HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2017.04.17City Council
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda - Final
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, April 17, 2017
STUDY SESSION - 5:30 p.m. - Conference Room A
Discussion and Direction on Affordable Housing Project on Lots F and Na.
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
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.
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2017
April 17, 2017City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes April 3, 2017a.
Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to O ’Grady Paving, Inc. for
the FY2016-17 Street Resurfacing Program, City Project No. 84470, and Authorizing
the City Manager to Execute the Construction Contract
b.
Staff Report
Resolution
Construction Contract
Project Location Map
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Ordering and Calling a General Municipal Election to be Held
on November 7, 2017, and Adoption of a Resolution Directing the San Mateo County
Chief Elections Officer to Conduct the Election as an All-Mailed Ballot Election
c.
Staff Report
Resolution Calling Election
All-Mailed Ballot Resolution
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Increasing the Appropriation for Election -Related Costs by
$26,000 in the 2016-17 Fiscal Year
d.
Staff Report
Resolution
Election Invoice
Attachments:
Open Nomination Period to Fill One Vacancy on the Beautification Commissione.
Staff ReportAttachments:
Open Nomination Period to Fill Two Vacancies on the Library Board of Trusteesf.
Staff ReportAttachments:
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment)
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2017
April 17, 2017City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of Applications for Design Review and a
Special Permit for Construction of a New, Two -Story Single-Family Residence with an
Attached Garage at 746 Linden Avenue
a.
Staff Report
Draft Resolution
March 24, 2017 Notice of City Council Action on Appeal
March 20, 2017 CC Minutes
Letter from Applicants/Appellants Explaining Reasons for Appeal
February 13, 2017 PC Minutes
February 13, 2017 PC Staff Report
February 13, 2017 PC Staff Report Attachments
Project Plans
Attachments:
Public Hearing and Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Adjusting
the Storm Drainage Fee for Fiscal Year 2017-18 By 2.0% Based On the CPI for the
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA Area as Published March 15, 2017
b.
Staff Report
Resolution
CPI, SF - Feb 2017
Attachments:
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment)
Discussion and Direction Regarding the Burlingame School District ’s Request for the
City to Contribute to the Cost to Re-turf Franklin and Osberg Fields
a.
Staff Report
Burlingame School District presentation
Joint Use Agreement
Draft General Fund Capital Improvement Program
Measure M Implementation Plan Materials
Attachments:
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Members report on committees and activities and make announcements.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The agendas, packets and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety and Parking
Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and LIbrary Board of
Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org.
March, 2017 Permit Activitya.
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2017
April 17, 2017City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
14. ADJOURNMENT
Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at
(650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for
public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and
minutes are available at this site.
NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next regular City Council Meeting - Monday, May 1,
2017
VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT WWW.BURLINGAME.ORG - GO TO
"CITY COUNCIL VIDEOS"
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this
agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office counter at City Hall at 501
Primrose Road during normal business hours.
Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 4/13/2017
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 4/17/17
Burlingame City Council April 3, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
1
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting on April 3, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in t he City Hall
Council Chambers.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by Burlingame resident Ross Bruce.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney stated that direction was given but no reportable action was taken.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Ortiz reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City.
6. PRESENTATIONS
There were no presentations.
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 4/17/17
Burlingame City Council April 3, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
2
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Ortiz asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent
Calendar. Councilmember Keighran pulled item 8d and Vice Mayor Brownrigg pulled item 8f.
Councilmember Beach made a motion to approve 8a, 8b, 8c, and 8e; seconded by Councilmember Keighran.
The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote; 5-0.
a. APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 15, 2017
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2017.
b. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 20, 2017
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the Meeting Minutes of March 20, 2017.
c. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 21, 2017
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the Meeting Minutes of March 21, 2017.
d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO AMEND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2017; AND SET THE PUBLIC HEARING
FOR SUCH AMENDMENT FOR MAY 1, 2017
Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 19-2017.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she had a few questions about some of the proposed fees. In the
building and planning section of the Master Fee Schedule, she reviewed the portion of the staff report that
stated “Although no changes are currently recommended for fees based on valuation, staff recommends that
fees for per-hour charges for inspections and plan checks (or flat fees based on per hour inspection or plan
check costs) be increased by a CPI of 3.4%. In addition, staff suggests that fees that were limited to less than
full cost recovery in the current Master Fee Schedule (due to the large increase that would have been
required) be increased to the desired cost recovery prior to applying the CPI increase.” She asked if the fee
increases were based on full cost recovery. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Keighran discussed her concern about the high increase in some of the fees. Under
engineering she stated that the hauling fee is doubling from $77 to $144. Finance Director Augustine stated
that the City was increasing the fee for full cost recovery purposes.
Councilmember Keighran stated she understood that the City was aiming at full cost recovery; however she
was concerned that the doubling of fees could create a negative effect. She suggested splitting the increase
over a few years to allow individuals time to adjust.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 4/17/17
Burlingame City Council April 3, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
3
Councilmember Keighran also discussed the proposed fees for “permanent structures such as retaining walls
fences”, “non-permanent installations, such as tables, chairs, planters” and “lot line adjustment”. She
expressed the concern that these fees were doubling and that this could hurt local business.
Councilmember Keighran asked about the new $50 hourly Library fee for photo/filming. City Librarian
McCulley explained that this fee was for when individuals utilize the library after hours for shoots and a staff
member needs to be present to oversee the production. He explained that the fee is to cover the cost of the
staff member’s overtime wages during the shoot.
Councilmember Keighran next discussed planning. She asked about the fee for “preliminary plan check,
new construction” which had an asterisk that stated “fifty percent (50%) of fee will be credited toward
required application fees if and when project is submitted as a complete application.” She asked what this
meant. CDD Meeker stated that once the plan comes to fruition then fifty percent of the fee will be applied
to the application fee.
Councilmember Keighran stated that her biggest concern was about the fees for the different condominium
permits. She expressed concern that the increases were higher for the smaller condominium complexes than
the larger complexes. For example the proposed permit fee for condominiums with 11 to 25 units is $6,150
while the proposed permit fee for condominiums with 101 units and greater is $5,812. She stated that she
felt the fees should increase by the size of the development.
Councilmember Keighran noted that the City would be discussing impact fees at the joint Planning
Commission – Council meeting on April 15, 2017. Therefore, she stated that she thought Council should
first understand what the impact fees would be prior to increasing condominium permit fees.
City Manager Goldman stated that it appeared that on the 4 to 10 units and 11 to 25 units that there might be
a typo. She stated that staff would review these items.
Councilmember Keighran discussed the development impact fees and if what is listed in the Master Fee
Schedule is what the City currently has. CDD Meeker responded in the affirmative.
City Manager Goldman stated that the purpose of the staff report was to have Council call for a public
hearing on Master Fee Schedule’s proposed changes. She explained that staff attached the proposed Master
Fee Schedule to give Council a preview, but that the proposed changes would be brought back at the May 1,
2017 meeting for discussion.
Councilmember Keighran asked for staff to review a few other fees where she thought the increase should be
staggered over a few years; including the proposed re-zoning fee and Police Department’s live entertainment
permit.
Councilmember Keighran asked about the decreased fixed fees for water. DPW Murtuza stated that these
fees were redone as part of the water rate increases.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 4/17/17
Burlingame City Council April 3, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
4
Councilmember Colson asked about page 47 of the Master Fee Schedule that still had Burlingame High
School listed under Parks and Recreation. She asked if the City still needed to include BHS. Finance
Director Augustine stated that people do call and ask questions about BHS fees but that it could be removed.
Councilmember Colson asked that this section be removed to avoid any confusion.
Councilmember Colson talked about the Bayside Field Lights fee on page 49. She stated that this fee may
need to be increased to assist in covering the costs of all City facilities going ECO100.
Mayor Ortiz discussed last year’s Master Fee Schedule public hearing. He explained that staff proposed
increasing the fees to full cost recovery. However, the increase was so dramatic that the Council decided to
stagger the increases over two years. Accordingly, he explained that the increases staff was proposing were
just the second phase of what was agreed to last year. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative.
City Attorney Kane stated that it would be helpful to staff to have a sense of if there is a consensus around
Councilmember Keighran’s concerns. She explained that if there was a consensus, then staff would change
the fees now and notice the modified Master Fee Schedule. If there was not a consensus, she explained that
the version of the Master Fee Schedule before the Council (minus any typos) would be the version noticed to
the public.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he believed what Councilmember Keighran was outlining is that while the
proposed fees might be full cost recovery, she wanted to spread out the increases over a few years. He
explained that the question becomes whether the Council should do slow increases over a longer period of
time.
Councilmember Keighran stated her concern was that the doubling of some of the permit fees could dissuade
business in Burlingame. She stated that she would like to know if Burlingame’s fees are similar to other
cities in the area.
Finance Director Augustine discussed that if Council wanted to gradually bring the fees up to full cost
recovery it would take time as the costs will continue to increase. She stated that staff would review
Council’s concerns.
