on the complexity, size and time frame for development, as well as whether the development is an apartment development, a for-sale condominium or a single family attached development. Development Costs Apartments (50 dua) Apartments (70 dua) Apartments (120 dua)Condominiums Single Family Attached (For Sale) Direct Costs a Buliding and Site Improvement Costs per Unit $382,000 $357,000 $347,000 $438,000 $675,000 Indirect Costs b Permits & Fees (Excl. Housing) c per Unit $18,500 $18,500 $18,500 $26,700 $27,800 Other Soft Costs % of Direct Costs 16%15%15%20%20% Financing Costs Loan to Cost Ratio (LTC)% of Dev't Costs 65%65%65%65%65% Loan Interest Rate 5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0% Construction/ Absorption Period in months 27 29 35 22 20 Outstanding Balance (Utilization Rate)% of Dev't Costs 60%60%60%60%60% Loan Fees % of Loan Amount 1.5%1.5%1.5%1.5%1.5% Note: Development costs are based on review of similar project pro formas in the Bay Area and interviews with developers, construction experts, other real estate professionals, and City staff. (a) Direct costs include site work, building construction, and parking costs of $60,000 per space for underground parking and $45,000 per space for podium parking. (b) Other soft costs include architectural and engineering fees (typically ranging from 5% for larger projects to 7% of direct costs for smaller projects), taxes, insurance, legal & accounting, developer project management and overhead, sales and marketing and other consultant services. The higher allowance of indirect costs for ownership housing is attributable to higher cost of sales, marketing and insurance costs. These costs depend on the size, complexity and time frame of the project, and these percentage estimates assume a streamlined design and approval process. (c) Permits & fees were calculated by the City based on recent experience with similar projects and exclude proposed housing fees. Source: Development pro forma data on comparable projects, interviews with real estate professionals, City of Burlingame, Seifel Consulting, Inc. DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Page 12 b. Yield on Cost (also known as Return on Cost for Apartments) The most important feasibility return metric for apartment developments is called Return on Cost or Yield on Cost (YOC). YOC is measured based on Net Operating Income (NOI) divided by development costs. (NOI is equal to project revenues less vacancy allowance less operating expenses.) Another important feasibility metric is the calculation of supportable project costs, which is calculated by dividing NOI by the YOC. If supportable project costs exceed total development costs (before consideration of developer return/profit), then the project is financially feasible. While institutional investors and pension funds have typically underwritten projects to a YOC of between 5.5% to 6% in the Bay Area, recent trends indicate that some capital sources have accepted lower rates of return between 5% to 5.25% for residential development in high demand areas along the Peninsula. Based on these recent trends, the target YOC for apartments is assumed at 5.25% for this analysis, which means that apartment developments that achieve a 5.25% YOC are assumed to be financially feasible, while those below this threshold may not be able to attract the necessary capital to move forward, particularly if the YOC is well below a 5.0% YOC. YOC thresholds are expected to increase in the future as interest rates, cap rates and the cost of capital increases. D. Financial Analysis of Housing Fee Alternatives As described earlier, the City of Burlingame and all of the local jurisdictions within San Mateo County commissioned a coordinated set of residential nexus studies to help mitigate the impacts of new residential development on the provision of affordable housing. The City of Burlingame’s Nexus Study recommended a range of housing fee levels from $25 to $50 per square foot, while the maximum justified fee amounts according to the Nexus Study ranged from $50 to $85 per square foot. Other cities in San Mateo County have already adopted housing fees that are significantly lower than the maximum justified nexus amounts. Based on a recent survey of other jurisdictions in San Mateo County summarized by City staff, adopted housing fees ranged from $15 to $34 per square foot, with median fee levels at $21 per square foot, as shown below in Table D-1. DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Page 13 Table D-1 Summary of Housing Fee Levels of Other San Mateo County Jurisdictions While housing fees could potentially be charged at higher levels in the City of Burlingame than other cities, this financial analysis evaluated alternative housing fee levels at $15, $20 and $25 per square foot (SF), reflective of the typical fee level ranges of other jurisdictions in San Mateo County.7 7 This analysis assumes that housing fees would be calculated on a residential net square foot basis, which is typical fee framework, though some cities do calculate fees on a gross square foot basis. Townhomes Condominiums Apartments Per SF Per SF Per SF Atherton Belmont $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 2017 Jurisdiction Date Fee Adopted None Colma $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 2016 Daly City $18.00 $22.00 $25.00 2014 East Palo Alto 1 $23.00 $23.00 $33.71 2014 Foster City None2 Menlo Park None2 Pacifica Portola Valley Redwood City 4 $25.00 $20.00 $20.00 2015 San Bruno $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 2016 San Carlos 5 $20.59 $20.59 $21.00 2010 San Mateo City San Mateo County6 $12.50 $12.50 $10.00 2016 South San Francisco None2 None3 None2 None2 LOWEST $12.50 $12.50 $10.00 AVERAGE $19.89 $19.76 $21.21 MEDIAN $20.30 $20.30 $20.50 HIGHEST $25.00 $25.00 $33.71 2 No Housing Impact Fee adopted, but Inclusionary Housing requires Below Market Rate units in new developments. Some municipalities allow on-site Below Market Rate units to be satisfied with in-lieu fees. 3 Has inclusionary fee triggered by subdivisions. 5 Sliding scale: fees vary based on number of units, up to $42.20/sf for largest projects. Also assesses fee on single family additions. 6 $5.00/sf for first 2,500 sf, $12.50 per each square foot over 2,500 sf. Only applies to projects with 4 or fewer units; projects with 5 units or more are subject to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance rather than fees. 1 Townhome and condo fee increases to $44.00/sf for projects with structured parking. Apartment fee increases to $44.72/sf for projects outside Ravenswood Business District. 4 Fee applies to projects with between 5 and 19 units. Projects with 20 units or greater are required to provide Inclusionary units rather than fees. Projects with 4 or fewer units are not subject to fees or inclusionary requirements. DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Page 14 1. Financial Analysis of Apartments at Varying Housing Fee Levels The first step in the financial analysis was to analyze the potential financial impact from the adoption of housing fees ranging from $15 to $25/SF on apartments, as apartments have the potential to produce the greatest number of new housing units in Burlingame. Figure D-1 shows the effect on development feasibility of three potential housing levels on three apartment prototypes representing the range of densities currently being developed or proposed in Burlingame. The housing fee is shown as a red bar in Figure D-1, and the light blue bar represents all of the other development costs (except the housing fee). The green bar shows the calculated developer margin or return, which represents the difference between the project value and total development costs. The feasibility gap is displayed as a checkerboard, which indicates that the development value is not high enough to provide sufficient developer margin/return. Only the apartment development at 120/dua remains financially feasible with these proposed fee levels (does not have a significant feasibility gap). Figure D-1 Apartment Development Feasibility at Alternative Housing Fee Levels $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 50 dua 70 dua 120 dua 50 dua 70 dua 120 dua 50 dua 70 dua 120 dua Feasibility Gap Developer Margin/ Return Housing Fee Other Development Costs Housing Fee @ $25/SF Housing Fee @ $20SF Housing Fee @ $15/SF DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Page 15 The financial analysis also analyzes each housing fee scenario using the most common return metric for apartments of YOC (assumed at 5.25%). As shown in Figure D-2, the financial analysis indicates that apartments developed at 120 dua—with lower average land costs per unit—are financially feasible at housing fees of $15/SF and $20/SF while slightly below the feasibility threshold at $25/SF. However, apartment developments at densities of 50 dua and 70 dua not financially feasible under any of the proposed fee levels based on the development cost assumptions assumed for this analysis, which include relatively high land costs per unit. Figure D-2 Financial Feasibility of Apartments at Alternative Housing Fee Levels 2. Financial Analysis of Condominium and Single Family Attached at Varying Housing Fee Levels A similar financial analysis was done for the two for-sale housing prototypes: condominium and single family attached. Figure D-3 shows the effect on development feasibility of three potential housing fee levels on a condominium unit, while Figure D-4 shows the effect on development feasibility on a single family attached unit. As these graphs illustrate, new condominium and single family attached housing is feasible at all of the proposed fee levels of $15/SF, $20/SF and $25/SF. 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% 6.0% 50 dua 70 dua 120 dua 50 dua 70 dua 120 dua 50 dua 70 dua 120 dua Housing Fee at $25/SF Housing Fee at $20/SF Housing Fee at $15/SF Target Return or Yield on Cost DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Page 16 Figure D-3 Condominium Development Feasibility at Alternative Housing Fee Levels Figure D-4 Single Family Attached Development Feasibility at Alternative Housing Fee Levels $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 $1,800,000 Housing Fee at $25/SF Housing Fee at $20/SF Housing Fee at $15/SF Feasibility Gap Developer Margin/Return Housing Fee Other Development Costs $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 $1,800,000 Housing Fee at $25/SF Housing Fee at $20/SF Housing Fee at $15/SF Feasibility Gap Developer Margin/Return Housing Fee Other Development Costs DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Page 17 E. Financial Analysis of Onsite Affordable Housing Provision The next step in the financial analysis is to understand the potential financial trade-offs to a developer from including affordable housing units within new market rate development versus paying a housing fee. As one of the City’s key housing goals is to incentivize the onsite provision of affordable housing within new development rather than collect housing fees, this section evaluates the potential financial effects of providing affordable housing onsite to households at various income levels. An affordability gap analysis is used to measure the difference or gap between what households at different income levels can afford to pay for housing and the cost of renting or purchasing housing, which is then factored into project costs. 1. Household Income levels The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) publishes areawide median income (AMI) levels calculated annually by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for various household income thresholds and different household sizes in San Mateo County: • Very Low Income (also referred to as VLI) means a household whose income is 50% or below AMI, adjusted for household size. • Low Income household (also referred to as LI) means a household whose income is above 50% up to 80% AMI. In recent years, HUD has adjusted the LI limits in high-housing cost areas in a way that exceeds these percentages in San Mateo, San Francisco and Marin counties.8 • Moderate Income household (also referred to as MOD) means a household whose income is above 80% up to 120% AMI. • Above Moderate Income (also referred to as Above MOD) means a household whose income is above 120% AMI. This analysis focuses on Above MOD households up to 150% AMI. Figure E-1 below shows the various household income levels that correspond to different housing types by bedroom size and household size. For example, a one-person, very low income household at or below 50% AMI that occupies a studio (0 Bedroom) unit has a household income threshold of $51,350. Table E-1 2018 Household Income Levels Corresponding to Housing Types by Bedroom Size San Mateo County 8 https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/25/the-eye-popping-definition-of-what-is-low-income-in-the-bay-area-increases-again/ Hosehold Income Level Bedroom Size (Persons per Household) Percent Income Category of Areawide 0 Bedroom Median Income (1) Bedroom Size (Persons per Household) 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom (2)(3)(4)(5) Very Low 50%$51,350 Low 60%$61,650 Low 70%$71,950 Low 80%$82,200 Moderate (Median)100%$82,900 Moderate 110%$91,200 Moderate 120%$99,450 Above Moderate 135%$111,900 Above Moderate 150%$124,350 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, HUD $58,650 $66,000 $73,300 $79,200 $70,400 $79,250 $88,000 $95,050 $82,200 $92,500 $102,700 $110,950 $93,950 $105,700 $117,400 $126,800 $94,700 $106,550 $118,400 $127,850 $104,200 $117,250 $130,250 $140,650 $113,700 $127,900 $142,100 $153,450 $127,850 $143,850 $159,850 $172,600 $142,050 $159,850 $177,600 $191,800 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, HUD DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Page 18 2. Affordability Gap for Apartment Developments Utilizing the San Mateo County data on household income levels, Seifel analyzed the housing affordability gaps between market rate and below market rate (BMR) apartments that are considered affordable to households at specific AMI levels according to State standards. The analysis was conducted for all of the housing prototypes, but focuses first on the affordability gap for apartments. Figure E-1 below shows the market rate rent and affordable rent at various target AMI levels for a typical apartment unit, which averages between one to two bedrooms in size based on recent developments.9 As it illustrates, market rents are about $3,700 for the lower density apartment prototypes while a typical very low income household at 50% AMI (at a typical household size of 2 to 3 persons) can only afford to pay about $1,500 per month in rent (net of a standard utility allowance). This translates to an affordability gap of about $2,200 per month, which is the difference between projected market rents and what a very low income household can afford based on a standard of 30% of income toward housing costs. Likewise, a moderate income household at 100% AMI can afford to pay about $2,400 per month in rent, resulting in an affordability gap of about $1,300 per month in rent. Households would need to earn about 155% of AMI to be able to afford projected market rents.10 Figure E-1 Projected Monthly Rent for Typical New Apartment in Burlingame and Rental Affordability Gap Seifel performed a similar set of calculations to measure the difference or affordability gap between the value of an apartment unit assuming market rate rents and the value assuming BMR rents affordable to households at specific AMI levels. Typical vacancy and operating expense assumptions are used to calculate net operating income (NOI) at alternative rent levels, and the resulting NOI is divided by the 9 The affordability gap is calculated based on the weighted average distribution of units and corresponding household sizes for both apartment and for-sale prototypes. 10 The State affordability standard for rental housing is based on 30% of income toward housing for the following household income levels: very low income at 50% AMI, low income at 60% AMI and moderate income at 110% AMI. The affordability standard of 30% of income for rental housing is used for all AMI levels in this analysis. $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 50% AMI 60% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI 110% AMI Market Rate Affordable Housing Cost Rental Affordability Gap Market Rate Housing Rent DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Page 19 4.25% cap rate to project values at each target AMI level. Figure E-2 below shows the affordability gap based on apartment values at different household income levels, indicating a difference in value of about $400,000 between the value for a market rate apartment and the value if the apartment were rented at BMR rents affordable to a very low income household. Figure E-2 Value of a New Apartment in Burlingame and Affordability Gap in Value Utilizing the San Mateo County data on household income levels, Seifel also analyzed the housing affordability gaps between market rate and below market rate sales prices for condominium and single family attached units that would be affordable at specific AMI levels. Figure E-3 on the next page shows the market sales price and affordable price at various target AMI levels for a typical condominium unit, which averages about two bedrooms in size based on recent developments. As it illustrates, market prices for new condominiums are projected to be about $939,000 while a moderate income household at 100% AMI (at a typical household size of about 3 persons) can only afford to pay about $360,000, which translates to an affordability gap of about $580,000, which is the difference between projected market sales price and what a moderate income household at 100% AMI can afford based on a standard of 30% of income toward housing costs.11 Figure E-4 on the next page likewise shows the market sales price and affordable price at various target AMI levels for a typical single family attached unit, which also averages about two bedrooms in size based on recent developments. As it illustrates, market prices for new single family attached units are projected to be about $1.63 million while a moderate income household at 100% AMI (at a typical household size of about 3 persons) can only afford to pay about $360,000, which translates to an affordability gap of about $1.27 million.12 11 The State affordability standard for ownership housing for a moderate income household is based on 35% of income toward housing for households at 110% AMI, and this 35% of income standard is applied to all AMI levels at 110% AMI and above for ownership housing. The 30% of income standard is applied to all AMI levels below 110% AMI for ownership housing in this analysis. 