Councilmember Keighran asked for a fee comparison with other cities on the fees she had discussed.
Finance Director Augustine stated that a limited fee comparison was done in the 2015 cost recovery report.
She stated that she will check to see if those were covered in that study.
City Manager Goldman stated that since there wasn’t a consensus on changes to the Master Fee Schedule,
the version before the Council (minus any typos) would be noticed and brought back to Council at the May
1, 2017 meeting.
Councilmember Colson stated that she agreed with Councilmember Keighran that the doubling of some of
the fees seemed high. She discussed splitting the increase over two years.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 4/17/17
Burlingame City Council April 3, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
5
Councilmember Beach stated that she felt the proposed structure was consistent with the direction that the
Council gave last year. She stated that the City isn’t looking to make a profit but rather recover the cost of
providing services.
Mayor Ortiz agreed with Councilmember Beach’s comment.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg explained that at the next meeting Council will discuss the fees and review what may
or may not need to be changed. He stated that while he hasn’t thoroughly reviewed the numbers, he could
see the rational of Councilmember Colson’s suggestion of dividing the increase over two years.
Councilmember Colson asked if there was a way of highlighting the 100% increases. Finance Director
Augustine stated that staff has a worksheet that will highlight the increases.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 20-2017; seconded by Councilmember
Beach. The motion passed by voice vote, 3-2 (Councilmembers Keighran and Colson voted against).
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO LEVY BROADWAY AVENUE
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017-18 AND
SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAY 1, 2017: AND APPROVING THE DISTRICT’S
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2016-17
Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 20-2017.
f. APPROVAL OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR’S OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council approval for out-of-state travel.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he pulled the item because a few citizens raised questions about the out-
of-state travel.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad to briefly discuss the National
Recreation and Parks Association. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that it is their annual
conference and each year it is held in a different state. She stated her goal is to attend as much as possible as
the exposure to speakers and experts is refreshing and brings a new perspective.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that professional training is a critical way to invest human capital. He stated
that after doing some research it was clear that National Recreation and Parks Association is the leading
nonprofit in their field.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 4/17/17
Burlingame City Council April 3, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
6
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked the date of the conference. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that
it is at the end of September and that by requesting approval now she would be able to obtain cheaper plane
tickets and the early bird registration fee.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to approve of the Parks and Recreation Director’s out-of-state travel;
seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no public hearings.
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
City Manager Goldman presented the staff report concerning consideration of appointments to the Planning
Commission. She stated that there were two impending vacancies on the Planning Commission due to the
expiring terms of Commissioners Jeff DeMartini and Nirmala Bandrapalli. She explained that the vacancies
were publicized and notification letters were sent to past Commission applicants.
City Manager Goldman stated that eight applications were received as of the deadline of March 17, 2017.
The eight applicants were interviewed by Mayor Ortiz, Councilmembers Colson, Beach and Keighran. As
well, she stated that Vice Mayor Brownrigg, who was not present at the interviews, had an opportunity to
listen to the interviews. She stated that the eight applicants were Jeff DeMartini, Nirmala Bandrapalli,
Steven Lamont, Thomas Smith, Zoe Assaf, Sandy Comaroto, Brenden Kelly and Audrey Tse.
Councilmember Beach recused herself from this matter as one of the Planning Commission candidates was a
close friend. She stated that in order to preserve impartiality she would not be voting.
Vic Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was able to listen to the entire recording of the interviews.
Councilmember Colson stated that the Council was impressed with the quality of candidates that came in and
that eight people were willing to give up their personal time to serve as a Planning Commissioner.
Mayor Ortiz opened up the item for public comment. No one spoke.
CC Hassel-Shearer gave each Councilmember a ballot to vote for two candidates each for a four-year term.
After the first round of ballots were tallied: Sandy Comaroto received 3 votes, Brenden Kelly received 2
votes, Jeff DeMartini received 1 vote, Steven Lamont received 1 vote, and Audrey Tse received 1 vote.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 4/17/17
Burlingame City Council April 3, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
7
City Manager Goldman stated that with three votes Sandy Comaroto would be appointed to the Planning
Commission.
City Attorney Kane stated that the Council would have to vote again for the remaining seat as there was no
majority.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg discussed Steven Lamont, stating that they had worked together on the cell-tower
project. He explained that it was a challenging project and that Steve was a force of reason and moderation.
He stated that having someone who is a homeowner, can compromise, and is methodical would be beneficial
to the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Keighran discussed Brenden Kelly. She stated that she felt he would be a compelling choice
because he is a firefighter and was raised in Burlingame and has seen how the City has changed. As well,
she stated he would give a fresh perspective to the Planning Commission because he isn’t a homeowner. She
discussed how mature and articulate he was in the interview.
Councilmember Colson stated that she was impressed by Brenden Kelly’s written application when he
discussed balancing the needs of the traditional small town Burlingame with the innovative and economic
needs of the City. She thought he brought a unique perspective that is needed in the City. As well she stated
as a firefighter/paramedic he has to make quick decisions and persuade people in an intense situation and
thought that these leadership skills would benefit the Planning Commission.
Mayor Ortiz stated that the City is fortunate that eight qualified candidates applied and that now Council has
to struggle with that decision.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he knew Brenden Kelly from CCFD but that his concern was that it is
hard as a lay-person to be taken seriously by the other professionals on the commission.
Mayor Ortiz stated he was incredibly impressed by Brenden Kelly’s response and ability to articulate his
opinion. He stated that Mr. Kelly had a good understanding of the issues and felt that he would be able to
articulate his opinions on the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Keighran stated that Steven Lamont was also a lay-person. She stated that she believed that
it is important to get the future generation involved in the community and that Brenden Kelly was a good
choice.
City Attorney Kane noted that there was no conflict of interest with Brenden Kelly serving on the Planning
Commission and working for CCFD.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item for public comment. No one spoke.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 4/17/17
Burlingame City Council April 3, 2017
Unapproved Minutes
8
CC Hassel-Shearer gave each Councilmember a second ballot to vote for one candidate for a four-year term.
After the second round of ballots were tallied: Brenden Kelly received 3 votes and Steven Lamont received 1
vote.
City Manager Goldman stated that Brenden Kelly would be appointed to the second Planning Commission
seat.
Mayor Ortiz thanked all the candidates for their time.
Congratulations to Sandra Comaroto and Brenden Kelly on their appointments to the Planning Commission.
Thank you to Jeff DeMartini and Nirmala Bandrapalli for their service on the Planning Commission.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Keighran asked for a presentation from the Burlingame High School students that
showcased their work in “The Future is Now!” event at the Public Library. Council agreed.
13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Parking & Safety
Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and Library Board of Trustees
are available online at www.burlingame.org.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. in memory of Lillian Privitera, Nicholas Baylock, and Lisa
Dyer.
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: April 17, 2017
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 17, 2017
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to O’Grady
Paving, Inc., for the FY2016-17 Street Resurfacing Program, City Project
No. 84470, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Construction
Contract
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution awarding a construction
contract to O’Grady Paving, Inc., for the FY2016-17 Street Resurfacing Program in the amount of
$1,244,492.65, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the construction contract.
BACKGROUND
The FY2016-17 Street Resurfacing Program consists of resurfacing 14 collector and local
residential streets. The project consists of performing asphalt base-failure repair (digouts),
asphalt overlay, striping improvements, and minor concrete repairs for the following streets:
1400 block of Capuchino Avenue
300 block of Clarendon Road
1000 block of Drake Avenue
1700 thru 1800 blocks of El Camino Real Frontage Road
1400 block of Laguna Avenue
700 block of Laurel Avenue
900 block of Newhall Road
1800 block of Ogden Drive
1400 block of Paloma Avenue
200 block of Park Road
1700 thru 1800 blocks of Sanchez Avenue
1600 thru 1700 blocks of Sebastian Drive
1700 block of Sequoia Avenue
600 block of Vernon Way
FY2016-17 Street Resurfacing Program Contract April 17, 2017
2
DISCUSSION
The Street Resurfacing Project was designed and advertised for construction bids in February
and March 2017. The project bids were opened on March 15, 2017; four bid proposals were
received, with bids ranging from $1,244,492.65 to $1,483,128.50. O’Grady Paving, Inc. is the
lowest responsible bidder with its bid amount of $1,244,492.65, which is 9.2% lower than the
engineer’s estimate of $1,346,150.63. The contractor has met all the project requirements and
has a past history of successful construction work for the City of Burlingame as well as for other
public agencies in the Bay Area.
The project construction is scheduled to begin in May 2017 and is expected to be completed by
October 2017. Staff will send construction notices to the residents in the affected areas and work
with the contractor to minimize construction inconvenience to the residents as much as possible.
FISCAL IMPACT
Estimated Project Expenditures:
The following are the estimated project construction expenditures:
Construction contract $ 1,244,492.65
Construction Inspection and Testing $95,000
Engineering Design & Administration $100,000
Contingency (15%) $215,923.90
Total $1,655,416.55
FUNDING AVAILABILITY:
There are adequate funds available in the FY2016-17 Street Resurfacing Program budget to
complete the project.
Exhibits:
Resolution
Bid summary
Project location map
Construction contract
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT FOR THE FY2016-17 STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM TO
O’GRADY PAVING, INC.
CITY PROJECT NO. 84470
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2017, the City issued a notice inviting bid proposals for the
2016-17 STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM, CITY PROJECT NO. 84470; and
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2017, all proposals were received and opened before the City
Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and
WHEREAS, O’Grady Paving, Inc., submitted the lowest responsible bid for the job in the
amount of $1,244,492.65.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED, that the Plans and
Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid of O’Grady Paving, Inc., for said project in the
amount of $1,244,492.65, is accepted; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a contract be entered into between O’Grady Paving,
Inc. 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 said contract and to approve the
faithful performance bond and the labor materials bond required to be furnished by the
contractor.
_______________ _____
Mayor
I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held
on the 17TH day of April, 2017, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
_______________ _____
City Clerk
AGREEMENT - 1
AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
2016-17 Street Resurfacing Program
CITY PROJECT NO. 84470
THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into in the City of
Burlingame, County of San Mateo, State of California on , 2017 by and
between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter called "City",
and O’Grady Paving, Inc. 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 April 17, 2017, 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: 2016-17 Street Resurfacing Program, CITY PROJECT NO. 84470.
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;
AGREEMENT - 2
the accepted Bid Proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit B; the specifications, provisions,
addenda, complete plans, profiles, and detailed drawings contained in the bid
documents titled “2016-17 Street Resurfacing Program, City Project No. 84470”
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 forty four thousand four
hundred and ninety two dollars and sixty five cents ($1,244,492.65), 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,
AGREEMENT - 3
the 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:
Mr. Kevin Okada
Senior Engineer
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010
AGREEMENT - 4
Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows:
Craig E. Young
O’Grady Paving, Inc.
2313 Wyandotte Street
Mountain View, CA 94043-2314
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
AGREEMENT - 5
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 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:
Company Name:
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: April 17, 2017
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 17, 2017
From: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk – (650) 558-7203
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Ordering and Calling a General Municipal
Election to be Held on November 7, 2017, and Adoption of a Resolution
Directing the San Mateo County Chief Elections Officer to Conduct the
Election as an All-Mailed Ballot Election
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution ordering and calling a
general municipal election to be held on November 7, 2017, and adopt the attached resolution
directing the San Mateo County Chief Elections Officer to conduct the election as an all-mailed
ballot election.
BACKGROUND
On September 1, 2015, Governor Brown signed into law Senate Bill 415, the “California Voter
Participation Rights Act.” SB 415 requires local governments, like the City of Burlingame, to
move their elections to even-numbered years if there was a significant decrease in voter turnout
during odd-year elections.
On February 21, 2017, the Burlingame City Council adopted Ordinance 1940 changing future City
Council elections from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years. To make this transition,
the City will hold its regular elections in November 2017 and November 2019, electing
Councilmembers to serve five-year terms. After November 2019, the City’s next election for
Council will be November 2022; the election after that will be November 2024. These and all
subsequent elections will be for four-year terms.
DISCUSSION
Three Council terms will expire this year. In accordance with Ordinance 1940, the City will hold
elections for the three seats on November 7, 2017, each for a five-year term. The filing period for
nomination papers and candidate statements is from July 17, 2017, to August 11, 2017.
Pursuant to AB 2028, San Mateo County can conduct the November 2017 election as an all-
mailed ballot election. Previously, the County conducted the November 2015 election as an all-
mailed ballot election, and the City saw a 5% increase in voter turnout from the November 2013
election. Under AB 2028, each registered voter will be sent a ballot in the mail, but voters can still
choose to vote in person on Election Day at a polling place in Burlingame.
Calling the November 7, 2017 Election April 17, 2017
2
Staff recommends requesting that the Elections Office conduct the November 7, 2017 election as
an all-mailed ballot election to increase voter participation and because it costs 10-15% less than
a regular election.
FISCAL IMPACT
It is not yet known what the fiscal impact will be of SB 415 on the upcoming odd-year election.
The City is budgeting conservatively by using the 2013 Coastside Fire Protection District Recall
Election as a marker. The Coastside Fire Protection District had 14,323 registered voters, and
the District’s measure/candidate contests were the only issues on the ballot. The cost was
$167,869.
Exhibits:
Resolution to Call the Election
Resolution to Conduct the Election as an All-Mailed Ballot Election
RESOLUTION NO. ______
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ORDERING
AND CALLING A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ON NOVEMBER 7, 2017;
REQUESTING THE SERVICES OF THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS,
REQUESTING CONSOLIDATION OF ELECTIONS, AND SPECIFYING
CERTAIN PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSOLIDATED ELECTION; REQUIRING
PAYMENT OF PRORATED COSTS OF CANDIDATES’ STATEMENTS; AND
PROVIDING FOR GIVING NOTICE OF ELECTION
WHEREAS, Burlingame Ordinance 1940 provides that the general municipal
election for the City of Burlingame shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first
Monday in November of 2017; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Part 3 of Division 10 of the California Elections Code, a
general municipal election may be consolidated with an election in another public district;
and
WHEREAS, elections in public districts will be held in San Mateo County on
November 7, 2017.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
1. A general municipal election is hereby called to be held in and for the City of
Burlingame on Tuesday, November 7, 2017:
a) to elect three (3) Councilmembers, each for a full term of five (5) years,
2. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10002, the City Council hereby
requests the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo to make available the
services of the County Clerk as County Elections Official for the purpose of performing
the usual and customary services necessary in the conduct of the consolidated general
municipal election, including the provision of election supplies and voters’ pamphlets.
3. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10400 and following, the City
Council hereby requests the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo to order
the consolidation of the general municipal election to be conducted within the boundaries
of the City of Burlingame on November 7, 2017, with respect to which the Board of
Supervisors of the County of San Mateo has the power to order a consolidation. The
City Council further consents to and orders the consolidation of the general municipal
election hereby called with the elections in public districts to be held the same day.
Upon consolidation, the consolidated election shall be held and conducted, election
officers appointed, voting precincts designated, ballots printed, polls opened at 7:00 a.m.
and closed at 8:00 p.m., ballots counted and returned, returns canvassed, and all other
proceedings in connection with the election shall be regulated and done by the County
Clerk of the County of San Mateo in accordance with the provisions of law regulating the
elections so consolidated.
4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish a notice of the
general municipal election within the time and in the manner specified in California
Elections Code Section 12101. The City Clerk is further authorized and directed to
perform any and all actions required by law to hold the general municipal election above
provided.
5. Pursuant to California Elections Code section 13307, the City Council hereby
determines to levy against each candidate availing himself or herself of the service of
including a candidate’s statement not to exceed two hundred (200) words in length in the
voters’ pamphlets, the actual prorated costs of printing, handling, and translating the
candidates statement incurred by the City of Burlingame. The City Clerk shall provide
written notice to such effect with each set of nomination papers issued and shall require
payment of the estimated pro rated share at the time the candidate statement is filed.
6. Pursuant to California Elections Code section 10228 and Burlingame
Municipal Code section 2.20.020, the filing fee for the City’s cost of processing of the
nomination papers is $25.00.
7. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify the adoption of this
Resolution and to transmit a certified copy to the Board of Supervisors of the County of
San Mateo and to the County Clerk of the County of San Mateo.