12 Ibid. $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 50% AMI 60% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI 110% AMI Market Rate Value at Restricted Rent Affordability Gap Market Rate Apartment Value DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Page 20 Figure E-3 Affordability Gap for Condominium Unit in Burlingame at Various AMI Levels Figure E-4 Affordability Gap for Single Family Attached Unit in Burlingame at Various AMI Levels $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 $1,800,000 80% AMI 100% AMI 120% AMI 135% AMI 150% AMI Market Rate Affordable Housing Cost Affordability Gap Market Rate Condominium Value $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 $1,800,000 80% AMI 100% AMI 120% AMI 135% AMI 150% AMI Market Rate Affordable Housing Cost Affordability Gap Market Rate Single Family Attached Value DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Page 21 3. Financial Effect of Alternative Onsite Apartment Requirements Based on discussions with City staff, Seifel evaluated the financial effect of alternative affordable housing policy options on development feasibility for apartments by comparing how much it would cost to provide varying percentages of affordable housing units at different target household AMI levels. Given the significant affordability gaps for apartments, Seifel performed sensitivity analysis related to the following onsite affordable housing compliance options for apartments: • Percentage of affordable units to be provided onsite– 10% and 15% • Target household income levels– Very low income (50% AMI), low income (60% and 80% AMI) and moderate income (100% and 110% AMI) As one of the key City policy objectives is to incentivize the provision of onsite affordable housing instead of the payment of housing fees, this analysis calculates the potential cost to the developer of providing housing onsite on a per residential net square foot basis for a typical apartment. For example, one scenario analyzed the potential cost to a developer of providing a mixed income apartment development with 15% of units rented at BMR rents that are affordable to very low income households at 50% AMI, which translates to a cost of about $75/NSF in contrast to a cost of about $45/NSF for moderate income households at 100% AMI. Figure E-5 illustrates the potential financial effect of providing affordable apartments at alternative onsite requirements within these compliance options. Figure E-5 Affordability Gap at Alternative Onsite Affordable Housing Requirements on Apartments $0 /NSF $25 /NSF $50 /NSF $75 /NSF $100 /NSF Very Low Income (50% AMI) Low Income (60% AMI) Low Income (80% AMI) Moderate Income (100% AMI) Moderate Income (110% AMI) Very Low Income (50% AMI) Low Income (60% AMI) Low Income (80% AMI) Moderate Income (100% AMI) Moderate Income (110% AMI) 10% Affordable 15% Affordable DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Page 22 4. Financial Effect of Alternative Onsite Ownership Requirements Figure E-6 similarly illustrates the potential financial effect of providing onsite affordable housing within condominium developments given alternative onsite requirements. Given the significant affordability gaps for both of the for-sale housing prototypes, Seifel performed sensitivity analysis on the following onsite affordable housing compliance options for condominiums and single family attached units: • Percentage of affordable units to be provided onsite– 10% and 15% • Target household income levels–Low income (80% AMI), moderate income (100% and 120% AMI) and above moderate income (135% and 150% AMI) As an example, one scenario analyzed the potential cost to a developer of providing a mixed income condo development with 15% of units sold at prices that are affordable to moderate income households at 100% AMI, which translates to a cost of about $85/NSF in contrast to a cost of about $30/NSF for units priced to be affordable at 150% AMI, which is closest to the proposed housing fee level of $25/NSF. Figure E-6 Affordability Gap at Alternative Onsite Affordable Housing Requirements on Condominium Units Figure E-7a similarly illustrates the potential financial effect of providing onsite affordable housing within single family attached developments given alternative onsite requirements. Given the significant affordability gaps for single family attached units, an alternative scenario was tested that assumed smaller onsite affordable units (1,200 NSF versus the typical average size of 1,500 NSF), which substantially lowered the potential cost to a developer of providing a mixed income single family development. As shown in Figure E-7b, even when smaller units are assumed, the cost of providing 15% of units at prices that are affordable to moderate income households at 100% AMI translated to a cost of about $130/NSF while the cost of providing units to above moderate income households at 150% AMI was about $90/NSF. $0 /NSF $25 /NSF $50 /NSF $75 /NSF $100 /NSF Low Income (80% AMI) Moderate Income (100% AMI) Moderate Income (120% AMI) Moderate Income (135% AMI) Moderate Income (150% AMI) Low Income (80% AMI) Moderate Income (100% AMI) Moderate Income (120% AMI) Moderate Income (135% AMI) Moderate Income (150% AMI) 10% Affordable 15% Affordable DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Page 23 Figure E-7a Affordability Gap at Alternative Onsite Affordable Housing Requirements on Single Family Attached Units (1,500 NSF/Unit) Figure E-7b Affordability Gap at Alternative Onsite Affordable Housing Requirements on Smaller Single Family Attached Units (1,200 NSF/Unit) $0 /NSF $50 /NSF $100 /NSF $150 /NSF $200 /NSF Low Income (80% AMI) Moderate Income (100% AMI) Moderate Income (120% AMI) Moderate Income (135% AMI) Moderate Income (150% AMI) Low Income (80% AMI) Moderate Income (100% AMI) Moderate Income (120% AMI) Moderate Income (135% AMI) Moderate Income (150% AMI) 10% Affordable 15% Affordable $0 /NSF $50 /NSF $100 /NSF $150 /NSF $200 /NSF Low Income (80% AMI) Moderate Income (100% AMI) Moderate Income (120% AMI) Moderate Income (135% AMI) Moderate Income (150% AMI) Low Income (80% AMI) Moderate Income (100% AMI) Moderate Income (120% AMI) Moderate Income (135% AMI) Moderate Income (150% AMI) 10% Affordable 15% Affordable DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Page 24 F. Financial Feasibility of Onsite Affordable Housing Provision The next step in the financial analysis is to understand how the inclusion of affordable housing units within new market rate development will likely affect development feasibility of housing in Burlingame, as one of the City’s key housing goals is to incentivize the onsite provision of affordable housing within new development rather than through the payment of housing fees. Given the significant cost of providing affordable units onsite, this section focuses on testing onsite requirements at 10% of total housing units. Apartment prototypes are tested based on three potential onsite housing compliance scenarios: • Scenario 1– 10% of units at 100% AMI • Scenario 2– 10% at 110% AMI • Scenario 3– 5% at 80% AMI and 5% at 110% AMI Ownership prototypes are tested based on three alternative onsite housing compliance scenarios: • Scenario 1– 10% at 110% AMI • Scenario 2– 7% of units at 110% AMI and 3% at 135% AMI • Scenario 3– 5% of units at 110% AMI and 5% at 135% AMI 1. Feasibility of Alternative Onsite Apartment Requirements As Figure F-1a indicates, development feasibility is improved by allowing developers to provide units onsite that are affordable to moderate income households and by requiring an onsite housing requirement of 10% instead of 15% as additional rental income would be generated. However, only the highest density scenario at 120 dua is feasible under any of the scenarios that are tested. Figure F-1a Apartment Development Feasibility Under Alternative Onsite Affordable Housing Requirements $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 50 dua 70 dua 120 dua 50 dua 70 dua 120 dua 50 dua 70 dua 120 dua Feasibility Gap Developer Margin/Return Housing Fee Other Development Costs Scenario 1 (10% @100% AMI) Scenario 2 (10% @110% AMI) Scenario 3 (5% @80% AMI & 5% @110% AMI) DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Page 25 Figure F-1b shows development feasibility based on the most common return metric for apartments of YOC (assumed at 5.25%). The feasibility analysis indicates that apartments developed at 120 du/acre are financially feasible under all affordability scenarios, as shown in Figure E-7. However, apartment developments at densities of 50 du/acre and 70 du/acre are not financially feasible under any of the affordability scenarios based on the development cost assumptions assumed for this analysis. Figure F-1b Apartment Feasibility Based on YOC Under Alternative Onsite Affordable Housing Requirements 2. Feasibility of Alternative Onsite Ownership Requirements Figures F-2 and F-3 similarly illustrate how development feasibility improves by allowing developers to provide units onsite that are affordable to moderate income and above moderate income households at 135% AMI. As these figures illustrate, condominium developments will likely be feasible with a 10% onsite affordable housing requirement that is focused on moderate income households with an option to provide housing that is affordable to above moderate income households under a high development cost scenario. In contrast, single family attached housing does have a feasibility gap under the three potential onsite housing scenarios, but this gap would be significantly reduced if affordable housing units could be provided at smaller unit sizes, such as 1,200 square feet as tested earlier. 0.04 0.045 0.05 0.055 0.06 50 dua 70 dua 120 dua 50 dua 70 dua 120 dua 50 dua 70 dua 120 dua Scenario 1 (10% @100% AMI) Scenario 2 (10% @110% AMI) Scenario 3 (5% @80% AMI & 5% @110% AMI) Target Return or Yield on Cost DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Page 26 Figure F-2 Condominium Feasibility Under Alternative Onsite Housing Requirements Figure F-3 Single Family Attached Feasibility Under Alternative Onsite Housing Requirements $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 $1,800,000 Scenario A (10% @110% AMI) Scenario B (7% @110% AMI & 3% @135% AMI) Scenario C (5% @110% AMI & 5% @135% AMI) Feasibility Gap Developer Margin/Return Other Development Costs $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 $1,800,000 Scenario A (10% @110% AMI) Scenario B (7% @110% AMI & 3% @135% AMI) Scenario C (5% @110% AMI & 5% @135% AMI) Feasibility Gap Developer Margin/Return Other Development Costs DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Page 27 G. Conclusion As development costs have increased over the past few years, developers are finding it increasingly difficult to develop new housing in the City of Burlingame, and the City must carefully consider how best to implement its affordable housing programs in order to continually encourage new residential development to occur. As rents and prices have continued to increase, the difference between the cost of housing and what many households can afford to pay for housing has increased, leading to a widening “affordability gap” for new housing. In order for new development to be financially feasible when including onsite affordable housing units, the cost of providing new affordable housing must be able to be factored into the total costs of developing housing while still leaving sufficient developer margin or return to allow development to go forward. Given the complexities of finding qualified households and assuring continued affordability of onsite affordable housing units, developers typically prefer to pay a housing fee rather than build housing units onsite unless the cost of providing units onsite is less than paying the fee. 1. Key Findings from Apartment Analysis • Apartment rents are not increasing as fast as construction costs, making it more difficult for apartments to be financially feasible. • Depending on total development costs associated with new apartments, rental units may not yield sufficient returns to attract capital (creating a development feasibility gap). • Higher density apartment developments are more financially feasible when land values can be spread among a greater number of units, providing greater opportunities for developers to pay for public requirements such as affordable housing. • The financial analysis indicates that housing fees at higher fee levels (between $20–$25/SF) should be focused on higher density rental developments of 100 dwelling units per acre or more. • Onsite affordable housing requirements of 10% of total units focused on moderate income households (between 80% and 120% AMI) are more financially feasible and best correlate to housing fee levels between $15 and $25/SF. 2. Key Findings from Analysis of Condominium and Single Family Attached Units • Housing prices have been increasing rapidly, and most buyers need significant cash or “trade-up” value in homes to afford new units, making it much more difficult for first-time homebuyers to purchase a new home. • For-sale developments are more financially feasible than apartments given high price points, but the housing affordability gap is much greater, particularly for large units. • The financial analysis indicates that housing fees at $25/SF can be supported by new ownership development in Burlingame. • Allowing affordable housing units to be a smaller size, particularly for single family attached units, enhances financial feasibility and thus encourages the provision of housing onsite. • Onsite affordable housing requirements of 10% of total units focused on households between 110% and 135% AMI are financially feasible for ownership housing assuming reasonable development costs. DRAFT—FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY Page 28 3. Policy Considerations to Encourage Onsite Affordable Housing Based on the financial analysis shown in this report, input from real estate professionals active in San Mateo County and best practices from other cities, the City may want to consider the following policies to encourage the provision of onsite affordable housing in Burlingame, as these policies will enhance financial feasibility for new housing development: • Develop a more predictable and streamlined process for land use approval and design review in order to reduce the time and risk associated with infill development. • Allow more housing units to be built, along with incentives and concessions similar to what is allowed under State Density Bonus Law, when developers provide onsite affordable housing. • Allow smaller sized units to be dedicated as affordable housing (especially for ownership, single family attached units) so long as they meet the minimum size standards of the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and are not below a certain threshold requirement established by the City (such as cannot be smaller than 70% to 75% of the average square footage for a similar unit type).13 • While the bedroom mix of the affordable units should be proportionate to the bedroom mix of market rate units, potentially allow a different unit mix if it furthers other City goals. • Encourage the dispersion of affordable housing units throughout new development but allow developments with higher heights to evenly distribute units throughout the first five floors (or 60% of all floors), which will allow upper floors to be rented or sold at higher prices. • Allow reductions in citywide parking standards for residential and retail (with respect to parking stall size and parking ratios), especially near transit and public parking. • Limit the total cost of City imposed permit, processing and development impact fees to levels that are close to current levels and provide developers with certainty regarding how much these fees will increase annually until building permits are pulled. (For example, link future increases in fee amounts after initial development application to published inflationary indices.) In conclusion, this analysis indicates that the City of Burlingame can achieve its housing goal to encourage the onsite provision of housing to address the City’s affordable housing needs by carefully crafting its housing fee program to incentivize the provision of housing onsite through the establishment of varying fee levels for apartment and ownership housing, and by implementing some or all of the housing policy options discussed above. 13 As of July 2018, the minimum unit sizes for the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee are: 450 square feet for a one- bedroom, 700 square feet for a two-bedroom and 900 square feet for a three-bedroom unit, although access requirements for persons with disabilities may lead to slightly larger unit size requirements. Residential Applications Overview February 2019 Approved Projects The following projects have received approval and are in various stages of construction: Address Units BMR Units Status Notes Information Page Planning Approval Building Permit Submitted Building Permit Issued Under Construction 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue (SummerHill) 290 29 Includes 29 Moderate Income units (120% AMI) for 25 years www.burlingame.org/summerhill 1491-93 Oak Grove Avenue 10 www.burlingame.org/1491-93oakgrove 1509 El Camino Real 11 1 Includes 1 Moderate Income unit (120% AMI) for 10 years www.burlingame.org/1509elcaminoreal 1128-32 Douglas Avenue 27 2 Includes 2 Moderate Income units (110% AMI) for 25 years www.burlingame.org/1128-32douglas 920 Bayswater Avenue 128 13 Includes 13 Moderate Income units (120% AMI) for 30 years www.burlingame.org/920bayswater 1431 El Camino Real 6 www.burlingame.org/1431elcaminoreal 21 Park Road 7 www.burlingame.org/21park 1433 Floribunda Avenue 8 www.burlingame.org/1433floribunda 619-625 California Drive Live/Work 26 www.burlingame.org/619-25california The Village at Burlingame (Lot F Affordable Housing) 132 132 Workforce: 6 units 50% AMI, 60 units at 60% AMI, 12 units at 110% AMI. Senior: 6 units @ 50% AMI, 48 units at 60% AMI. www.burlingame.org/villageatburlingame TOTAL 645 177 RESIDENTIAL APPLICATIONS OVERVIEW – FEBRUARY 2019 | 2 Proposed Projects The following projects have applications that have been submitted for review, but have not yet been acted on by the Planning Commission: Address Units BMR Units Status Notes Information Page Plans Under Review PC Study Session CEQA PC Action City Council 556 El Camino Real 21 1/25/16 2/24/14 7/24/17 5/29/18 www.burlingame.org/556elcaminoreal 1214 Donnelly Avenue 14 10/9/18 www.burlingame.org/1214donnelly 220 Park Road (former post office) 128 13 Mixed use with 128 residential units, 18,000 sq ft ground floor commercial www.burlingame.org/220park 1457 El Camino Real 9 2/11/19 123-125 Primrose Road 14 1095 Rollins Road 150 15 128 Lorton Avenue 19 tbd Density Bonus application. Affordability component to be determined. 