_____________________________
Ricard Ortiz, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held
on the 17th day of April, 2017, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS
_____________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. _______
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DIRECTING THE
SAN MATEO COUNTY CHIEF ELECTIONS OFFICER TO CONDUCT THE NOVEMBER 7,
2017 ELECTION FOR THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AS AN ALL-MAILED BALLOT
ELECTION PURSUANT TO THE PILOT PROGRAM AUTHORIZED BY ASSEMBLY BILL
2028 IF ALL OTHER AFFECTED JURSIDCITIONS ALSO REQUEST PARTICIPATION IN
THE PILOT PROGRAM AT THAT ELECTION
WHEREAS, in 2014 the California Legislature and Governor approved Assembly Bill
2028 (AB 2028), which is a pilot program permitting certain elections in San Mateo County to be
conducted wholly by mail if specific conditions are met; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to AB 2028, each jurisdiction may determine whether to
participate in this pilot program and whether to authorize its election on a given date to be
conducted by mail, provided, however, that the election in question shall not be conducted by
mail pursuant to the pilot program unless all overlapping jurisdictions with elections on that
same date so request; and
WHEREAS, if the election is authorized by all affected jurisdictions to be conducted
pursuant to the AB 2028 pilot program, various actions shall be taken to ensure that voter
access and turnout is protected, including but not limited to the following:
At least one ballot dropoff location shall be provided in each city;
A ballot dropoff location shall be open during business hours to receive ballots
beginning 28 days prior to the election through 8 p.m. on the night of the election;
At least one polling place shall be provided per city between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. on
election day for voters to request a ballot who did not receive a ballot or who
need a replacement ballot for any reason;
At the request of any city, county, or district, the Chief Elections Officer may
provide additional ballot dropoff locations and polling places;
All elections materials, including a prepaid return envelope for the ballot, shall be
provided to each voter;
A list of ballot dropoff locations and polling places shall be delivered to each
voter; and
Polling places shall be located at an accessible location and equipped with voting
machines that are accessible to individuals with disabilities; and
WHEREAS, in general, the cost of conducting an election pursuant to the pilot program
described above is expected to be significantly less overall than a typical election, and this cost
reduction should translate to lower costs to each jurisdiction that participates in the pilot
program election compared to the typical election costs borne by each jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, during the County’s first AB 2028 all-mailed ballot election on November
3, 2015, Burlingame saw an increase in voter turnout by 5%; and
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame considers the AB 2028 pilot program a benefit to
the community as it provides for greater voter access and participation as well as cost savings.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY DETERMINED AND ORDERED that the
Burlingame City Council authorizes the November 7, 2017 election for the City of Burlingame to
be conducted wholly by mailed ballots pursuant to AB 2028 and consolidated with all other
elections occurring on that date within San Mateo County. Accordingly, the San Mateo County
Chief Elections Officer is requested to conduct the November 7, 2017 election for the City of
Burlingame, including any elections for officials of the City of Burlingame and measures relating
to the City of Burlingame, as an election conducted wholly by mail pursuant to the AB 2028 pilot
program, it being understood that the election shall occur wholly by mail on that date only if all
overlapping jurisdictions with elections on that date make the same request. If all overlap ping
jurisdictions with elections on that date do not so request, the City of Burlingame’s election shall
occur as normal on that date pursuant to the other provisions of the Elections Code.
BE IT ADDITIONALLY RESOLVED that the City Clerk of the City of Burlingame is
hereby directed to notify the Secretary of State no later than August 11, 2017, of the City of
Burlingame’s intent to conduct an all-mailed ballot election as outlined above.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Burlingame shall separately send
information regarding the specifics of its November 7, 2017 election to the San Mateo County
Chief Elections Officer.
______________________
Ricard Ortiz, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17th day
of April, 2017, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS
_____________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: April 17, 2017
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 17, 2017
From: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk – (650) 558-7203
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Increasing the Appropriation for Election-Related
Costs by $26,000 for the 2016-17 Fiscal Year
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution increasing the appropriation
for election-related costs by $26,000 for the 2016-17 fiscal year.
BACKGROUND
An election was held on November 8, 2016 for a citizen initiative entitled: An ordinance to enact
rent stabilization and just cause for eviction and repeal prior restrictions on the regulation of sale
or rental price of real estate. Because the November 8, 2016 election was not a regularly
scheduled election for the City of Burlingame, funds were not requested for this purpose in the FY
2016-17 adopted budget.
The estimate that the City received from the Elections Office to place the citizen initiative on the
November 2016 Presidential ballot was $36,000.
In addition, on February 21, 2017, in accordance with SB 415, the City adopted Ordinance 1940,
moving its general election to an even-year cycle. Pursuant to Elections Code Section
10403.5(e), the City Elections Official must mail letters to all registered voters in the city notifying
them of the change in election years. The estimated cost of the mailer is $10,000 - $12,000.
DISCUSSION
During the Mid-Year Budget Session on March 15, the City Clerk requested a $50,000
adjustment to cover the estimated costs of the November 8, 2016 election and the SB 415 mailer.
On March 27, 2017, staff received a $63,835.33 invoice from the Elections Office for the
November 8, 2016 election, necessitating an additional appropriation of $26,000 to cover the
expenses of both the November 8, 2016 election and the SB 415 mailer.
Appropriation for Election Costs April 17, 2017
2
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff is requesting an appropriation of $26,000 from General Fund Reserves to pay for the
November 8, 2016 election and the required mailer in the 2016-17 fiscal year.
Exhibits:
Resolution
Elections Invoice
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
INCREASING THE APPROPRIATION FOR ELECTION-RELATED COSTS BY
$26,000 IN THE 2016-17 FISCAL YEAR
WHEREAS, the City conducted an un-scheduled election on November 8, 2016 by
placing a citizen initiative on the ballot; and
WHEREAS, the Elections Office provided the City with an estimate of $36,000 to place
the citizen initiative on the November 8, 2016 ballot; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to SB 415, the City adopted Ordinance 1940 moving its odd-year
elections to an even-year cycle; and
WHEREAS, Elections Code 10403.5(e) requires the City to mail a notice to all registered
voters advising them of the change in election cycle; and
WHEREAS, the estimated cost for the SB 415 mailer is $10,000-$12,000; and
WHEREAS, a mid-year budget adjustment was requested and approved for $50,000 to
cover the estimated costs of the election and SB 415 mailer; and
WHEREAS, the City subsequently received an invoice from the Elections Office for the
November 8, 2016 election for $63,835.33; and
WHEREAS, an appropriation of $26,000 from the General Fund Reserves is necessary
for election-related costs.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
The City Council approves an additional appropriation of $26,000 from the General Fund
Reserves for election-related costs in the 2016-17 fiscal year.
________________________________
Ricardo Ortiz, Mayor
I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held
on the 17th day of April, 2017, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
_____________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: April 17, 2017
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 17, 2017
From: Ana Maria Silva, Executive Assistant – (650) 558-7204
Subject: Open Nomination Period to Fill One Vacancy on the Beautification Commission
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council call for applications to fill one vacancy on the
Beautification Commission due to former Commissioner Deason relocating out of the city.
The recommended due date is Friday, June 2, 2017. This will allow applicants two opportunities
(May 4 and June 1) to attend a Beautification Commission meeting.
BACKGROUND
The City’s current commissioner appointment procedure calls for any Commissioner desiring
reappointment to apply in the same manner as all other candidates. All past applicants on the
two-year waitlist will be informed of the vacancy.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: April 17, 2017
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 17, 2017
From: Ana Maria Silva, Executive Assistant – (650) 558-7204
Subject: Open Nomination Period to Fill Two Vacancies on the Library Board of Trustees
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council call for applications to fill two impending vacancies on
the Library Board due to the expiring terms of Board members Kerbey Altmann and Mike Nagler.
The recommended due date is Friday, May 19, 2017. This will allow applicants two opportunities
(April 18 and May 16) to attend a Library Board meeting.
BACKGROUND
The City’s current commissioner appointment procedure calls for any Commissioner desiring
reappointment to apply in the same manner as all other candidates. All past applicants on the
two-year waitlist will be informed of the vacancy.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: April 17, 2017
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 17, 2017
From: William Meeker, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7255
Subject: City Council Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s
Denial of Applications for Design Review and a Special Permit for
Construction of a New, Two-Story Single-Family Residence with an
Attached Garage at 746 Linden Avenue
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council should conduct a public hearing, consider all oral and written testimony received
during the hearing and, following closure of the hearing and deliberations, take one of the following
actions:
Uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of the application;
Reverse the Planning Commission and approve the application; or
Remand the application to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.
BACKGROUND
Prior City Council Action: The City Council previously conducted a public hearing on this matter
at its meeting of March 20, 2017 (minutes attached), reversed the Planning Commission’s
determination, and approved the application. Unfortunately, staff learned the next day that, though
the public hearing was publicized as part of the posting of the Agenda, a public notice of the appeal
hearing was not mailed to all owners of property lying within 300-feet of the project site, as is the
normal procedure. In light of this oversight, on March 24th a Notice of City Council Action (attached)
was mailed to those individuals that would have normally been noticed for the March 20th public
hearing. Individuals receiving the notice were provided ten calendar days (until April 3rd) to
challenge the Council’s action. Prior to April 3rd, the neighbor to the left of the project site (Susanne
McLaughlan, 748 Linden Avenue) requested that the matter be brought back before the City
Council at a properly noticed public hearing.
Notice of the April 17th public hearing was mailed to all owners of property lying within 300-feet of
746 Linden Avenue on Friday, April 7th. The following sections of this report provide background
regarding the prior Planning Commission deliberations. Additionally, staff has attached a draft
resolution to this report that conforms to the City Council’s action at the March 20th public hearing
in the event that Council reaffirms its action of that date.
Appeal – 746 Linden Avenue April 17, 2017
2
Project Description: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing one-story house and
detached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage. The
proposed house will have a total floor area of 2,796 square feet where 2,865 square feet is the
maximum allowed (including the covered porch exemption). As designed, the proposed project
falls 69 square feet below the maximum FAR (Floor Area Ratio) permitted on the property.
The new single family dwelling will contain four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must
be covered, are required on-site. To comply with this requirement, one covered parking space is
provided in the attached garage; a second uncovered parking space is provided on the driveway.
Since the applicant’s proposal includes construction of an attached garage (as opposed to a
detached garage within the rear-yard area), approval of a Special Permit is requested.
The applicant requests approval of the following applications:
Design Review for a new single family dwelling with attached garage; and
A Special Permit for an attached Garage.
A copy of the February 13, 2017 Planning Commission staff report (and attachments) is attached,
and provides a detailed analysis of the proposal.
Planning Commission Action: At its meeting of February 13, 2017, the Planning Commission
effectively denied the applicant’s requests via a split vote of 3-3-1, with Commissioner Terrones
absent (see attached minutes of the meeting).
Commissioners’ concerns related primarily to the proposal for an attached garage where it was
perceived that the normal neighborhood pattern for properties containing single-family dwellings
was to have a detached garage. Concern was also expressed regarding the height of the structure
and the amount of lot width that the structure would occupy.
Appeal of Planning Commission’s Action: Subsequent to the Planning Commission’s action,
the property owners, Brandy and Peter Yarema, submitted a timely appeal of the Commission’s
action. They followed up their appeal with a letter that explains their reasons for filing the appeal;
the letter is attached to this report for the City Council’s review and consideration.
Exhibits:
Draft Resolution
March 24, 2017 Notice of City Council Action on Appeal
March 20, 2017 CC Minutes
Letter from Applicant/Appellants Explaining Reasons for Appeal
February 13, 2017 PC Minutes
February 13, 2017 PC Staff Report
February 13, 2017 PC Staff Report Attachments
Project Plans
RESOLUTION NO. ________
1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, GRANTING THE
APPEAL OF BRANDY AND PETER YAREMA AND OVERTURNING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S FEBRUARY 13, 2017 DENIAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND
A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE AT 746 LINDEN AVENUE
RESOLVED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THAT:
WHEREAS, on October 13, 2016, Natalie Hyland, on behalf of property owners Peter and
Brandy Yarema, filed an application for Design Review and a Special Permit to construct a new
single-family residence with attached garage at 746 Linden Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the request at public hearings held on
January 9, 2017 and February 13, 2017; and
WHEREAS, following conclusion of the public hearing on February 2017, by a tied vote of 3-3-
1 (Commissioner Terrones absent), the Planning Commission denied the applications for Design
Review and a Special Permit; and
WHEREAS, the property owners (Yaremas) filed a timely appeal of the Planning
Commission’s February 13, 2017 denial of their requests; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing to review and consider the
application at its regular meeting of March 20, 2017 and, following conclusion of the hearing, moved
to overturn the Planning Commission’s February 13, 2017 denial of the applications for Design
Review and a Special Permit, and approved the requests; and
WHEREAS, following the March 20, 2017 City Council public hearing, it was found that notice
of the appeal hearing was not mailed to all owners of property lying within 300-feet of the subject
property (746 Linden Avenue) ten days in advance of the public hearing, as is the normal procedure.
In light of this oversight, on March 24, 2017 the Community Development Director mailed a Notice of
City Council’s March 20th action regarding the appeal to all owners of property lying within 300-feet of
746 Linden Avenue, providing any party ten calendar days (until April 3, 2017) to challenge the City
Council’s March 20th decision on the appeal. Prior to the April 3 rd deadline, the resident at 748 Linden
Avenue (Susanne McLaughlin) requested that a properly noticed appeal hearing be scheduled before
the City Council; and
WHEREAS, notice of the new public hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission’s
February 13, 2017 decision regarding the project at 746 Linden Avenue, scheduled for the City
Council’s April 17, 2017 Regular Meeting Agenda, was mailed to all owners of property lying within
300-feet of the 746 Linden Avenue on April 7, 2017; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed hearing on the appeal was conducted by the City Council on April
17, 2017. Following conclusion of the public hearing, and considering all oral and written testimony,
RESOLUTION NO. ________
2
as well as the information contained in the staff report regarding this matter, the City Council moved
to grant the appeal of Peter and Brandy Yarema, to overturn the Planning Commission’s February 13,
2017 denial of applications for Design Review and a Special Permit for construction of a new single-
family residence at 746 Linden Avenue, and to approved said requests.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT:
Section 1. The City Council hereby overturns the Planning Commission’s denial of the
applications and hereby approves the applications Design Review and a Special Permit, based upon
the following findings:
a) That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the structure, featuring stucco siding, articulated
first and second floor walls, proportional plate heights, aluminum clad wood windows, wood
trim, composition shingle roofing, and sloping roofs with gable ends is compatible with the
existing character of the neighborhood; that the windows and architectural elements of the
proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures
on adjacent properties; and that the proposed landscape plan incorporates plants, hedges,
and trees at locations to provide privacy and compatible with the existing neighborhood, the
project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review
criteria.
b) That the proposed single-car garage complies with the off-street parking requirement for the
project, side setback requirements, and exceeds the required front setback at 27’-11” where
25’-0” is required by code.
c) That the 22’-5” distance between the exterior wall of the proposed garage and the exterior wall
of the neighboring structure at 748 Linden Avenue provides an adequate buffer between the
two houses that respects the existing patterns of space within the neighborhood.
d) That the wood traditional style door is integrated into the architecture of the house by way of a
sloping roof and that the wood trellis above the door expands the architectural relief of the
connecting covered porch with wood columns, providing a well-articulated front façade that
complements the existing character of the neighborhood.
e) That the removal of trees located within the footprint of the new structure have been
transplanted and incorporated into the landscape plan of the proposed project and is
consistent with the City’s reforestation requirements.
Section 2. The City Council hereby approves the applications for Design Review and a Special
Permit for the construction of a new single-family dwelling with an attached garage at 746 Linden
Avenue, subject to the following conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped December 27, 2016, sheets L-1 through L-5, A2.0, and date stamped January 18,
RESOLUTION NO. ________
3
2017 sheetsA1 .0 and A3.0 sheets, with the exception that the roof of the residence shall be
redesigned to an 8:12 pitch with a maximum overall structure height of 30-feet;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof
height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning
Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning
staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would
include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division's October 17, 2016 and December 13, 2016
memos, the Engineering Division's October 19, 2016 and December 13, 2016 memos, the
Fire Division's October 21, 2016 memo, the Parks Division's November 22, 2016 and
December 16, 2016 memos, and the Stormwater Division's October 19, 2016 memo shall be
met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be
placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development
Director;
6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the
site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be
required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval
adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of
all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions
of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the
approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these
venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building
permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
RESOLUTION NO. ________
4
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the
project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional,
that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for
the property;
12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or
another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification
that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at
framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans;
architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be
submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of
the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
______________________________________
Ricardo Ortiz, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17th day of April, 2017 by
the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
CITY OF BURLINGAME
City Hall – 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010-3997
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division
PH: (650) 558-7250
FAX: (650) 696-3790
DATE: March 24, 2017
TO: Owners of Property Lying within 300-Feet of 746 Linden Avenue
FROM: Community Development Department – Planning Division
RE: 746 LINDEN AVENUE - Notice of City Council’s March 20, 2017 Action
Granting an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s February 13, 2017
Denial of Requests Related to Construction of New Single-Family
Residence with Attached Garage at 746 Linden Avenue, and Overturning
the Planning Commission’s Action by Approving the Requests
At its meeting of Monday, March 20, 2017 the Burlingame City Council considered the
applicant’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s February 13, 2017 denial of requests
related to construction of a new single-family residence with an attached garage at 746
Linden Avenue. Following a public hearing, the Council chose to grant the appeal and
approve the requests related to construction of the new residence, overturning the Planning
Commission’s denial of the requests.
Though the appeal hearing was appropriately noticed via posting of the City Council’s March
20th meeting agenda both at City Hall and on-line, the traditional mailed notice to all owners
of property lying within 300-feet of the subject property did not occur. Though this oversight
does not nullify the public hearing that was held on March 20th, in the interest of providing
notice of the City Council’s action to any interested parties, this notice is being provided as
follow up to the recent public hearing.
In the event that you object to the City Council’s action approving th e requests related to 746
Linden Avenue, you may file a written objection to the action with the Community
Development Department – Planning Division by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, April 3, 2017
(address listed in the header of this document). If no objections are filed, the City Council’s
approval shall remain effective.
For further information, contact Assistant Planner ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
(ameliak@burlingame.org) or Community Development Director William Meeker
(wmeeker@burlingame.org) at (650) 558-7250.
March 20, 2017 Burlingame City Council
Approved Minutes
2
March 20, 2017 City Council Minutes Excerpt - 746 Linden Avenue
9.PUBLIC HEARINGS
a.APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR
DESIGN REVIEW AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW, TWO-
STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE AT 746
LINDEN AVENUE
Mayor Ortiz asked Council to share any ex-parte contacts they had on the above titled matter.
Councilmember Colson stated that she talked with some of the appellants’ associates and friends.
Councilmember Beach stated that she visited the home on two separate occasions and listened to the two
Planning Commission hearings on the topic. Councilmember Keighran, Councilmember Colson, Vice
Mayor Brownrigg and Mayor Ortiz all stated that they did site visits.