509-511 California Drive 24 1 Adrian Court 265 38 Includes 38 Low Income units (80% AMI) for 55 years TOTAL 644 66 Key to Application Status: Plans Under Review – Application has been submitted and plans are being reviewed by staff. Planning Commission study session will be scheduled onc e plan check comments have been addressed. PC Study Session – Planning Commission study session to review proposed design and identify environmental issues to be studied. No action (approval) in this meeting. CEQA – Environmental review in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). PC Action – Planning Commission public hearing to consider action (approval) of the application. City Council – City Council hearing if application includes a General Plan/Zoning Amendment, if the Planning Commission decision is appealed , or if the application is called up by a councilmember. RESIDENTIAL APPLICATIONS OVERVIEW – FEBRUARY 2019 | 3 Preliminary Projects The following projects have been variously presented to the public in conceptual form, but either have not been formally submitted for review, or in the instance of the Peninsula Wellness Community is a master plan with development projects to be submitted at later dates. Estimated unit counts should be considered very tentative and subject to change if and when a development application is submitted. Address Estimated Units Status Information Page Peninsula Wellness Community Master Plan up to 400 On hold while applicant revises planning and development program. www.burlingame.org/masterplan TOTAL up to 400 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM NO: 10a MEETING DATE: March 4, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: March 4, 2019 From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director Catherine Keylon, Senior Planner Subject: Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR) on the Implementation of the Housing Element of the General Plan RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council, by motion, accept the 2018 Housing Element Annual Progress Report and authorize its transmittal to the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). BACKGROUND California requires each jurisdiction to prepare a Housing Element as part of its General Plan in order to ensure that all jurisdictions are planning for the projected housing demand throughout the state. Unlike other elements of a General Plan, the Housing Element must be updated by deadlines set by the State. The process begins with the State advising a region of its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which is the estimated number of housing units that will be needed over the planning period (usually eight years). This allocation is further subdivided among four household income categories: very-low, low, moderate, and above moderate. Affordable housing income limits are determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and are adjusted for family size, as detailed in the table below (California – effective 4/26/18). The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for the public process by which this regional allocation is apportioned to each jurisdiction within its boundaries. In addition to demonstrating how the allocated number of units can be produced, policies in a Housing Element must also: 1. address the removal of governmental barriers to housing production; 2. ensure the jurisdiction’s housing stock is maintained, and 3. ensure that housing is available to all types of persons on an equitable basis. County Income Category Number of Persons in Household 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 San Mateo County 4-Person Area Median Income (AMI): $118,400 Extremely Low (30% AMI) 30,800 35,200 39,600 44,000 47,550 51,050 54,600 58,100 Very Low (50% AMI) 51,350 58,650 66,000 73,300 79,200 85,050 90,900 96,800 Low (80% AMI) 82,200 93,950 105,700 117,400 126,800 136,200 145,600 155,000 Median (100% AMI) 82,900 94,700 106,550 118,400 127,850 137,350 146,800 156,300 Moderate (120% AMI) 99,450 113,700 127,900 142,100 153,450 164,850 176,200 187,550 Housing Element Annual Progress Report March 4, 2019 2 DISCUSSION The City of Burlingame’s Housing Element update was adopted in January 2015, and the City is currently starting the fourth year of the 2015-2023 planning period. Burlingame’s RHNA allocation for this cycle is 863 units. Annual Report California Government Code Section 65400 requires that an Annual Progress Report (“APR”) be prepared on the status and progress of implementation of the Housing Element and be submitted to the City Council, the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR), and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) by April 1st of each year. There is no similar requirement for the other Elements of the General Plan. Additionally, the APR has to be prepared in accordance with the provisions set forth by HCD and on the forms provided by HCD (attached). Staff notes that this year there has been a substantial change to the forms provided by HCD as a result of new APR requirements pursuant to Chapter 374 Statutes of 2017 (Assembly Bill 879) and Chapter 366 Statutes of 2017 (Senate Bill 35). Previously, the APR reporting was limited to the number of building permits issued for only (net) new housing units during a calendar year. However, the changes for the 2018 period and going forward require more detailed reporting that includes housing development applications submitted, building permit activity for new construction (including replacement housing—i.e., demo/reconstruction of single family detached dwellings), completed units and entitlements, as well as the building permits issued for net new housing units. This APR now requires that the reporting for the number of building permits issued for net new units include the site addresses, project names, and assessor parcel numbers (APN). In addition, the Housing Element APR includes information about housing production since the start of the planning period in 2015 including: • Information on the types of housing units that were issued building permits; • Information on the City’s progress in meeting its regional housing needs allocation; and • Progress report on implementation of Housing Element programs. This new reporting shown in Table A is a summary of all building permit activity on new housing, not just new units, and therefore includes projects that involve the demolition of a single family dwelling being replaced with a new single family dwelling. Table B summarizes the number of building permits issued for construction of new dwelling units including counting only net new units, not permits issued for replacement units (demolition of a unit and reconstruction of a new unit). In summary, permits were issued for a total of 300 net new units in calendar year 2018. The SummerHill development at 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue (Residences at Anson) comprised the majority of these units with a total of 290 units: 268 apartment units, 29 of which would be offered at below market rate (moderate income levels), and 22 townhouses. The remaining ten new units resulted from accessory dwelling units being created on R-1 zoned properties. The added 300 units from building permits issued in 2018 brings the total count to 451 units for this cycle of the RHNA allocation of 863 units (2015-2023 cycle). In addition, the Planning Commission and Housing Element Annual Progress Report March 4, 2019 3 City Council have approved several projects totaling 307 units (282 net new units) during 2018 that have been entitled but have not yet been issued permits. This included 123 affordable units at the Village at Burlingame, which was approved by the Planning Commission in 2018 but has not yet been issued building permits. These units will be added to the RHNA progress report for permit issuance and count toward meeting the City’s RHNA allocation once the building permits for construction are issued. In addition, there are multiple projects that are proposed and have been submitted for entitlements and are currently under review, but have not yet been acted on by the Planning Commission. These “in progress” applications include 644 units, which could result in 611 net new units in the next few years if each application were to be approved as currently submitted. Burlingame’s progress in meeting its RHNA targets for this housing cycle (2015-2023) is summarized as follows: Income Level RHNA Units Constructed % of RHNA Goal Extremely Low 138 0 0 Very Low 138 0 0 Low 144 0 0 Moderate 155 29 18.7% Above Moderate 288 422 146.5% Total: 863 451 52.2% These reports are informational only and do not change adopted policies or authorize any action or expenditure of funds. These reports are being prepared in compliance with California Government Code Section 65400. Once the Council has acknowledged that the Housing Element Annual Progress Reports have been provided for review, staff will forward the reports to HCD and OPR. FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibits: • Housing Element Annual Progress Report – Calendar Year 2018 JurisdictionBurlingameReporting Year2018 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)Date Application SubmittedTotal Approved Units by ProjectTotal Disapproved Units by ProjectStreamlining Notes234678 9 10Prior APN+Current APN Street AddressProject Name+Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID+Unit Category(SFA,SFD,2 to 4,5+,ADU,MH)TenureR=RenterO=OwnerDate Application SubmittedVery Low-Income Deed RestrictedVery Low-Income Non Deed RestrictedLow-Income Deed RestrictedLow-Income Non Deed RestrictedModerate-Income Deed RestrictedModerate- Income Non Deed RestrictedAboveModerate-IncomeTotal PROPOSED Units by ProjectTotal APPROVED Units by projectTotal DISAPPROVED Units by Project (Auto-calculated Can Be Overwritten)Was APPLICATION SUBMITTED Pursuant to GC 65913.4(b)? (SB 35 Streamlining) Notes+Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below15 215 230 19026-013-050 026-013-0501457 El Camino Real1457 El Camino Real 5+ O 7/18/201899 No9 units total- 6 net newHas not gone to hearing029-221-040 029-221-050029-231-250 029-231-260123-125 Primrose Rd123-125 Primrose Rd 5+ O 9/13/201814 14 NoHas not gone to hearing026-231-250026-231-260026-231-250026-231-2601095 Rollins Rd 1095 Rollins Rd 5+ R9/14/201815 135 150 NoHas not been approved029-231-210 029-231-210128 Lorton Ave 128 Lorton Ave 5+ R 11/29/201819 19 NoHas not gone to hearing025-232-450 025-232-4501104 Clovelly Ln 1104 Clovelly Ln SFD O 1/3/2018111 NoNew house replacinig existing029-021-310 029-021-310834 Crossway Rd 834 Crossway Rd SFD O 2/14/2018111 No026-166-150 026-166-1501010 Cabrillo Ave 1010 Cabrillo Ave SFD O 1/18/2018111 No028-282-070 028-282-070401 Occidental Ave 401 Occidental Ave SFD O 1/19/2018111 No028-293-060 028-293-060133 Crescent Ave 133 Crescent Ave SFD O 1/30/2018111 No028-291-090 028-291-0901536 Howard Ave 1536 Howard Ave SFD O 3/9/2018111 No026-162-270 026-162-2701697 Broadway 1697 Broadway SFD O 3/23/2018111 No029-293-250 029-293-25028 Bloomfield Rd 28 Bloomfield Rd SFD O 5/16/2018111 No028-316-150 028-316-1501648 Barroilhet Ave1648 Barroilhet Ave SFD O 6/20/2018111 No026-152-100 026-152-1001268 Cortez Ave 1268 Cortez Ave SFD O 7/16/201811 NoNot scheduled for action hearing yet029-185-050 029-185-050475 1/2 Rollins Rd 475 1/2 Rollins Rd SFD O 8/9/201811 NoNot scheduled for action hearing yet026-240-160 026-240-1601020 Toyon Dr 1020 Toyon Dr SFD O 8/24/2018111 No026-013-340 026-013-3401464 Balboa Ave 1464 Balboa Ave SFD O 9/4/2018111 No027-152-110 027-152-1101341 DeSoto Ave 1341 DeSoto Ave SFD O 9/20/2018111 No028-316-280 028-316-2801629 Howard Ave 1629 Howard Ave SFD O 10/2/2018111 No026-042-130 026-042-1301448 Drake Ave 1448 Drake Ave SFD O 11/5/2018111 No026-054-030 026-054-0301425 Bernal Ave 1425 Bernal Ave SFD O 12/3/201811 NoNot scheduled for action hearing yet028-284-040 028-284-040329 Occidental Ave 329 Occidental Ave SFD O 12/11/2008111 No029-272-200 029-272-200 108 Arundel Rd 108 Arundel RdADU R11 No026-173-170 026-173-1701220 Vancouver Ave 1220 Vancouver Ave ADU R11 NoHousing Development Applications SubmittedTable ANote: + Optional fieldCells in grey contain auto-calculation formulasANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202)51Project Identifier Unit Types Proposed Units - Affordability by Household Incomes ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title JurisdictionBurlingameReporting Year2018 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulasTable A2Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units23456Prior APN+Current APN Street AddressProject Name+Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID+Unit Category (SFA,SFD,2 to 4,5+,ADU,MH)TenureR=RenterO=OwnerVery Low- Income Deed RestrictedVery Low- Income Non Deed RestrictedLow- Income Deed RestrictedLow- Income Non Deed RestrictedModerate- Income Deed RestrictedModerate- Income Non Deed RestrictedAboveModerate-IncomeEntitlementDate Approved# of Units issued EntitlementsSummary Row: Start Data Entry Below12 108 54 429 596026-240-290026-240-2901028 Carolan Ave Summerhill 5+ R29 239 6/15/2015268026-240-360TBD 1008 Carolan Ave Summerhill 5+ O22 6/15/201522029-272-200029-272-200108 Arundel Rd onADU R11026-173-170026-173-1701220 Vancouver Ave 1220 Vancouver Ave ADU R026-214-060 026-214-060 1021 Capuchino Ave 1021 Capuchino Ave ADU R11029-026-220029-026-220826 Alpine Ave 826 Alpine Ave ADU R11029-132-200029-132-2001134 Douglas Ave 1134 Douglas AveADU R11025-083-010025-083-0102653 Martinez Dr2653 Martinez DrADU R11025-333-340025-333-3403016 Alcazar 3016 Alcazar ADU R11029-272-080029-272-080129 Bloomfield Rd 129 Bloomfield Rd ADU R11029-252-100029-252-100223 Bloomfield Rd. 223 Bloomfield Rd.ADU R11027-153-320027-153-3201341 Columbus Ave 1341 Columbus AveADU R11029-235-16, 170,180190, 200, 210, 220TBD 920 Bayswater Ave 920 Bayswater Ave 5+ R13 115 8/13/2018128026-013-110 TBD 1431 El Camino Real 1431 El Camino Real 5+ O2 2/12/20182026-223-130TBD 21 Park Rd 21 Park Rd 5+ O6 5/29/20186029-112-050TBD 1433 Floribunda Ave 1433 Floribunda Ave 5+ O5 9/24/20185029-131-140,150,160 TBD 619-625 California Dr 619-625 California Dr 5+ O24 9/24/201824029-224-270029-224-270150 Park Rd Parking Lot F Lots F & N 5+ R 12 108 12 12/10/2018132029-111-260TBD 556 El Camino Real 556 El Camino Real 5+ O7Note: + Optional fieldProject Identifier1Unit Types Affordability by Household Incomes - Completed Entitlement JurisdictionBurlingameReporting Year2018 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)134RHNA Allocation by Income Level2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023Total Units to Date (all years)Total Remaining RHNAby Income LevelDeed RestrictedNon-Deed RestrictedDeed RestrictedNon-Deed RestrictedDeed Restricted29Non-Deed RestrictedAbove Moderate288 5 133 13 2714228635 133 13 300451 546Note: units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income permitted units totalsCells in grey contain auto-calculation formulasPlease contact HCD if your data is different than the material supplied hereTotal RHNATotal Units 44Income LevelVery LowLow29ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202)Moderate2761441552Table BRegional Housing Needs Allocation ProgressPermitted Units Issued by Affordability276144126This table is auto-populated once you enter your jurisdiction name and current year data. Past year information comes from previous APRs. JurisdictionBurlingameReporting Year2018 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)Date of RezoneType of Shortfall24567 9 10 11APN Street AddressProject Name+Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID+Date of Rezone Very-Low Income Low-Income Moderate IncomeAbove Moderate -IncomeType of Shortfall Parcel Size(Acres)General Plan DesignationZoningMinimum Density Allowed Maximum Density AllowedRealistic CapacityVacant/NonvacantDescription of Existing UsesNoneSummary Row: Start Data Entry BelowANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202)83Project IdentifierAffordability by Household IncomeSites Description1Sites Identified or Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing NeedTable CNote: + Optional fieldCells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas City of Burlingame- Goals, Polices and Action Programs 1/1/2018 – 12/31/2018 Program Description (By Housing Element Program Names) Housing Programs Progress Report - Government Code Section 65583. Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. Name of Program Objectives Timeframe in H.E. Status of Program Implementation Goal A: PRESERVE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER BY ENCOURAGING MAINTENANCE, IMPROVEMENT AND REHABILITATION OF THE CITY'S NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING STOCK. Program H(A-1) - Maintenance of Public Facilities. In residential neighborhoods continue the maintenance and enhancement of public facilities such as streets, water supply and drainage by allocations from the general fund, gas tax revenue and, where appropriate, conditions of development. Continue maintenance programs for public facilities. Ongoing Maintenance of public facilities projects include the following: new bathroom at Washington Park/road diet along Carolan Avenue/Paloma playground renovation/stormwater infrastructure improvements/new roundabout at California Drive and Lorton Avenue. Program H(A-2) - Housing Rehabilitation. Through the City's Code Enforcement Program, continue the program of contacting owners of structures that appear to be overcrowded, declining or in need of repair. Refer property owners to the Rehabilitation Loan Program administered by San Mateo County to assist qualified homeowners in making necessary repairs to structures in need of rehabilitation. Rehabilitate 20 housing units. Ongoing Code enforcement staff is aware of this program and refers property owners as needed. To date we have not had any cases/properties that would require such a referral. Program H(A-3) - Allow fee waivers for affordable rehabilitation. Consider amendment to the Master Fee Schedule to allow for waiver of permit fees for rehabilitation of affordable housing achieved through San Mateo County programs, through non-profit agencies or through other means, including Federal Programs and to provide incentives for property owners to maintain their properties. Rehabilitate 75 affordable units. Within 1 year of adoption of Housing Element The City is still working on implementing this program, however, building permit fees are significantly reduced for non-profit rehabilitation programs such Christmas in April and Rebuilding Together. Program Description (By Housing Element Program Names) Housing Programs Progress Report - Government Code Section 65583. Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. Name of Program Objectives Timeframe in H.E. Status of Program Implementation Program H(A-4) - Discourage condominium conversions. Maintain the existing zoning controls which prohibit conversion of residential rental projects with fewer than 21 units to condominiums, and which contain strict regulations prohibiting conversion of less than 21 units to condominiums. No conversion of existing rental stock to condominiums. Ongoing The City continues to preserve rental housing stock with the implementation of Chapter 26.32 of the subdivision ordinance. Program H(A-5) - Prevent conversion of residential units to non-residential use. Amend zoning code to require a conditional use permit for any project where residential units are proposed to be replaced by non-residential use. Retain existing housing stock. Within 1 year of adoption of Housing Element After adopting the updated General Plan (2019) the City is now working on a zoning code update which is antic ipated for adoption in late 2019 . The zoning code update will include a Conditional Use Permit for the conversion of residential units to non-residential units to help preserve housing stock. Program H(A-6) - Ensure affordability of existing units. Continue the relationship with the County of San Mateo Department of Housing for administration of Block Grant funds for housing programs; encourage use of available programs (such as HOME) to assist non-profit housing corporations in acquiring, rehabilitating and managing apartment units for long-term affordability. Utilize funds to assist 20 units to achieve long term affordability. Ongoing The City will encourage use of available programs administered by San Mateo County to ensure affordability of existing units. Program H(A-7) - Determine code compliance, structural deficiencies of existing residences upon sale. Continue program that assists in research of residential records upon the request of realtors or potential home buyers Continue assistance to potential home bu yers. Ongoing Planning and Building Division staff regularly assists potential buyers and realtors in locating records to determine the permit history of a property prior to purchase. Program Description (By Housing Element Program Names) Housing Programs Progress Report - Government Code Section 65583. Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. Name of Program Objectives Timeframe in H.E. Status of Program Implementation Program H(A-8) - Residential design review . Continue implementation of residential design review and zoning regulations including setbacks, floor area ratio, declining height; continue implementation of single family design review guidelines adopted in 1998. Process 250 applications for residential design review. Ongoing Proposals for new single family dwellings, duplexes and multifamily dwellings are subject to the Design Review process before Planning Commission approval. There were over 100 applications for design review received in 2018. Program Description (By Housing Element Program Names) Housing Programs Progress Report - Government Code Section 65583. Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. Name of Program Objectives Timeframe in H.E. Status of Program Implementation GOAL B: PROVIDE VARIETY AND CHOICE OF HOUSING BY PROMOTING HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL PERSONS REGARDLESS OF AGE, SEX, RACE, COLOR, MARITAL STATUS, DISABILITY, NATIONAL ORIGIN OR OTHER BARRIERS. Program H(B-1) - Public awareness of anti- discrimination laws and policies. Continue to fund the Code Enforcement Officer position and coordination with Community Development Department code enforcement activities; provide information handouts; inform the public and local realtors about equal housing laws and recourse available in case of violations; refer complaints to Calif ornia Department of Fair Employment and Housing; refer complaints regarding discrimination to La Raza Central Legal, a nonprofit community law center which works with local tenants to resolve landlord/tenant issues. Information will be posted and available at public locations, such as City Hall, the library and the recreation center. Continue referral activities through Code Enforcement Program. Ongoing Information is provided and referrals are made to assist the public with issues regarding fair housing laws. In addition the City, in conjunction with the County of San Mateo Home for All initiative, has held two community engagement activities to publicize housing resources and obtain public input on housing needs in Burlingame. Significant outreach effort s have been made for this workshop to include all sectors of the Burli ngame community. Program H(B-2) - Implement an outreach program for persons with disabilities. Work with agencies such as the Golden Gate Regional Center, a state-funded nonprofit organization serving individuals with developmental disabilities in Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties, InnVision Shelter Network, CALL Primrose, and Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities to implement an outreach program that informs families in Burlingame about housing and services available for persons with disabilities. The program could include the development of an informational brochure, providing information on services on the City's website, and providing housing- related training for individuals/families through workshops. Provide information regarding housing to families of persons with developmental disabilities. Develop outreach material within 2 years of HE adoptions Information regarding housing services available for person with disabilities is provided by the City during Building workshops and by staff on specific projects where this situation applies. The City, in conjunction with the County of San Mateo Home for All initiative, has held two community engagement meetings plus several outreach activities to publicize housing resources and obtain public input on housing needs in Burlingame. There has been significant outreach to multiple organizations, including organizations representing persons with disabilities. Program Description (By Housing Element Program Names) Housing Programs Progress Report - Government Code Section 65583. Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. Name of Program Objectives Timeframe in H.E. Status of Program Implementation Program H(B-3) - Community amenities for rentals. Encourage the inclusion of communal amenities in new rental developments (i.e. community rooms, play structures, laundry facilities) where feasible and provision of which does not impair achievement of maximum densities or the financial feasibility of developing housing affordable to lower-income households. Promote attractive rental opportunities. Ongoing When reviewing multifamily projects staff and the Planning Commission request that the developer provide additional amenities for the residents; this is an ongoing request from both the Planning Commission and City Council as well. Planning staff has seen an increase in submittals that include outdoor living rooms with seating areas, water features, firepits, barbeque areas, bocce ball courts, community rooms and gyms. Goal 3: PROVIDE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR CITY EMPLOYEES, TEACHERS, HOSPITAL WORKERS AND OTHERS IN THE SERVICE INDUSTRY WHO WORK IN BURLINGAME. Program H(C-1) - Refer eligible employees to housing assistance progra ms. Train staff about current opportunities; make available brochures and contact information to eligible residents who inquire about availability of programs. Refer eligible residents to CDBG programs administered by the County Office of Housing and Community Development. Continue staff training and to refer eligible residents to programs. Continuous When there are phone or counter inquiries regarding housing assistance Planning Division Staff provides referrals to San Mateo Office of Housing and also prints and provides updated lists of eligible affordable housing opportunities prepared by the County Housing Office. The City promotes the first time home buyer workshops presented by HEART of San Mateo County and includes information in the City newsletter. Program H(C-2) - Provide incentives for developers to include affordable units in new residential projects. 1. Amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to co mply with local and state legislative requirements. 2. Amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance or adopt a Density Bonus Ordinance to accommodate a Low- Income component of required affordable housing. 3. Amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance or adopt a Density Bonus Ordinance to encourage smaller unit sizes (i.e. studio, SROs, one- and two-bedroom units). 4. Amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance or adopt a Density Bonus Ordinance to extend the affordability time restrictions on subsidized housing. 5. Amend the zoning code to provide incentives to developers who provide additional affordable units and/or serve a broader range of income levels than that required by the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance or state density bonus requirements, such as reduced parking requirements, increased height limits, reduced landscaping requirements, flexible setback requirements and reduced fees. Provide 75 new affordable units Provide 50 percent of affordable units at Low- income levels. Within 1 year of HE adoption The Density Bonus Ordinance was amended and adopted in January 2015 and includes items #1-4 . Action #5 will be addressed as part of the zoning code update currently underway, and has been addressed in interim zoning regulations for certain mixed use areas. In 2018 the City of Burlingame issued permits for 29 BMR units and entitled 145 BMR units. Program Description (By Housing Element Program Names) Housing Programs Progress Report - Government Code Section 65583. Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. Name of Program Objectives Timeframe in H.E. Status of Program Implementation Program H(C-3) - Consider adoption of a co mmercial impact in-lieu fee. Consider adopting a commercial in-lieu fee that would require developers of employment-generating commercial and industrial developments to contribute to the supply of low- and moderate-income housing through the provision of commercial in-lieu fees as prescribed in a nexus impact fee study. Generate in-lieu fees to contribute toward the creation of low and moderate income housing. Within 1 year of HE adoption Commercial (linkage) impact fees were adopted by the City Council on July 3, 2017 as follows: - $7 SF – retail - $12 SF – hotel - $18 SF – office < 50,000 SF - $25 SF – office > 50,000 SF - Discounts apply for projects utilizing prevailing wages. Program H(C-4) - Consider adoption of a residential in- lieu fee option. Consider adopting a residential in-lieu fee as an alternative to providing affordable units on-site. Creation of low and moderate income housing. Within 1 year of HE adoption Residential impact fees have been under consideration and review over the past year. The Residential Impact Fees were recommended for approval by the Planning Commission in February 2019. The fees proposed are: Linkage Fee Base With Prevailing / Area Wage Rental Multifamily – 11 units and above Up to 50 du/ac $17.00 $14.00 51-70 du/ac $20.00 $17.00 71 du/ac and above $30.00 $25.00 For Sale Multifamily (Condominiums) – 7 units and above $35.00 $30.00 Notes: 1. Rental Multifamily with total of 10 units or fewer are exempt. 2. For Sale Multifamily (Condominiums) with total of 6 units or fewer are exempt. 3. Rental projects that convert to condominiums within 10 years of completion of construction would be subject to the fee differential as a condition of conversion. Program H(C-5) - Encourage public agency partnerships to provide housing, reduce commute time, and facilitate retention of groups like teachers, public employees, hospital and service sector workers. Contact public agencies to encourage them to include a provision for housing in any facility expansion plans; disseminate information about available CDBG funded programs. Provide 50 new housing units in the vicinity of public agency workplaces and commercial centers. Ongoing The Planning Commission approved a combined workforce/senior housing on City Parking Lots F & N (downtown) on December 11, 2018 for a total of 132 units, including 78 workforce units. Program Description (By Housing Element Program Names) Housing Programs Progress Report - Government Code Section 65583. Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. Name of Program Objectives Timeframe in H.E. Status of Program Implementation GOAL D: ENCOURAGE SPECIAL PURPOSE HOUSING. Program H(D-1) - Increase affordability for elderly households. a. Continue to implement the second unit amnesty program to allow creation of accessible secondary units for the elderly; b. Continue to allow upon request curbside disabled accessible parking spaces in single family neighborhoods. c. Coordinate with San Mateo County Housing Authority to increase the number of Section 8 units for Burlingame's elderly population. d. Continue updating and distributing widely to local residents the Senior Resources Handbook: An Informational Guide for Burlingame Senior Citizens, Their Families and Caregivers. e. Continue to provide incentives for new senior housing by maintaining the code provision that allows reduced parking requirements for assisted living projects and other group residential facilities for the elderly. f. Continue City financial support to non-profit agencies which administer housing programs for seniors (home sharing, reverse mortgage). Planning staff to work with these agencies to facilitate implementation of their programs in Burlingame. g. Encourage non-profit housing groups to develop housing by having adequate Planning staff to facilitate project processing and environmental review, and by maintaining the existing incentives in the zoning regulations for residential facilities for the elderly. h. Refer seniors who are homeowners to the Human Investment Project (HIP) for Housing Home Sharing Program, to find eligible tenants to share their housing. Provide 30 affordable units for the elderly. Increase number of Section 8 units for elderly by 5 units. Continue public education efforts. Ongoing The City is currently coordinating with the Peninsula Health Care District on planning for the Peninsula Wellness Community Master Plan which will include a variety of senior housing options, including hospice care, assisted and independent living facilities. The City revised the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulations in 2018 to comply with State requirements which are intended to facilitate the construction of affordable accessory dwelling units including units suitable for the elderly. City staff has created a user-friendly ADU handout to help residents understand the regulations to further streamline the ADU standards, in compliance with newly updated State requirements. The City issued building permits for 10 ADUs. The City contributes funding to HIP Housing to support homesharing for seniors. Code Section 25.63.020(c)(3) of the zoning code provides a twenty (20) percent density bonus for a development of five (5) or more dwelling units for senior housing developments. Program Description (By Housing Element Program Names) Housing Programs Progress Report - Government Code Section 65583. Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. Name of Program Objectives Timeframe in H.E. Status of Program Implementation Program H(D-2) - Improve livability of housing units for disabled population. a. Implement the adopted Reasonable Accommodations Ordinance, which provides individuals with disabilities reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices and procedures that may be necessary to ensure equal access to housing by providing a process for individuals with disabilities to make requests for reasonable accommodation in regard to relief from the various land use, zoning, or building laws, rules, policies, practices and/or procedures of the City. This policy offers a process to modify certain development standards, such as lot coverage and setback requirements for ramps and landings added to residences and group homes in order to provide access for the disabled. b. Continue to allow supportive and transitional housing in residential districts subject to the same restrictions that apply to other residential districts in the same zone. c. Help facilitate the acquisition of single-family homes to be converted into assisted living facilities for the developmentally disabled. d. Continue to allow persons with disabilities to request disabled parking curb markings in the single family residential areas. Facilitate use of County assistance and staff work with residents to modify 10 existing housing units to accommodate disabled. Ongoing Planning and Building Division staff is versed in the reasonable accommodations ordinance (Code Section 25.66) and works with applicants to utilize this section of the code. In addition, when needed Public Works staff assists residents requesting disabled curb parking in residential areas. Program H(D-3) - Add affordable housing units for single-parent households. Continue to assign staff to carry out the follow ing actions: a. Work with the County Housing Authority to increase the number of Section 8 certificates for single-parent families. b. Work with the Human Investment Project for Housing (HIP), a non-profit housing corporation which administers a home-sharing program which is available for Burlingame residents. Develop literature regarding availability of housing programs; distribute to Burlingame residents. Continue City funding assistance. Increase by 5 the number of Section 8 units for single parent households. Train staff and refer single parent households to shared housing program, IHN or other local providers Ongoing Staff is aware of HIP Housing programs and refers interested parties to HIP. In addition, the City's newsletter also provides information on HIP's home share program, and information is listed on a web page dedicated to housing resources on the City’s website as well as to City employees with advertisements in the break room. Program Description (By Housing Element Program Names) Housing Programs Progress Report - Government Code Section 65583. Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. Name of Program Objectives Timeframe in H.E. Status of Program Implementation Program H(D-4) - Provide affordable studio or one- bedroom units for single occupants. a. Amend the zoning code to create zoning incentives that encourage the development of smaller, more affordable housing units for seniors and other single occupants, such as reduced parking requirements for units less than 900 square feet and other flexible development standards. b. Continue to allow secondary units per the Government Code. Continue to implement the Secondary Dw elling Unit Ordinance (adopted in 2011), which allows new secondary dwelling units subject to certain standards, including minimum lot size, maximum unit size and one of the units to be owner occupied. Continue to allow waiver of on-site parking for accessory dwelling units that are rented out to those with moderate incomes or below. Provide affordable efficiency housing units on appropriate opportunity sites. Rezone properties with residential overlay Amend code to provide incentives for smaller units. Within 1 year of HE adoption The City revised the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulations in 2017 and then again in 2018 to comply with State requirements which are intended to facilitate the construction of affordable accessory dwelling units including units suitable for the elderly. As part of the ADU code changes for compliance with newly updated State requirements , City staff also recommended code changes to the Planning Commission beyond those required by State Law which would facilitate development of ADUs. Program H(D-5) - Provide local share of support for county-wide homeless programs a. Continue financial contributions to agencies which provide service to the homeless population in San Mateo County; continue to allow group facilities for the homeless in conjunction with church facilities as a conditional use; continue to support financially and work with local and non-profit providers in San Mateo b. Maintain the zoning code provisions that allow emergency shelters by right in the northern part of the RR (Rollins Road) zoning district. c. Implement the zoning code provisions that allow transitional and supportive housing by right in all zone districts which allow residential uses only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. Program H(D-5) - Provide local share of support for county-wide homeless programs a. Continue financial contributions to agencies which provide service to the homeless population in San Mateo County; continue to allow group facilities for the homeless in conjunction with church facilities as a Continue financial support of County-wide programs. Staff to continue to facilitate process necessary to provide such services in the city. Ongoing Each year the City Council does Community Group Funding at the first Council meeting in June. The list of recipients includes HIP Housing, Inn Vision Shelter Network and Samaritan House, CALL Primrose Center and HIP Housing. In addition, the Council budget includes funding sufficient for membership in HEART and a County Homeless Outreach Team contribution. Program Description (By Housing Element Program Names) Housing Programs Progress Report - Government Code Section 65583. Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. Name of Program Objectives Timeframe in H.E. Status of Program Implementation conditional use; continue to support financially and work with local and non-profit providers in San Mateo b. Maintain the zoning code provisions that allow emergency shelters by right in the northern part of the RR (Rollins Road) zoning district. c. Implement the zoning code provisions that allow transitional and supportive housing by right in all zone districts which allow residential uses only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. GOAL E: REDUCE RESIDENTIAL ENERGY USE TO CONSERVE ENERGY AND HELP REDUCE HOUSING COSTS. Program H(E-1) - Energy conservation for major residential construction In all plan checking for new residential construction and major additions, apply Title 24 energy conservation requirements; where possible in planning developments, require structural and landscaping design to make use of natural heating and cooling. Add energy conservation features to 250 residences. Ongoing Title 24 energy conservation requirements are applied to all plan checks for new residential construction. Program H(E-2) - Community awareness of conservation benefits Distribute brochure on available energy conservation programs and measures at the Planning counter to all residents planning to expand or build new residences. Provide energy conservation information to public. Ongoing There are brochures available at City Hall and on-line information provided regarding energy conservation for both residents and businesses. In addition the Sustainability Coordinator provides tips and offers other resources for energy conservation on the City’s weekly newsletter. Program H(E-3) - Sustainable Development Stringent California Green Building Standards (CalGreen) have been adopted. At the minimum, new construction will follow the requirements set by the mandatory portion of the CalGreen Code. Utilize CalGreen standards. Continuous The City currently complies with the CalGreen standards and employs a half time Green Building Specialist to ensure compliance of all projects with the CalGreen standards. Program Description (By Housing Element Program Names) Housing Programs Progress Report - Government Code Section 65583. Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. Name of Program Objectives Timeframe in H.E. Status of Program Implementation GOAL F: ACHIEVE INCREASED AFFORDABILITY OF HOUSING. Program H(F-1) - Encourage development of housing on selected sites to serve all income levels Amend the zoning code to create zoning incentives that encourage the consolidation of smaller lots identified as Housing Inventory Sites, such as development review streamlining, reduction in required parking for smaller units, setback modifications, or increases in building height. Promote development on smaller opportunity sites by promoting lot consolidation for creation of affordable housing Within 1 year of HE adoption City staff supports applications involving the consolidation of parcels for development projects to resolve technical matters such as multiple zoning designations, and generally identifying opportunities to simplify and strea mline the application process. The Zoning Code currently provides lower parking requirements for smaller units, and allows further reductions within the Downtown Specific Plan area. Further zoning incentives will be considered as part of a comprehensive zoning ordinance update over the next year. Program H(F-2) - Promote development of potential housing sites Maintain and update the area-by-area land use surveys, note changes in vacant and underutilized sites; share information with potential residential developers. Provide assistance and incentives to encourage development of the opportunity sites identified in the Housing Element Ongoing The City's opportunity sites as designated in the Housing Element are provided to developers that express interest in developing in Burlingame. This list of opportunity sites is provided on the development opportunity website Oppsites, and in the Housing Element. Program H(F-3) - Create Priority Development Area (PDA) Housing Overlay Zone. Amend the zoning code to create a "Priority Development Area Housing Overlay Zone" to establish standards and incentives for housing in the portions of the community zoned for high density residential and/or mixed use development that are adjacent to transit corridors and transit centers. Specific standards to be considered are densities, development standard incentives, reduced parking requirements, building heights and compatibility with adjacent low er-scale neighborhoods. The Priority Development Area covers the North Burlingame area, the El Camino Real and California Drive corridors and the Downtown Specific Plan area. Provide flexibility and incentives in the application of development standards within the Priority Development Area. Provide flexibility and incentives in the application of development standards within the Priority Development Area. Within 1 year of HE adoption The Downtown Specific Plan, which is within the boundaries of the PDA, provides incentives such as higher residential densities, development standard incentives, reduced parking requirements, increased building heights, and provisions to provide compatibility with adjacent lower-scale neighborhoods. The General Plan Update has identified additional areas that could be suitable for high density residential and/or mixed use development that are adjacent to transit corridors and transit centers. Interim zoning regulations have been adopted for some of these area, with provisions for higher densities, reduced parking requirements, taller building heights to support greater densities, and compatibility with adjacent lower-scale neighborhoods. In addition a light industrial area at the north end of Burlingame has been rezoned to allow live/work and residential uses given the close proximity to the Millbrae Multi-Model Station. The City will be working on an RFP for a specific plan for this new residential neighborhood in early 2019. Program Description (By Housing Element Program Names) Housing Programs Progress Report - Government Code Section 65583. Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. Name of Program Objectives Timeframe in H.E. Status of Program Implementation Program H(F-4) - Identify sites for affordable, mixed use residential, live-work and small one-bedroom or studio apartments. a. Encourage development of sites in C-R zone and where there is commercial zoning with a residential overlay or residential mixed use zoning; b. Promote development within the new mixed use zoning districts within the Downtown Specific Plan area, which allow for mixed uses and high density residential uses, and includes incentives to keep units affordable such as reduced parking requirements, increased heights and modified setbacks. Encourage development of 150 units on selected Housing Opportunity Sites within the Downtown Specific Plan area. Ongoing Within the Downtown Specific Plan area there are currently applications under review for a total of 227 units in either residential, mixed use, or live/work projects. In addition, 286 units have been approved (entitled) within the Downtown Specific Plan area in 2018. Many of the projects have utilized reduced parking requirements available to projects within the Downtown Specific Plan area, and/or the use of mechanical parking lifts. Elsewhere in Burlingame there are applications for 424 units, including a significant number of smaller one-bedroom and studio units. In 2018 there were 26 live/work units approved. There is currently an application under review for 24 live/work units. Program H(F-5) - Second-unit Amnesty Continue the second unit amnesty program and provide second unit applicants with information on participation in the San Mateo County Rental Rehabilitation program which provides rehabilitation loans for units which are available to tenants with low or very low incomes; consider expansion of the program by changing the eligibility date to qualify for second-unit amnesty. There have been 10 units approved through the second unit amnesty program since its adoption in 2001. In addition, there have been 3 new units approved under the ordinance allowing new second units which was adopted in 2011. Process 125 applications for second unit amnesty; Provide opportunities for rehabilitation of these units Ongoing The City revised the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulations in 2017 and again in 2018 to comply with State requirements which are intended to facilitate the construction of affordable accessory dwelling units, including units suitable for the elderly. As part of the ADU code changes for compliance with newly updated State requirements, City staff also recommended code changes to the Planning Commission beyond those required by State Law which would facilitate development of ADUs; these recommendations were approved an are now part of the zoning ordinance. Program Description (By Housing Element Program Names) Housing Programs Progress Report - Government Code Section 65583. Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. Name of Program Objectives Timeframe in H.E. Status of Program Implementation Program H(F-6) - To expand the stock of affordable housing Contact known non-profit housing corporations and religious institutions to make them aware of City interest, familiarize them with the opportunities available in Burlingame, and assist in processing where applications are required; encourage use of private foundation grants to fund affordable units. The City will issue an RFP for redevelopment of City-owned parking lots with affordable housing within one year of Housing Element adoption. Encourage development of affordable units on opportunity sites. Issue RFP for redevelopment of parking lots. Ongoing In 2018, the City approved the redevelopment of City-owned parking lots for an affordable housing development to build 132 workforce and senior housing units on City Parking Lots F & N in Downtown Burlingame’s downtown, which is within walking distance to the Burlingame Train Station. Program H(F-7) - Section 8 Program Work with San Mateo County Community Services and Housing Authority to provide Burlingame a proportionate share of Section 8 funds; distribute information about program to potential property ow ner and renter participants. Current number of Section 8 units is 100. Attempt to increase by additional 20 units (total of 120 units). Ongoing The City will work with San Mateo County Community Services and Housing Authority to provide a proportionate number of Section 8 units located Burlingame. Program H(F-8) - First-time Homebuyer Program Continue to participate in cooperative CDBG agreement with San Mateo County to provide Burlingame residents with the opportunity to participate in the first-ti me homebuyer program (Mortgage Credit Certificate) funded by CDBG. Make first time home buyer information available on City’s website and hold public workshops to identify opportunities for those in need. Obtain assistance for 15 Burlingame residents. Ongoing The City promotes first-time homebuyer program workshops presented by HEART of San Mateo County to educate both City employees and Burlingame residents about the first-time homebuyer program; this information is provided on the City’s website and in the City’s weekly newsletter. Program Description (By Housing Element Program Names) Housing Programs Progress Report - Government Code Section 65583. Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. Name of Program Objectives Timeframe in H.E. Status of Program Implementation Program H(F-9) - Zero-Net-Loss of Housing Units Amend the zoning code to require that when there is a loss of multifamily rental housing due to subdivision or condominium approvals, the project shall be required to provide 20 percent affordable housing units and/or provide displaced tenants with the first right to return to replacement housing units and to affordable housing units, subject to compliance with Measure T, the Burlingame Fair Property Rights Ordinance. No loss of housing stock. Within 1 year of HE adoption This program has been implemented through project review but the zoning code has not yet been amended to include this requirement. The City recently adopted a General Plan Update and is currently in the midst a zoning code update to implement the new Plan. This issue will be studied for inclusion in the upcoming zoning code update. Program H(F-10) – Housing for Very Low Income Households Explore opportunities to encourage development of housing for very low and extremely low income households through a variety of activities that may include: • Examining the appropriateness of new housing types that can provide affordable options, such as junior second units and micro-apartments; • Identifying grant and funding opportunities; • Monitoring the availability of state cap-and-trade funding for affordable housing; • Considering joint development opportunities with non- profit developers for projects that accommodate a wide range of income categories including very low inco me; • Reaching out to housing developers and assisting them, where applicable, in preparing applications for affordable housing funding sources, which may involve feedback on their financial analyses, provision of demographic and land use data, and review of their funding applications; • Offering additional incentives beyond the density bonus and inclusionary housing provisions; and/or • Prioritizing a portion of fees, including potential residential and commercial impact fees, tow ards affordable housing. Explore the effectiveness and appropriateness of new strategies and incentives to promote housing for very low and extremely low income households on an annual basis. Annual Review The City adopted new Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations to facilitate the development of accessory units, by waiving parking requirements and eliminating limits on lot size for units added within existing square footage/structures, consistent with State Law mandates. In addition, the City recently approved a joint development of downtown Parking Lots F & N which includes 132 workforce and senior housing units. Commercial (linkage) impact fees were adopted by the City Council on July 3, 201 7, as follows: - $7/SF – retail - $12/SF- hotel - $18/SF – office < 50,000 SF - $25/SF – office> 50,000 SF Residential impact fees are currently under consideration. The fees were recommended for approval by the Planning Commission in February 2019 and will be considered by the City Council in March 2019. Program Description (By Housing Element Program Names) Housing Programs Progress Report - Government Code Section 65583. Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. Name of Program Objectives Timeframe in H.E. Status of Program Implementation Program H(F-11) – Anti-Displacement Strategies Acknowledge the problem of tenant displacement and convene a process to investigate mitigations and the obstacles to deploying them, including legislative barriers such as the Burlingame Fair Property Rights Ordinance (“Measure T”) and establish or modify strategies as appropriate. Conduct an annual review of the availability and effectiveness of anti-displacement strategies and programs. First reviewed January 2015. then annually Anti-displacement strategies were discussed and examined by the City Council during the last housing element cycle. The City Council has considered anti-displacement strategies within the context of collection of commercial linkage fees and residential impact fees, with considerations for programs such as emergency rent assistance to prevent displacement, and acquisition of existing housing stock to be retained with below-market rents. In conjunction with the County of San Mateo Home for All initiative, the City has held two community meeting to hear from the community and discuss housing matters, including anti-displacement strategies. JurisdictionBurlingameReporting Period2018 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulasDescription of Commercial Development BonusCommercial Development Bonus Date Approved34APN Street AddressProject Name+Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID+Very LowIncomeLowIncomeModerateIncomeAbove ModerateIncomeDescription of Commercial Development BonusCommercial Development Bonus Date ApprovedNoneANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORTHousing Element Implementation(CCR Title 25 §6202)Project Identifier12Summary Row: Start Data Entry BelowUnits Constructed as Part of Agreement Commercial Development Bonus Approved pursuant to GC Section 65915.7Table ENote: + Optional fieldAnnual Progress Report January 2019 Jurisdiction Burlingame Reporting Year 2018 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Current Year Deed Restricted 12 Non-Deed Restricted 0 Deed Restricted 108 Non-Deed Restricted 0 Deed Restricted 54 Non-Deed Restricted 0 Above Moderate 429 603 42 230 19 0 0 0 0 0 Income Rental Ownership Total Very Low 000 Low 000 Moderate 000 Above Moderate 000 Total 000 Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Units Constructed - SB 35 Streamlining Permits Number of Streamlining Applications Approved Total Developments Approved with Streamlining Total Units Constructed with Streamlining Total Housing Applications Submitted: Number of Proposed Units in All Applications Received: Total Housing Units Approved: Total Housing Units Disapproved: Permitted Units Issued by Affordability Summary Income Level Very Low Low Moderate Total Units 44 Entitlement Summary Use of SB 35 Streamlining Provisions Note: units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income permitted units totals Number of Applications for Streamlining 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 10b MEETING DATE: March 4, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: March 4, 2019 From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222 Subject: Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Debt Management Policy for the City of Burlingame RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review the attached proposed policy, and consider adopting a resolution approving a Debt Management Policy for the City of Burlingame. BACKGROUND A comprehensive debt policy is the foundation of a well-managed debt program, setting forth parameters for issuing and administering debt. Adherence to a debt policy is viewed positively by rating agencies and helps ensure sound debt decisions are made. In addition, it demonstrates a commitment to long-term financial planning and to ensuring the full and timely repayment of all debt. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends that state and local governments adopt comprehensive written guidelines, allowances, and restrictions that guide their debt issuance practices, including the issuance process, management of a debt portfolio, and adherence to various laws and regulations. A debt management policy should improve the quality of decisions, articulate policy goals, provide guidelines for the structure of debt issuance, and demonstrate a commitment to long-term capital and financial planning. Debt management policies should reflect local, state, and federal laws and regulations. The GFOA also recommends that, once adopted, a government’s debt management policy be reviewed periodically (and updated if necessary). GFOA issued a best practice memorandum that explains the practices that should be addressed in a municipal Debt Management Policy: debt limits, structuring, issuance, management, and use of derivatives. In addition, Chapter 307, Statutes of 2016 (Senate Bill 1029, Hertzberg), signed by Governor Brown on September 12, 2016, amends Government Code Section 8855 to place additional reporting obligations on issuers of public debt in California. Issuers must now certify that they have adopted local debt policies concerning the use of debt and that the proposed debt issuance is consistent with those policies. As the City intends to issue bonds in 2019, the development and adoption of an SB 1029-compliant Debt Management Policy is a timely endeavor. Debt Management Policy March 4, 2019 2 DISCUSSION Prior to the January 1, 2017 effective date of SB 1029, issuers of public debt were required to report to the California Debt Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC) specified information about proposed and outstanding debt. CDIAC collects, maintains, and provides comprehensive information on all state and local debt issuances. The information that CDIAC collects from reports submitted by issuers helps policymakers and members of the public monitor and assess the results of state and local debt issuances. The City has always been in compliance with CDIAC reporting requirements. The Legislature passed SB 1029, expanding the reporting requirements that apply to state and local debt issuers, to assess whether proceeds from debt issuances are being spent for their intended purposes, and to make the disposition of such proceeds more transparent to the public. Among other things, SB 1029 amends California Government Code Section 8855 and requires a state or local debt issuer to certify before the debt is issued, and as part of its report of proposed debt issuance submitted to CDIAC, that it has adopted a local debt policy concerning the use of debt proceeds. SB 1029 specifically requires that local debt management policies include five key components. The recommendations set forth by the GFOA also address these components: a. The purposes for which the debt proceeds may be used; b. The types of debt that may be issued; c. The relationship of the debt to, and integration with, the issuer’s capital improvement program or budget, if applicable; d. Policy goals related to the issuer’s planning goals and objectives; and e. The internal control procedures that the issuer has implemented, or will implement, to ensure that the proceeds of the proposed debt issuance will be directed to the intended use. The proposed Debt Management Policy for the City of Burlingame complies with the requirements set forth in SB 1029 and the State Debt and Investment Advisory Commission, and aligns with GFOA recommendations. FISCAL IMPACT Adoption of a Debt Management Policy that comports with the certification and reporting requirements of SB 1029 will not result in any direct impact on City resources. However, a Debt Management Policy based upon the specific financing needs of the City supports sound financial management and enhances the transparency of the City’s financial dealings. As such, the policy should help maintain the City’s excellent credit rating. The proposed Debt Management Policy will go into effect prior to the issuance of any new debt in 2019. Exhibits: • Resolution Adopting a Debt Management Policy for the City of Burlingame • Proposed Debt Management Policy RESOLUTION NO. ________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPTING A DEBT MANAGEMENT POLICY WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1029 (SB 1029), which became effective on January 1, 2017, amended California Government Code Section 8855 to add certain requirements related to the issuance and administration of debt by local agencies such as the District, including the adoption of a debt policy meeting the requirements of California Government Code Section 8855; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame wishes at this time to approve a debt policy that is compliant with California Government Code Section 8855 to govern future issuances of debt by the City. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Adoption of Policy. The Council approves and adopts the Debt Management Policy as shown on the attached Exhibit A. The Debt Management Policy shall govern the issuance and administration of debt issued by the City, all in accordance and subject to the conditions set forth in such policy. Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage and adoption. ____________________________________ Donna Colson, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council held on the 4th day of March, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: ___________________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk City of Burlingame, California Financial Policy Document Debt Management Policy Page 1 of 13 Adoption Date: Last Revision Date: Owner Department: Finance Introduction A Debt Management Policy sets forth certain debt management objectives, establishes overall parameters, and provides general direction in the planning, issuance, and administration of the City’s debt. The purpose is to maintain the City’s ability to incur debt and other long-term obligations at favorable interest rates for capital improvements, facilities, and equipment beneficial to the City and necessary for high quality public services for its citizens. Cost- effective access to the capital markets depends on prudent management of the City’s debt program. This policy supports the Council’s goal of sustaining long-term financial strength. The guidelines established by this policy will govern the issuance and management of all debt used for long-term capital financing needs and not for general operating functions. The Finance Department recognizes that changes in the capital markets and other unforeseen circumstances may require action that may deviate from this Debt Management Policy. In cases that require exceptions to this Debt Management Policy, approval from the City Council will be necessary for implementation. Objectives The purpose of this Debt Management Policy is to establish a framework in which the City Council, City Manager, and all City departments may work to effectively use the financing options available to provide quality service to the citizens of Burlingame, while maintaining financial integrity. The policy is to guide staff in the pursuit of the following equally important objectives: • Maintain cost-effective access to the capital markets through prudent policies and practices that a. Preserve the City’s economic standings throughout varying economic cycles and adverse impacts b. Achieve the highest possible credit ratings within the context of the City’s capital needs and financing capabilities c. Minimize debt service and issuance costs • Balance significant capital demands through pay-as-you-go, debt financing, and/or alternate financing mechanisms such as public/private partnerships • Maintain moderate debt and debt service payments with effective planning and coordination with City departments • Ensure full and timely repayment of debt • Maintain full and complete financial disclosure and reporting • Ensure compliance with applicable State and Federal laws City of Burlingame, California Financial Policy Document Debt Management Policy Page 2 of 13 • Maintain good investor relationships through the timely dissemination of material financial information It shall be the policy of the City to encourage funding capital projects with cash, on a “pay as you go” basis, to the extent possible and practical. As part of the “pay as you go” strategy, the City will first look for grant funding or private sources for capital projects. Cash funding is recommended 1) for purchases of assets whose lives are shorter than five years; 2) when market conditions are unstable or present difficulties in achieving acceptable interest rates; and 3) when adding to existing debt levels might have an adverse impact on the City's credit rating. The Finance Department may utilize several types of municipal debt obligations to finance long-term capital projects. Long-term debt is issued largely to finance the acquisition and/or construction of capital improvements and is not considered appropriate for funding operating or maintenance costs. CONDITIONS AND PURPOSES OF DEBT ISSUANCE Acceptable Conditions for the Use of Debt – The City believes that prudent amounts of debt can be an equitable and cost-effective means of financing major infrastructure and capital asset and project needs of the City. Debt will be considered to finance such projects if: • The project has been, or will be, included in the City’s capital improvement plan or has otherwise been coordinated with the City’s planning goals and objectives. • The project can be financed with debt not exceeding the term specified in this Policy, to assure that long-term debt is not issued to finance projects with a short useful life. • It is the most cost-effective funding means available to the City, taking into account cash flow needs and other funding alternatives. • It is fiscally prudent and meets the guidelines of this Policy. Any consideration of debt financing shall consider financial alternatives, including pay-as-you-go funding, proceeds derived from development or redevelopment of existing land and capital assets owned by the City, and use of existing or future cash reserves, or combinations thereof. • Funding a project across a longer period is needed to ensure intergenerational equity. Acceptable Uses of Debt and Proceeds of Debt – The primary purpose of debt is to finance the acquisition, substantial refurbishment, replacement, or expansion of capital assets (including but not limited to land improvements, infrastructure projects, equipment, and water rights). As such, debt is largely considered for the following purposes: • Acquisition and or improvement of land, right-of-way, or long-term easements. • Acquisition of a capital asset with a useful life of three or more years. • Construction or reconstruction of a facility. • Related project costs that include project planning design, engineering, and other preconstruction efforts; project-associated furniture, fixtures, and equipment; original issue discount, underwriter’s discount, and other costs of issuance. City of Burlingame, California Financial Policy Document Debt Management Policy Page 3 of 13 The City will also consider refunding, refinancing, or restructuring debt or other long-term liabilities, subject to the objectives and parameters discussed in this Policy. Short-Term Debt – In the event of temporary shortfalls in cash flow for City operation costs due to timing of receipt of revenues and the lack of cash on hand to cover the temporary deficit, the City may consider interim or cash flow financing, such as anticipation notes. In compliance with applicable state law, any such note shall be payable either (i) not later than the last day of the fiscal year in which it is issued, or (ii) during the fiscal year succeeding the fiscal year in which issued, but in no event later than 15 months after the date of issue, and only if such note is payable only from revenue received or accrued during the fiscal year in which it was issued. Short-term debt may be used to finance short-lived capital projects, such as lease purchase financing or equipment. Prior to issuance of any short-term debt, a reliable revenue source shall be identified for repayment of the debt. Types of Financing Instruments Permitted There are numerous types of financing structures and funding sources available, each with specific benefits, risks, and costs. All potential funding sources are reviewed by City management within the context of this policy and the overall portfolio to ensure that any financial product or structure is consistent with the City’ objectives. Regardless of the financing structure(s) utilized, each transaction will require an analysis of the impact on City creditworthiness and debt affordability and capacity. The City will carefully consider the overall long-term affordability of any proposed debt issuance. The City will consider its long- term revenue and expenditure trends, the impact on operational flexibility, and the overall debt burden on the taxpayers. The evaluation process will include a review of generally accepted measures of affordability and will strive to achieve and/or maintain debt at levels consistent with its current operating and capital needs. Assessment Bonds – Proceeds from Assessment Bonds may be used to finance local public improvements, provided that said improvements benefit the parcels of land to be assessed. Local streets, street lights, landscaping, sidewalks, and sanitary sewers are some examples of local improvements commonly financed by assessment bonds. General Obligation Bonds – General Obligation Bonds may only be issued with two-thirds approval of a popular vote. The California State Constitution (Article XVI, Section 18) limits the use of the proceeds from GO Bonds to “the acquisition or improvement of real property.” Voter-approved GO bonds provide the lowest cost of long-term financing and provide a new and dedicated revenue source in the form of additional ad valorem taxes to pay debt service. Libraries, parks, and public safety facilities are all types of facilities that could be financed with GO Bonds. Pension Obligation Bonds – Pension Obligation Bonds (POBs) are issued to finance all or part of the unfunded pension liabilities of the City. Typically, these bonds are issued at a lower rate of return than would be paid to the Pension System Administrator, and in this way, provide an economic benefit to the City. POBs are issued as taxable instruments over a 15-30 year term City of Burlingame, California Financial Policy Document Debt Management Policy Page 4 of 13 by matching the term with the amortization period of the outstanding unfunded actuarial accrued liability. POBs are a general obligation of the City, but they are not subject to voter approval. Issuance of debt to fund pension liability increases debt burden and may use up debt capacity that may be needed to finance capital improvements. As such, the issuance of POBs should not become a substitute for the prudent funding of pension obligations within the City’s operating budget. Enterprise Revenue Bonds – Enterprise Revenue Bonds finance facilities for a revenue producing enterprise and are payable from revenue sources within that enterprise. As these bonds are not secured by any pledge of ad valorem taxes or General Fund revenues of the City, bond covenants provide that revenues generated by the associated enterprise funds must be sufficient to maintain required debt coverage levels, or the rates of the enterprise have to be raised to maintain