CDD Meeker presented the staff report stating that Council is considering an appeal of the Planning
Commission’s denial of the appellants’ application for design review and special permit request for an
attached garage.
CDD Meeker stated that Brandy and Peter Yarema (“appellants”) propose to demolish an existing one-story
house and detached garage to build a new two-story single-family dwelling with an attached garage. The
property in question is zoned R-2 and contains 5500 square feet of lot area. The proposed house will contain
four bedrooms with a total floor area of 2,796 square feet, where 2,865 square feet is the maximum
permitted. As well, the appellants’ design includes a covered parking space in the attached garage, and an
uncovered parking space in the driveway. CDD Meeker stated a special permit is needed because the
appellants’ application includes construction of an attached garage.
CDD Meeker stated that the Planning Commission considered this item at their February 13, 2017 meeting
and effectively denied the appellants’ request via a split vote of 3-3-1, as Commissioner Terrones was
absent.
CDD Meeker explained that the Commissioners’ concerns related primarily to the proposal for an attached
garage. He stated that Commissioners perceived that the normal neighborhood pattern for properties
March 20, 2017 Burlingame City Council
Approved Minutes
3
containing single-family dwellings was to have a detached garage. Concern was also expressed regarding
the height of the structure. CDD Meeker added that by the time of the February 13, 2017 hearing, the
appellants had lowered the height of the roof to comply with the law.
CDD Meeker explained that as a result of the Planning Commission’s denial, the appellants, submitted a
timely appeal and later sent a letter to the Council explaining their reasons for filing an appeal.
Mayor Ortiz asked the appellants to speak on the project.
Ms. Yarema began by distributing a letter to the Council with the signatures of 20 of their neighbors who
were in favor of the appellants’ proposed project. She explained that she didn’t believe that the proposed
project was fairly compared with the homes in their neighborhood. She explained that that their lot is an
abnormal size and shape. Therefore, if the City required them to have a detached garage, they would be left
with a long driveway on a very narrow lot with a tight home and awkward layout. Additionally, she stated
that the detached garage requirement would result in them losing a bedroom and bathroom from their design.
Ms. Yarema discussed the idea that currently there is no consistency in their neighborhood. She explained
that there are 8 attached garages on their block and a variety of housing styles including duplexes, tri-plexes,
bungalows and two-story homes. She ended by stating that the design would allow them to stay in
Burlingame.
Mayor Ortiz asked if the appellants counted the amount of detached garages on their street. Mr. Yarema
stated that there were 8 with attached garages.
Mayor Ortiz asked if the appellants knew how many homes were on the street. Mr. Yarema replied in the
negative.
Councilmember Keighran asked how many of the attached garages were at the front of their lots in the
appellants’ neighborhood. Ms. Yarema stated that on Linden Ave there are two and on Park Ave there are
two.
Mayor Ortiz asked if the lots for the duplexes and triplexes were larger than the appellants. Mr. Yarema
replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the frontage on the appellants’ property was 50 feet. CDD Meeker
replied in the affirmative. He added that if you measured perpendicularly to the side property line the
measurement is just over 46 feet.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if the side setbacks were each four feet on this house. CDD Meeker replied in
the affirmative.
March 20, 2017 Burlingame City Council
Approved Minutes
4
Councilmember Beach asked what the distance was between the proposed house and 748 Linden Ave. CDD
Meeker stated that the proposed house has a four foot setback from the property line and that the neighbor’s
house has a 22 foot setback from the property line.
Councilmember Beach asked if there was a larger distance between the neighbors on the left than the
neighbors on the right. Ms. Yarema replied in the affirmative and stated that with the proposed redesign they
would have more distance with the neighbors on the right.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg discussed the height of the proposed design and roof pitch with Natalie Hyland, the
designer of the project. Specifically, he asked if she was required to return to the original pitched roof of 8
and 12, could she keep the proposed house within the 30 foot height limitation. Ms. Hyland replied that she
believed this was possible.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the plate heights were 10 feet on the first floor and 9 feet on the second
floor. Ms. Hyland replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach asked if the Planning Commission brought down the plate heights. CDD Meeker
replied in the negative and explained that it was the pitch of the roof that was reduced.
Councilmember Beach asked if the Planning Commission had asked for the plate heights to be decreased.
City Attorney Kane stated that the Planning Commission does often ask for lower plate heights but in this
case the project does fall within the overall height limit.
Councilmember Keighran asked what the usual plate heights are for Burlingame homes. CDD Meeker stated
that it is usually 9 feet on the first floor and 8 feet on the second floor.
Councilmember Colson discussed that the appellants’ neighbor to the left, had expressed a concern about the
proposed attached garage diminishing their daylight. She explained that from reviewing the landscape plan
for the proposed house there was a poured concrete walkway on the left side of the house. She asked for the
width of the walkway. Ms. Hyland stated that it was four feet.
Councilmember Colson suggested installing a screening hedge along the walkway to soften up the view.
Mayor Ortiz asked why the plate height was 10 feet on the first floor. Ms. Hyland responded that the
appellants wanted to do a box-beam ceiling.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that it seems the Planning Commission wrestled with two separate issues when
hearing the appellants’ case. One was the attached garage and the other was the height of the building. He
stated as a former Planning Commissioner he doesn’t like to be in a position to rule against their decision.
However, he noted that in this particular situation the Planning Commission was deadlocked. He stated that
with respect to the garage, the appellants make a compelling argument for attaching the garage. He
reminded the Planning Commission that the City doesn’t ban attached garages rather it tries to discourage
attached garages. He explained that the reason the City discourages attached garages is that they don’t want
March 20, 2017 Burlingame City Council
Approved Minutes
5
the first thing pedestrians see to be a garage door and also they want to create daylight between houses. Vice
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he wished the Planning Commission had spent more time reviewing the design
of the attached garage versus whether the appellants should have one.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg explained that the problem with the appellants dropping the pitch of their roof is that
the appellants are creating a larger roof. He asked the appellants to go back to the 8 and 12 pitch but stay
within the 30 foot height limitation.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the proposed design would be a good addition to the neighborhood.
Councilmember Keighran stated that when she did her site visit she looked at the other homes on the block.
She stated that in her opinion most of the garages are detached and if they are attached, they are in the back
of the lot. She explained that she was on the Planning Commission when they came up with the design
review guidelines and the decision to discourage attached garages. She stated that it was to make
neighborhoods more pedestrian friendly. She explained that she believed if the garage was going to be
attached it should be setback further.
Councilmember Keighran stated that the 10 and 9 foot plate heights are not normal in Burlingame. She
stated that if the appellants wanted to have 10 foot plate heights on the first floor she wanted to see the plate
heights shrunk on the second floor so that it was within the City average.
Councilmember Beach stated that the street that the appellants’ house is on has great variation. She
discussed the design guidelines and stated that she put a lot of stock in the Planning Commission process.
She explained that the appellants’ property was unique with a lot of strange angles and was smaller than
other lots. She discussed giving deference to how architects design on abnormal lots, of this nature, to make
the design work within the community.
Councilmember Beach stated that the proposed design makes sense to her and that the side setbacks give the
neighbors room. As well, she stated that she believes the proposed house will benefit the neighborhood.
Councilmember Beach stated that her only complaint is that the attached garages don’t allow for as much
neighbor interaction.
Councilmember Colson stated that she supported the garage in the front of the lot because of the eclectic
nature of the neighborhood. She stated that she would like great attention paid to the quality of the garage
door and would like the left side of the lot to include some landscaping to soften the neighbors’ view.
Mayor Ortiz stated that the width of the lot is a compelling reason to let this project go through. He stated he
is comfortable with the location but agreed with the Vice Mayor on the pitch of the roof.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he appreciated Councilmember Keighran’s concerns about front facing
garages. He stated he wished that the Planning Commission had spent more time reviewing the actual design
of the attached garage versus whether an attached garage should be allowed.
March 20, 2017 Burlingame City Council
Approved Minutes
6
Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to approve the appellants’ plan with the provision that the height of
the house be under 30 feet with the roof having an 8 and 12 pitch; seconded by Councilmember Colson.
The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-1 (Councilmember Keighran voted against).
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes - Draft
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, February 13, 2017
c.746 Linden Avenue, zoned R -2 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
an attached garage for a new, two -story single family dwelling. (Natalie Hyland,
Hyland Design Group, applicant and designer; Peter and Brandy Yarema, property
owners) (51 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
746 Linden Ave - Staff Report
746 Linden Ave - Attachments
746 Linden Ave - Plans
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.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Property owners Brandy and Peter Yarema spoke as the property owners, with designer Natalie Hyland.
Commission Comments/Questions:
>Has the tree been watered during the drought? (Peter Yarema: Watered it according to City
regulations. The tree has been in the same condition for the last few years.)
>Does the current garage meet standards for a garage? (Peter Yarema: Does not know).
>Is the garage being used? (Brandy Yarema: No. Driveway is too narrow, and needs a place for
furniture.)
>Is the car ever parked behind the fence? (Brandy Yarema: No. Cannot get a car into the garage.)
>The blue house down the street has a wider driveway. Is that intended to be a model for this house?
(Brandy Yarema: Yes, although that property has two single family houses and a larger lot.)
>Should work with the neighbor next door. (Peter Yarema: They are OK with it.)
>Don't normally see higher plate heights, creates a very vertical feel. (Hyland: Wants the 10-foot plate
heights to allow furring and beams. Thought reduction of the overall height was the objective.)
Public Comments:
There were no comments from the public.
Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Mixed neighborhood. Zoned R -2, and there are a lot of multifamily buildings. There are a number of
attached garages in the vicinity including single family homes. Precedent is seen in the neighborhood.
>This application is a single family home which responds to the context. If it were multifamily it would
probably have an attached garage.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 3/10/2017
February 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft
>Majority of the single family houses have detached garages in the vicinity and majority of the
attached garages are in the rear of the lot.
>Does not believe the overall height fits into the neighborhood. The majority of the neighborhood are
single story. When the building is at the maximum height it does not fit in as well. Design Guidelines
were premised around how to make larger houses fit into older housing stock.
>Suggested findings in the staff report support the attached garage.
>Most of the homes are bungalow style and most have detached garages, except for the blue house
at 738 Linden. Concern is this configuration spans entire width of the lot.
>Plate heights and massing make it a prominent house that does not fit in with neighborhood.
>738 Linden did not go through design review. Duplexes did not go through design review at that
time.
>Existing garage is already detached, no justification to bring it to the front. Could build new home
and keep existing garage.
>Could address the plate heights if they were to come back at lower heights. It is a very vertical
building, would like to see it at 9 feet and 8 feet.
>There is a mix of building types in the neighborhood. There is a string of bungalows, but also lots of
other types.
>Concern with the width of the lot being filled with the house.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion to approve the project with the condition of lowering plate
heights, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve Action Item. The motion failed by
the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Bandrapalli, and Gaul3 -
Nay:DeMartini, Gum, and Sargent3 -
Absent:Terrones1 -
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 3/10/2017
BURLINGAME, CA 94010 A.P.N.: 029-061-380746 LINDEN AVENUE
PROPOSED RESIDENCE FOR
PETER & BRANDY YAREMA
BURLINGAME, CA 94010 A.P.N.: 029-061-380746 LINDEN AVENUE
PROPOSED RESIDENCE FOR
PETER & BRANDY YAREMA
BURLINGAME, CA 94010 A.P.N.: 029-061-380746 LINDEN AVENUE
PROPOSED RESIDENCE FOR
PETER & BRANDY YAREMA
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM NO:
9b
MEETING DATE:
April 17, 2017
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 17, 2017
From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director (650) 558-7222
Subject: Public Hearing and Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Burlingame Adjusting the Storm Drainage Fee for Fiscal Year 2017-18 By
2.0% Based On the CPI for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA Area
as Published March 15, 2017
___________________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing on the proposed CPI increase of
2.0% for the annual storm drainage fee, and, following the public hearing, adopt the attached
resolution.
BACKGROUND
The City of Burlingame Ordinance (as approved by the voters) determines the methodology for
adjusting the annual storm drainage fee. The ordinance language is as follows:
4.30.030 Setting the fee.
(a) Commencing with fiscal year 2010-11, the city council, following a public hearing,
shall determine the storm drainage fee. In no event shall the square footage rate for impervious
area be increased beyond that rate approved by a majority vote of the property owners subject
to the storm drainage fee without further approval by a majority vote of the property owners
subject to the storm drainage fee; provided, however, that, without approval by a majority
vote of the property owners subject to the storm drainage fee, the maximum per square
foot rate for impervious area, commencing fiscal year 2010-2011, may be increased by an
amount equal to the change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers for the
area including San Mateo County (the “CPI”), including all items as published by the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics as of March 1st of each year, not to exceed a maximum
increase of two (2) percent per year.
(b) The storm drainage fee shall not be deemed to be increased in the event the
actual fee upon a parcel in any given year is higher due to an increase in the amount of the
impervious area of the subject parcel.
(c) In any year in which the city council does not change the rate per square foot of
impervious area, the previously adopted fee shall continue in full force and effect for the next
Storm Drainage Fee Adjustment April 17, 2017
2
fiscal year. Property owners whose storm drainage is increased/decreased as a result a change
in impervious area have appeal rights under Section 4.30.050.
(d) The city council shall not be required to enact an inflation increase in each year
but may accumulate the inflationary increases and enact the cumulative amount. (Ord. 1836 §
2, (2009))
DISCUSSION
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.bls.gov) data for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose,
CA metropolitan area is published bimonthly in even-numbered months: February, April, June,
August, October and December. The report published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as of
March 15, 2017 was the CPI report for February 2017, which indicated a CPI increase of 3.4%.
The ordinance caps the annual increase at 2.0%.
Last year’s adjustment (for FY 2016-17) of 2.0% was based on the February 2016 CPI of 3.0%.
FISCAL IMPACT
The increase of 2.0% in the storm drainage fee raises the rate charged per square foot of
impervious area from 4.792 cents to 4.888 cents effective July 1, 2017. The increase is
estimated to produce an additional $55,400, for estimated revenue of $2,825,200 in fiscal year
2017-18. The additional revenue will be included in the new City budget.
Fiscal Increase Rate Per
Year CPI Amount Square Ft.
FY 09-10 N/A N/A 0.04192$
FY 10-11 2.0%0.00084$ 0.04276$
FY 11-12 1.5%0.00064$ 0.04340$
FY 12-13 2.0%0.00087$ 0.04427$
FY 13-14 2.0%0.00089$ 0.04516$
FY 14-15 2.0%0.00090$ 0.04606$
FY 15-16 2.0%0.00092$ 0.04698$
FY 16-17 2.0%0.00094$ 0.04792$
FY 17-18 2.0%0.00096$ 0.04888$
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
ADJUSTMENTS TO STORM DRAINAGE FEE
Exhibits:
Resolution of the City of Burlingame Levying a Storm Drainage Fee on all Parcels in the
City of Burlingame for Fiscal Year 2017-18 and Directing that a List of the Storm
Drainage Fees For Burlingame Parcels be Provided to the County of San Mateo for
Placement on the 2017-18 Tax Bills
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Western Information Office, and
Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, All Urban Consumer,
February 2017 (dated March 15, 2017).
RESOLUTION NO._____
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME LEVYING A STORM DRAINAGE
FEE ON ALL PARCELS IN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017-
18 AND DIRECTING THAT A LIST OF THE STORM DRAINAGE FEES FOR
BURLINGAME PARCELS BE PROVIDED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO FOR
PLACEMENT ON THE 2017-18 TAX BILLS
RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME that:
WHEREAS, pursuant to, and in accordance with the provisions of, Article XIIID of the
California Constitution (Proposition 218) the City of Burlingame held a mail ballot election on
May 5, 2009 to consider the enactment of an annual storm drainage fee; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk certified the results to the City Council, the City Council
declared the storm drainage fee to be approved, and the City Council levied the storm drainage
fee on all parcels in Burlingame for fiscal year 2009-2010; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 4.30.030 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, the City
Council is required each fiscal year to determine the storm drainage fee for parcels in the City,
not to exceed the fee rate established by the electorate; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted by the electorate in the May 2009
election, the City Council may increase the storm drainage fee each fiscal year by the annual CPI
index for all urban consumers, San Francisco region, but not to exceed 2%; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 4.30.060 of the Burlingame Municipal Code the storm
drainage fee is to be collected through the County tax bills.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY DETERMINED and ORDERED that:
1. Pursuant to Chapter 4.30 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, the City Council
determines that the storm drainage fee for all parcels in the City of Burlingame for fiscal year
2017-18 shall be the same rate as fiscal year 2016-17, or $0.04792 plus an increase of 2.00% for
the annual CPI adjustment, for a total rate of $0.04888.
2. The City Manager, the Finance Director or designee, shall provide to the County of
San Mateo a list of storm drainage fees for all Burlingame parcels for fiscal year 2017-18, for
collection through the property tax bills. For those properties whose fees have been modified
pursuant to the appeal provisions of Chapter 4.30 prior to providing the County the list of
properties and fees, the approved modified fee shall be provided to the County and shall be
certified as correct by the Director of Public Works.
2
3. The City Manager is authorized to execute such documents as may be required by the
County of San Mateo to place the storm drainage fee on the tax bills
Ricardo Ortiz, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that
the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17th
day of April, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
WESTERN INFORMATION OFFICE: San Francisco, Calif.