the coverages and operations of the facilities. Water and Sewer utilities are examples of revenue producing enterprises within the City. Lease Revenue Bonds – Lease Revenue Bonds (LRBs) are secured by a revenue stream produced by a public project. They are typically issued to finance capital projects that either have an identified budgetary system for repayment or generate project revenue but rely on a broader pledge of General Fund revenues to reduce borrowing costs. LRBs finance the purchase of real property and the acquisition and installation of equipment for the City’s general government purposes. LRBs are secured by a lease-back arrangement between the City and the Joint Powers Financing Authority (JPFA) of the City. The lease payments from the City are collected by the JPFA and used to fund the debt service payments. The JPFA retains title to the project until the debt is retired. LRBs do not constitute indebtedness under the State Constitution and are not subject to voter approval. Certificates of Participation – Certificates of Participation (COPs) are similar to Lease Revenue Bonds; the debt is secured by the underlying lease, rather than the COP obligation. The lease payments are equal to debt service on the COP. Again, a lease obligation where payment is contingent on the availability of the leased project is not classified as debt needing voter approval. Mello-Roos Bonds – The City may issue bonds through a Community Facilities District (CFD). These bonds must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the registered voters within the district (unless there are fewer than 12 registered voters, in which case the vote is by the landowners), and are secured by a special tax on the real property within the district. The bonds may be issued to finance facilities or provide services, although the facilities do not need to be physically located within the district. These types of obligations, although repaid through additional special taxes levied on a discrete group of taxpayers, constitute overlapping indebtedness of the City and have an impact on the overall level of debt affordability. Financing Leases – A lease purchase obligation placed with a lender without the issuance of securities may be used to finance certain vehicle and equipment purchases when the aggregate cost of equipment to be purchased exceeds $50,000. In rare instances, acquisitions below $50,000 may be deemed to be clearly cost effective and in the City’s best interest. At the City of Burlingame, California Financial Policy Document Debt Management Policy Page 5 of 13 discretion of the City’s Finance Director, these transactions will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. All equipment with a useful life of less than five years shall be funded on a pay-as-you -go basis except for fiscal emergencies as affirmed by a majority vote of the City Council. The term of financing shall be limited to the useful life of the vehicle or equipment, but in no case shall exceed 10 years. Revenue Bonds – Revenue bonds are long-term obligations payable solely from specific special fund sources. Examples of such long-term obligations include those that are payable from a special fund consisting of restricted revenues or user fees (Enterprise Revenues) and revenues derived from the system of which the project being funded is a part. The City should strive to maintain a coverage ratio of at least 110% (projected annual net revenues compared to estimated annual debt service) to cover debt service of revenue bonds. To the extent necessary, the City shall undertake proceedings for a rate increase to cover both operations and debt service costs, and create debt service reserve funds to maintain the required coverage ratio. The City may enter into agreements and other long-term obligations supporting revenue bonds issued by agencies or joint powers authorities that the City is a member of, including, for example, Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) and South Bayside Water Management Authority (SBWMA). Special Districts Financing – The City will consider requests for special district formation and debt issuance when such requests address a public need or provide a public benefit. Each application will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and the Finance Department may not recommend a financing if it is determined that the financing could be detrimental to the debt position or the best interests of the City. Conduit Financings – The City may assist in financing projects of a non-governmental third party, such as a non-profit organization or other private entity, by sponsoring conduit financing. Such financing may be approved for those activities (e.g. economic development, housing, etc.) that may have a general public purpose and are consistent with the City’s overall service and policy objectives. Repayment of the debt is secured solely by the non-governmental organization, and no appropriation will be made in the event of a default. Refunding Obligations – Pursuant to the Government Code and various other financing statutes applicable in particular situations, the City Council is authorized to provide for the issuance of bonds for the purpose of refunding any long-term obligation of the City. Absent any significant non-economic factors, a refunding should produce minimum net debt service savings (net of reserve fund earnings and other offsets) of at least 3% of the par value of the refunded bonds on a net present value basis, using the refunding issue’s Arbitrage Yield as the discount rate, unless the Finance Director determines that a lower savings percentage is acceptable for issues or maturities with short maturity dates, or that the refunding is needed to accomplish other financial or programmatic objectives, such as the elimination of covenants. City of Burlingame, California Financial Policy Document Debt Management Policy Page 6 of 13 Other Obligations – There may be special circumstances when other forms of debt are appropriate and may be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Such other forms include, but are not limited to, non-enterprise revenue bonds, bond anticipation notes, grant anticipation notes, lines of credit, tax allocation bonds, and capital appreciation bonds. Debt Limitations The Finance Director shall determine whether proposed debt transactions comply with the debt limitations prescribed by this Policy. Proposed debt transactions that meet the limitations of the Debt Management Policy will be subject to approval by resolution or ordinance of the City Council. The following limits shall be applied to the City’s transactions as appropriate. General Obligation Bonds – The legal bonding capacity/limit for a California general law city is 3.75%. Therefore, any outstanding general obligation bonded indebtedness cannot exceed 3.75% of the assessed valuation of taxable property within the boundaries of the City. A minimum of 3.25% in debt capacity shall be reserved for capital projects deemed by the City Council to be of the highest priority or urgency. Lease Revenue Bonds and Certificates of Participation – Any net debt service payments funded from General Fund sources shall be no greater than 10% of current General Fund discretionary revenues. Once this limit is reached, COPs and other lease financing debt will only be used as funding sources for capital projects when existing debt is retired and/or the City’s aggregate General Fund discretionary revenues (excluding one-time revenues) grow. Revenue Bonds – Payments on bonds that are tied to a specified revenue stream other than General Fund sources (e.g. enterprise revenue bonds and assessment bonds) are not subject to this 10% limit. Any debt secured by revenues of an Enterprise Fund shall maintain a coverage ratio of at least 110% of net revenues of the Enterprise Fund, or such higher coverage ratio included in the City’s existing financing documents, using historical and/or projected net revenues to cover annual debt service for bonds. Variable Rate Debt – The City may elect to issue securities that pay a rate of interest that varies according to a pre-determined formula or results from a periodic remarketing of the securities, consistent with State and Federal law and covenants of pre-existing bonds. Variable rate debt affords the City the potential to achieve a lower cost debt depending on market conditions. However, due to the potential risks of such instruments, the City will have no more than 10% of its outstanding debt in variable rate form. Derivatives – Properly used, interest rate swaps and related financial instruments such as swap options can be beneficial interest rate management tools that can assist the City as part of its overall debt and investment management program. Interest rate swaps are appropriate for use when they are designed to achieve specific financial objective(s) consistent with the City’s overall financial policy and strategy. However, these products also carry with them certain risks not faced in standard debt instruments that are often difficult to quantify. If there is a compelling risk management reason to utilize derivative products, the City will review a proposed transaction and, City of Burlingame, California Financial Policy Document Debt Management Policy Page 7 of 13 where appropriate, provide analysis and recommend approval. Prior to making such recommendation, the staff will submit for discussion a Derivatives Policy designed to ensure that adequate internal controls are in place to manage such instruments. Debt Structuring The following terms shall be applied to the City’s transactions as appropriate. Individual terms may change as dictated by the marketplace for the unique qualities of the transaction. Term of Debt – In keeping with Internal Revenue Service regulations for tax exempt financing obligations, the weighted average maturity of the debt should not exceed 120% of the weighted average economic life of the facilities or projects to be financed, unless specific circumstances exist that would mitigate the extension of time to repay the debt and would not cause the City to violate any covenants to maintain the tax-exempt status of such debt, if applicable. Rapidity of Debt Payment; Level Payment – To the extent practical, bonds will be amortized on a level repayment basis, and revenue bonds will be amortized on a level repayment basis considering the forecasted available pledged revenues to achieve the lowest rates possible. Bond repayments should not increase on an annual basis in excess of 2% without a dedicated and supporting revenue funding stream. Accelerated repayment schedules reduce debt burden faster and reduce total borrowing costs. The Finance Department will amortize debt through the most financially advantageous debt structure and, to the extent possible, match the City’s projected cash flow to the anticipated debt service payments. Serial Bonds, Term Bonds, and Capital Appreciation Bonds – For each issuance, the City will select serial bonds or term bonds, or both. On the occasions where circumstances warrant, Capital Appreciation Bonds (CABs) may be used. The decision to use term, serial, or CAB bonds is driven based on market conditions. Reserve Funds – To the extent that the use of available City moneys to fund a reserve fund provides an economic benefit that offsets the cost of financing the reserve fund from bond proceeds (as determined by the Finance Director in consultation with the City’s municipal advisor and, if applicable, the underwriter for the bonds), the City may use legally permitted moneys to fund a reserve fund (in cash or through the purchase of a debt service reserve surety bond or insurance policy) for the proposed bonds, up to the maximum amount permitted by applicable law or regulation. Typically, this amount is equal to the least of: (i) maximum annual debt service on the bonds, (ii) 10% of the principal amount of the bonds (or 10% of the sale proceeds of the bonds, within the meaning of Section 148 of the federal Internal Revenue Code), or (iii) 125% of average annual debt service on the bonds. Debt Issuance Method of Sale – The two primary methods of issuing debt obligations are 1) a competitive sale or 2) a negotiated sale. However, other methods may be considered. City of Burlingame, California Financial Policy Document Debt Management Policy Page 8 of 13 • Competitive Sale: When circumstances permit a competitive sale, underwriters submit sealed bids, and the underwriter or underwriting syndicate with the lowest True Interest Cost (TIC) is awarded the sale. The bidder's role is limited to the review of the offering circular released by the City, making credit assessment based on the facts presented in the offering circular, and offering its bid per the bidding parameters established by the City. • Negotiated Sale: In a negotiated sale, the underwriter or underwriting syndicate is selected through a Request for Proposals (RFP) process. The interest rate and the underwriter's fee are negotiated prior to the sale, based on market conditions. The underwriter will actively assist the City in structuring the financing and marketing of the bonds, including providing assistance in preparing the bond offering circular. The decision on whether to use a competitive sale or a negotiated sale shall be based on the following criteria: market familiarity, credit strength, policy goals, type of debt instrument, issue size, and market conditions. • Public Offerings: Public offerings can be executed through either a competitive sale or a negotiated sale. It shall be the policy of the City to issue debt through a competitive sale whenever feasible. Using a competitive sale usually results in the lowest cost of borrowing to a highly rated issuer like the City. In a competitive sale, the notice inviting bids will be carefully constructed so as to ensure the best possible bid for the City, relative to existing market conditions and other salient factors. Parameters to be examined include: a. Limits between the lowest and highest coupons; b. Coupon requirements relative to the yield curve; c. Method of underwriter compensation-discount or premium coupons; d. Use of true interest rate (TIC) versus net interest rate (NIC); e. Use of bond insurance/other credit enhancements; f. Deep discount bonds; g. Variable rate bonds; and h. Call and Redemption provisions. • Private Placement: From time to time, the City may elect to privately place its debt. Private placement is a variation of a negotiated sale. Instead of retaining the services of an investment banking firm to underwrite the securities, the City will sell the bonds directly to a limited number of investors. The City may use a placement agent to assist it in identifying likely investors. Professional Assistance – Financial advisors, counsels, trustees, and underwriters will, to the extent practical, be selected through a Request for Proposals (RFP) or a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process based on the circumstances. The RFP/RFQ process will be conducted by the City’s Finance Department. The City's contracting policies will apply to all contracts with finance professionals, as permitted by State and Federal law. Once the financial City of Burlingame, California Financial Policy Document Debt Management Policy Page 9 of 13 advisor is selected, the financial advisor will assist the City in the selection of other service providers, including counsels (bond and disclosure), underwriters, trustees, escrow agents, credit enhancers, verification agents, title insurance companies, and financial printer. The City Financial Professionals Team will consist of the following professionals: • Financial Advisors: The City shall utilize the services of independent Financial Advisor(s) on debt financing when deemed prudent by the Finance Director. Services and compensation caps shall be defined by contract. The primary responsibilities of the Financial Advisor are to advise and assist on bond document negotiations, transaction structuring including advising on call provision options and timing of issuance, running debt service cash flow numbers, obtaining ratings on the proposed issuance, and generally acting as an independent financial consultant and economic market expert. Financial Advisors act under a regulatory framework of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board and are required to be licensed as Municipal Advisors. They are required to provide advice solely in the fiduciary interest of their clients, unlike underwriters. • Underwriters: The primary task of the underwriter is to purchase the City’s debt offering at a mutually agreeable price, at the advice of the financial advisor. Underwriters often provide other assistance in structuring and marketing the debt issuance. Underwriters acknowledge that they are not required to act in the fiduciary interest of their clients. In the case of a competitive sale, the City will award the bonds to the underwriting firm whose bid results in the lowest True Interest Cost. In the case of a negotiated sale, the Finance Director, once every five years or as needed and/or modified, will determine the best method of selection, taking into consideration all factors involved in each particular sale, using an RFP process to develop a pool of qualified underwriters. • Bond Counsel: Upon consultation with the City’s Financial Advisor and the City Attorney’s Office, the Finance Department will take the lead in selecting Bond Counsel, and Disclosure Counsel if needed. Underwriter's Counsel is generally selected by the lead underwriter, with the consent of the Finance Director, on a case-by-case basis. Generally, Disclosure Counsel or Underwriter's Counsel take the lead in preparation of the Official Statement(s) and certain closing documents related to the bond sale. Bond Counsel responsibilities will include preparing the necessary authorizing resolutions, ordinances, agreements and other legal documents necessary to execute the financing. All debt issued by the City will include a customary approving legal opinion of Bond Counsel. • Underwriters and Remarketing Agents, in the context of variable rate debt: For variable rate bonds, the Finance Director shall select underwriters or remarketing agents for each transaction through the RFP process. The City shall monitor performance on a monthly City of Burlingame, California Financial Policy Document Debt Management Policy Page 10 of 13 basis. The City may replace a remarketing agent or broker-dealer with notice at any time, consistent with the financing documents. • Trustees: Trustees will be selected for each transaction or program by RFP, unless use of the current trustee is deemed in the City's best interest by the Finance Director. The Trustee (or applicable holding company) shall have a combined capital and surplus of at least $50 million and be subject to supervision or examination by federal and state authorities. • Other Financial Professionals: Rebate Consultants, Liquidity Providers, Arbitrage Consultants, Continuing Disclosure Agents, and Financial Printers may be selected for each relevant issue by RFP or approved competitive process issued by the Finance Department or its agent and subject to negotiation of terms. Compensation for Services – Compensation for bond counsel, underwriter's counsel, financial advisors, and other financial services will be as low as possible, given desired qualification levels, and consistent with industry standards. The costs of service providers will be included in the cost of issuance and paid from bond proceeds. The ongoing trustee fee for a bond issuance will be budgeted under administration costs and appropriated in respective bond payment accounts or may be included in cost of issuance. Internal Control Procedures Concerning Proceeds of Debt One of the City’s priorities in the management of debt is to assure that the proceeds of the debt will be directed to the intended use for which the debt has been issued. In furtherance of this priority, the following procedures shall apply: • The Finance Department shall retain a copy of each annual report filed with the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (“CDIAC”) pursuant to Section 8855(k) of the California Government Code concerning (1) debt authorized during the applicable reporting period (whether issued or not), (2) debt outstanding during the reporting period, and (3) the use during the reporting period of proceeds of issued debt. • In connection with the preparation of each annual report to be filed with CDIAC pursuant to Section 8855(k) of the California Government Code, the Finance Department shall keep a record of the original intended use for which the debt has been issued, and indicate whether the proceeds spent during the applicable one-year reporting period for such annual report comport with the intended use (at the time of original issuance or as modified pursuant to the following sentence). If a change in intended use has been authorized subsequent to the original issuance of the debt, the Finance Department shall indicate in the record when the change in use was authorized and whether the City Council, City Manager, or another City official has authorized the change in intended use. The Finance Director or his or her designee shall report apparent deviations from the intended use in debt proceeds to the City Manager for further City of Burlingame, California Financial Policy Document Debt Management Policy Page 11 of 13 discussion, and if the City Manager determines appropriate (in consultation with legal counsel and/or the City Attorney), to the City Council. • If the debt has been issued to finance a capital project and the project timeline or scope of project has changed in a way that all or a portion of the debt proceeds cannot be expended on the original project, the Finance Director shall consult with the City Manager and legal counsel (which may be bond counsel, if applicable, or the City Attorney) as to available alternatives for the expenditure of the remaining debt proceeds (including prepayment of the debt). This determination must be consistent with the original bond documents. Debt Administration, Maintenance, Market Communication, and Disclosure Administration – Ultimate responsibility for all matters relating to debt financings and refinancings rests with the City’s Finance Director. The Finance Director and other appropriate City personnel shall also consult with bond counsel and other legal counsel and advisors, as needed, following issuance of debt to ensure that all applicable post-issuance requirements in fact are met. A copy of all debt-related records shall be retained at the City’s offices. At minimum, these records shall include all official statements, bond legal documents/transcripts, resolutions, trustee statements, leases, and title reports for each City financing (to the extent available). Records shall also include any contracts or arrangements involving the use of bond-financed or refinanced assets. All such records shall be retained while any bonds of an issue are outstanding and during the three-year period following the final maturity or redemption of the bond issue or, if later, while any bonds that refund bonds of that original issue are outstanding and for the three-year period following the final maturity or redemption date of the latest refunding bond issue. Maintenance – The Finance Director is responsible for efficient cash management that ensures the timely and accurate payment of the City’s debt service as delineated in the financial documents governing the debt. The Finance Director, together with applicable City departments, shall be responsible for monitoring the use of bond proceeds and the use of bond-financed or refinanced assets throughout the term of the bonds to ensure compliance with the covenants and restrictions set forth in any agreement relating to the bonds. Records identifying the assets or portion of assets that are financed or refinanced with proceeds of each issue of bonds, including a final allocation of bond proceeds, shall be maintained in the Finance Department. Unless otherwise provided by Issuer resolutions, unexpended bond proceeds shall be held by the Trustee on behalf of the City, and the investment of bond proceeds shall be managed by the Trustee. The Trustee shall provide regular, periodic (monthly) statements regarding the investments and transactions involving bond proceeds. City of Burlingame, California Financial Policy Document Debt Management Policy Page 12 of 13 Rating Agency Relations – The Finance Director shall be responsible for maintaining the City’s relationships with S&P Global Ratings, Fitch Ratings, and Moody’s Investors Service, as applicable. These agencies’ rating criteria often change, and the City cannot control the decisions made by any rating agency. However, for each debt issue that the City will seek a rating assignment for, the City will strive to obtain and maintain the highest possible underlying, uninsured rating. In addition to general communication, the Finance Director shall: a) ensure the rating agencies are provided updated financial statements of the City as they become publicly available; b) communicate with credit analysts at each agency as may be requested by the agencies; and c) prior to each proposed new debt issuance, schedule meetings or conference calls with agency analysts and provide a thorough update on the City’s financial position, including the impacts of the proposed debt issuance. Council Communication – The Finance Director should report feedback from rating agencies, when and if available, regarding the City’s financial strengths and weaknesses and areas of concern relating to weaknesses as they pertain to maintaining the City’s existing credit ratings. Disclosure – The City is committed to full and complete financial disclosure, and to cooperating fully with rating agencies, institutional and individual investors, City departments, other levels of government, and the general public to share clear, comprehensible, and accurate financial information. All relevant financial information and reports related to bond issuance shall, consistent with applicable law, be available for public viewing at the City’s website via a link to the Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) site maintained by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB). • Comprehensive Annual Debt Report: The City will provide its Continuing Disclosure Annual Report (CDAR) using its best efforts to issue the CDAR as soon as practical following the issuance of the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). The City will also use its best efforts to issue notices of material events electronically by means of the EMMA site, and to post the link to the EMMA site on the City's website. The CDAR and CAFR will also be on the City's website. • Material Event: The City will issue a material event notice in accordance with the provisions of SEC Rule 15c2-12, and will provide a link on the City of Burlingame’s website to these reports. • Voluntary Disclosure: The City will covenant to provide annual disclosure for all indebtedness with a stated maturity greater than three years. Proposed Budgets and Adopted Budgets, including associated Annual Appropriation Resolutions, and Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR) will be submitted to the Nationally Recognized Municipal Securities Information Repository (NRMSIR) as soon as practical. The City will also take additional efforts to make information available to investors and the public through its website and the City Clerk's Office. City of Burlingame, California Financial Policy Document Debt Management Policy Page 13 of 13 • Official Statements: The Official Statement shall contain a summary of the continuing disclosure obligations, which may exceed obligations enumerated in Rule 15c2-12. • Ratings: The City will secure underlying ratings on all newly issued obligations from the three major nationally recognized rating organizations, provided it is economical to do so. The City shall promptly provide notice of any changes in the City’s ratings or outlook to the City Council and City Manager. Arbitrage Compliance – The Finance Director shall maintain a system of record keeping and reporting to meet the arbitrage rebate compliance requirements of the federal tax code. The City shall calculate arbitrage annually each year that the related project funds (or equivalent) had an outstanding balance. Thereafter, the City shall calculate arbitrage on the fifth anniversary of the bond issuance in accordance with IRS recommended practices, unless bond documents require otherwise or the previous calculation resulted in a positive liability. The Finance Director may elect to engage an arbitrage consultant to prepare calculations required by the Internal Revenue Service. Insurance Certification – The City s hall provide annual insurance certification to the Trustee and Bond Insurer on all applicable financings as long as the bonds are outstanding. Periodic Review of Policy The Debt Management policy will be reviewed one year from the passage of this resolution. The Audit Subcommittee of the City Council will review the policy’s provisions at the request of the Finance Director, or at any time it is determined that changes are necessary, to safeguard its effectiveness and relevance to the City’s long-term needs, and to ensure that the policy remains current with government financial best practices. All changes to this policy will be approved by resolution of the City Council. 1 Memorandum AGENDA NO: 11a MEETING DATE: March 4, 2019 To: City Council Date: March 4, 2019 From: Mayor Colson Subject: Committee Report February 20, 2019 HCDC Preliminary NOFA Meeting for $2.1 mm • Review and commentary on projects Home For All - Financial Group Meeting • Discussed state funding increases along with new Measure K funding increases for Affordable Housing • Reviewed RHNA numbers shared allocation work • Discussed CASA Compact and why smaller cities on the Peninsula will not support loss of local control. HEART concerned about the push out of smaller non-profits that are doing great work as the large groups enter the picture and try to push their policy objectives. February 21-23 National Trust For Historic Preservation - Washington DC • Updates on the Public Lands packages - Passed Senate 92-8 and House 363-62 • Important federal legislation to include cultural landscapes and historic resources including Native American, African American and permanently authorizes programs like the Land and Conservation Fund February 25, 2019 School City Liaison Meeting • Update on Ray Park - New playground installation • Starting on a plan to renovate one field at a time. Ray will be the first one and capital will be asked for funding. Challenge - there is erosion down the third base dugout. Opportunity - to advance ADA access to the field. Idea to do this in the fall - they do use this for flag football, but we would have to move them • Practicing School Drills - When school is out for a teacher work day, then PD will work on campus to state drills. BSD will work with PD to select a few other drill dates. Signage and e-communications will be used to notify neighbors. • Update on Housing - Discussed current legislative environment and General Plan approval. Rollins Road specific plan and possible constraints around a new school. Colson Committee Report March 4, 2019 2 • Discussed Facebook meetings by both BSD and City. Water Reuse - Waster Water Treatment Plant Meeting with Members local golf course about water reuse • When do we get to breakeven on water recycle • Did have metered recycled water along bay front and started to install purple water and the problem was this was so expensive = we could produce about 250,000 gallons per day, but it is straight secondary waste water. • Club does have two water systems - one that services the course and one that serves the club house. Treatment can do up to 16 million gallons per day. Then during the summer 2.5 mm gallons per day and it does have some chlorine and ammonia. So we have about 5 miles of underground water main - forced main (gravity to a certain level and then pumped) - all on the east side of 101. To shared treatment plant in SSF. • Might work if you could move water up from SFO and then treat on site. Central Pizza Ribbon Cutting • Successful opening of the restaurant - local owners and operators • Excellent success to start February 26, 2019 Meeting with Lyon Hoag Traffic Calming Team • Just dropped in to thank residents for joining us! February 27, 2019 HCDC Public Hearing Number 2 • Approved all rental applications and the programming • Numbers of Housing Units for the unincorporated County Approved $2.1 million in funding for important projects for farm workers on the coast and members of the EPA community 1 Memorandum AGENDA NO: 11b MEETING DATE: March 4, 2019 To: City Council Date: March 4, 2019 From: Vice Mayor Emily Beach Subject: Committee Report Friday, 2/15/19: Joint Venture State of the Valley Annual Conference • Attended with SamTrans colleagues • Panels focused on jobs/housing/transportation challenges and projections through 2070 • Presidential historian John Meacham discussed Silicon Valley in the national context Tuesday, 2/19/19: City Council Meeting Wednesday, 2/20/19: Planning Meeting for League of CA Cities 3/20 Quarterly Meeting Thursday, 2/21/19 Commute.org Board Meeting • County Carpool Program 2.0: participants receive $100 incentive for carpooling when participants log/track carpools via Star Platform (find it at https://commute.org/) or other connected apps. After 10 rides, unlock $25 reward increments up to 4x when you don’t drive alone to work! • Shuttle program continues to struggle with driver availability. • Received County Safe Routes to School program update and information about Walk- Audit training on 3/20; forwarded info to staff and BPAC leadership. • Reviewed mid-year budget Thursday-Friday 2/21-2/22/19: League of California Cities Board Meeting, Grass Valley • Significant focus on housing legislation and League’s participation in the discussion • Governor Newsom spent 80 minutes with our Board of Directors. I had the opportunity to ask him a question about parallel investment in infrastructure while the state is focused on housing creation – particularly transportation (commuter rail) and school facilities. He said he is working on unlocking school facilities dollars that haven’t yet been distributed, so that should help. He wasn’t explicitly clear about additional commuter rail investment dollars, but he did emphasize his vision to reward housing creation with transportation dollars and tying them together – which is a very controversial issue for cities. I also had the opportunity to share information about housing creation success stories here on the Peninsula (particularly in San Mateo County with Home for All) with many units in the pipeline. I urged him to create local incentives for affordable housing and empower cities to implement smart housing policy that work for their jurisdictions, rather than being too prescriptive from Sacramento. Beach Committee Report March 4, 2019 2 Friday, 2/22/19: Council of Cities Monthly Meeting: Pension Obligations Monday, 2/25/19: • League of Cities Planning Meeting for 3/20 Quarterly Luncheon Housing Discussion – follow-up from CASA Compact prior meeting o Legislative aides from our Sacramento representatives will observe and listen to small-group facilitated discussions about key elements of housing legislation in the pipeline. League of Cities housing staff expert will provide an overview and update from Sacramento. Groups will discuss where some compromise might be reached, and what elements of the legislation will present challenges for their cities. • CMEQ (C/CAG Congestion Management and Environmental Quality Policy Committee) o Cities need to send proposed projects that have “regional significance” to be listed on MTC’s RTP (Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy) so they are eligible for Federal Funds. This process happens once every 5 years so this is an important window of opportunity to make sure Burlingame’s major infrastructure projects (Broadway Grade Sep) and any new sustainable community projects triggered by the General Plan update (perhaps our new Rollins Road area) are incorporated. Staff workshop for interested cities is tentatively scheduled for the week of 3/18. o Discussed proposed Sea Level Rise Resiliency Agency, and proposed contributions by City population (Burlingame = $40,000.) o Reviewed recommendation to re-allocate C/CAG funds from Willow Road to Haven Avenue in Menlo Park, recommended amendment before C/CAG Board approves. • Chamber networking night – congrats and welcome Centro Pizza on Broadway • Burlingame Historical Society Meeting – fantastic presentation by Guittard Chocolate which packed the lane room! Tuesday, 2/26/19 • Constituent Meetings (3) Topics included • Affordable housing • Burlingame Hills • Lyon Hoag Traffic Calming Community Meeting (facilitated with consultants) • About 30 constituents in attendance on a rainy night helped define problem areas • Second community meeting will take place this spring to provide possible traffic solutions from consulting team Wednesday, 2/27/19 US 101 Managed Lane SMCTA Briefing • In preparation for Friday’s joint subcommittee meeting, discussed joint governance and staffing models for new JPA created by SMCTA and C/CAG for US 101 Managed Lanes.