Technical information: (415) 625-2270 BLSinfoSF@bls.gov www.bls.gov/regions/west
Media contact: (415) 625-2270
&RQVXPHU3ULFH,QGH[6DQ)UDQFLVFR$UHD²)HEUXDU\
Area prices were up 0.8 percent over the past two months, up 3.4 percent from a year ago
Prices in the San Francisco area, as measured by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-
U), rose 0.8 percent for the two months ending in February 2017, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported today. (See table A.) Assistant Commissioner for Regional Operations Richard Holden noted that
the February increase was influenced by higher prices for shelter, apparel, and gasoline. (Data in this report
are not seasonally adjusted. Accordingly, month-to-month changes may reflect seasonal influences.)
Over the last 12 months, the CPI-U rose 3.4 percent. (See chart 1 and table A.) Energy prices jumped 11.0
percent, largely the result of an increase in the price of gasoline. The index for all items less food and
energy advanced 3.6 percent over the year. (See table 1.)
Food
Food prices advanced 0.3 percent for the two months ending in February. (See table 1.) Prices for food away
from home rose 0.4 percent, and prices for food at home increased 0.2 percent for the same period.
Over the year, food prices moved down 0.2 percent. Prices for food at home decreased 3.3 percent since a
year ago, but prices for food away from home increased 3.4 percent.
For Release: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 17-332-SAN
2
Energy
The energy index rose 2.8 percent for the two months ending in February. The increase was mainly due to
higher prices for gasoline (6.2 percent). Prices for natural gas service declined 2.7 percent, and electricity
prices decreased 0.2 percent for the same period.
Energy prices jumped 11.0 percent over the year, largely due to higher prices for gasoline (19.2 percent).
Prices paid for natural gas service advanced 6.3 percent, and prices for electricity rose 1.1 percent during
the past year.
All items less food and energy
The index for all items less food and energy rose 0.8 percent in the latest two-month period. Higher prices
for apparel (6.4 percent), household furnishings and operations (1.0 percent), and shelter (0.9 percent) were
partially offset by lower prices for education and communication (-1.1 percent) and medical care (-0.6
percent).
Over the year, the index for all items less food and energy advanced 3.6 percent. Components contributing
to the increase included shelter (6.4 percent) and apparel (2.3 percent). Partly offsetting the increases were
price declines in education and communication (-3.0 percent) and household furnishings and operations
(-2.3 percent).
The April 2017 Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose is scheduled to be
released on May 12, 2017.
Technical Note
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a measure of the average change in prices over time in a fixed market
basket of goods and services. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes CPIs for two population groups: (1)
a CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) which covers approximately 89 percent of the total population and
(2) a CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) which covers 28 percent of the total
population. The CPI-U includes, in addition to wage earners and clerical workers, groups such as
professional, managerial, and technical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the unemployed,
and retirees and others not in the labor force.
The CPI is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, and fuels, transportation fares, charges for doctors' and
dentists' services, drugs, and the other goods and services that people buy for day-to-day living. Each
month, prices are collected in 87 urban areas across the country from about 4,000 housing units and
Table A. San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose CPI-U bi-monthly and annual percent changes (not seasonally
adjusted)
Month
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Bi-
monthly Annual Bi-
monthly Annual Bi-
monthly Annual Bi-
monthly Annual Bi-
monthly Annual Bi-
monthly Annual
February.................................. 1.1 3.0 1.3 2.4 1.2 2.4 1.0 2.5 0.9 3.0 0.8 3.4
April ......................................... 0.9 2.1 0.8 2.4 1.2 2.8 1.1 2.4 0.7 2.7
June......................................... 0.3 2.6 0.5 2.6 0.7 3.0 0.6 2.3 0.6 2.7
August ..................................... 0.6 2.8 0.1 2.0 0.0 3.0 0.3 2.6 0.7 3.1
October.................................... 0.7 3.2 0.2 1.6 0.5 3.2 0.4 2.6 0.9 3.6
December................................ -1.4 2.2 -0.4 2.6 -0.9 2.7 -0.3 3.2 -0.3 3.5
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: April 17, 2017
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 17, 2017
From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager – (650) 558-7243
Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307
Subject: Discussion and Direction Regarding the Burlingame School District’s
Request for the City to Contribute to the Cost to Re-turf Franklin and Osberg
Fields
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council discuss the Burlingame School District’s request for the City to
contribute to the cost to re-turf Franklin and Osberg Fields and provide direction.
BACKGROUND
At the February 27 City/Burlingame School District Liaison Committee meeting, the District
representatives told the City representatives that they wanted to re-turf Franklin and Osberg Fields
this summer and requested that the City contribute one-half the $2.9 million cost, or $1.45 million.
They also requested the City’s assistance in determining what lines should be painted on the field
in order to accommodate various field users. At the meeting, the City’s Liaison Committee members
expressed their surprise and concern at the request given the City’s own extensive list of unfunded
capital needs. The members did offer the assistance of a Parks and Recreation staffer who is well-
versed in the subject of painting lines on turf fields.
At a subsequent Liaison Committee meeting held on April 6, the District noted that the cost to re-
turf the fields is less than the $2.9 million cited earlier. The City requested that the District send the
City a written request for the Council’s consideration, along with any relevant background
information.
Under the revised proposal, which is contained in the attached presentation, the District Board of
Trustees has estimated a project cost of $2,091,955.80 to resurface the Franklin and Osberg Fields
this summer. The District believes that they could extend the life of the fields beyond the eight-
year warranty and absorb the increased cost associated with delaying the project by two years. If
the fields are resurfaced in the summer of 2019, the District estimates that construction escalation
could add an additional $360,481.12 to the cost, for a project total cost of $2,452,436.92
The District Board of Trustees is asking the City to consider contributing towards the cost of
resurfacing these fields in the next two years. Based on its current estimate of project costs, the
District requests that the City contribute either $400,977.90 in 2017, or $581,217.46 in 2019. The
Returfing of Franklin and Osberg Fields April 17, 2017
2
District derived these numbers by taking one-half the cost of the project and subtracting fees paid
by the City to the District for fields, enrichment, and rentals since the installation of the fields.
The District also would like the City to consider establishing a fund to save toward 50% of the cost
of replacing the next set of fields sometime between 2027 and 2029. That cost is estimated at $3.4
to $3.7 million.
DISCUSSION
The City and the District have a long history of collaboration; the earliest known agreement between
the two agencies dates to 1942. A number of agreements have been negotiated and executed
since that time, including the most recent agreement, which was effective July 1, 2015 and expires
July 1, 2017. That agreement is attached to this report.
In February 2009, the District Board of Trustees voted to install turf fields at Franklin Elementary
School (Franklin Field) and Burlingame Intermediate School (Osberg Field) using funding from
Measure A, a 2007 bond measure. The fields were installed in late 2009 and early 2010, with use
of the fields commencing April 24, 2010.
Pursuant to the Joint Use Agreement between the City and the District, the City is responsible for
scheduling the use of Franklin and Osberg Fields by the District, City, nonprofit organizations, and
other users during all non-school hours. Non-school hours include after school but before dark as
there are no lights, on weekends, and during school vacation periods. “Validated Youth User
Organizations” (i.e., AYSO, Burlingame Soccer Club, Burlingame Girls Softball, Burlingame Youth
Baseball Association, etc.) pay for the use of the District’s two fields and the City’s 14 fields
according to a fee schedule established by the City that looks at both the total number of players
(non-residents pay a higher rate than residents do) and the hours of use. The City has spent a
number of hours painstakingly negotiating the field use allocations among these groups.
The Validated Youth User Organizations are community based non-profit groups that serve
Burlingame School District students as well as students from Our Lady of Angels, St. Catherine of
Siena, Mercy High School, and other local schools. Neither the City nor the District sponsors these
organizations; they are independent of both agencies.
Since the City is responsible for scheduling all of the fields, the City collects the fees for all non-
District use of all fields (District and City) by Validated Youth User Organizations and splits them
evenly between the City and the District after the first $50,000, which is retained by the City. This
formula is contained in the Joint Use Agreement.
According to City staff’s calculations, in FY 2015-16, the Validated Youth User Organizations used
the City’s fields 5,610 hours and the District’s fields 3,100 hours, or 64% and 36% of the total time,
respectively.
The following chart shows the history of fees collected from Validated Youth User Organizations
for use of the District’s fields and the City’s fields beginning in FY 2010-11, the first full fiscal year
after the installation of the turf fields, through the last completed fiscal year, FY 2015-16. (Note that
Returfing of Franklin and Osberg Fields April 17, 2017
3
the City increased the per player and per hours fees in FY 2013-14, which accounts for at least
some of the increase in FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16). According to the City’s records, the District
has received approximately $260,000 from the arrangement described above as of the end of FY
2015-16.
2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Totals
Tot. per player/per
hr. fees $105,446 $110,004 $126,686 $132,244 $164,823 $180,688 $813.890
City's management
fee $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $300,000
Balance to be split
50/50 $55,446 $60,004 $76,686 $82,244 $114,823 $130,688 $519,890
City's 50% + $50K $77,723 $80,002 $88,343 $91,122 $107,412 $115,344 $559,945
District's 50% $27,723 $30,002 $38,343 $41,122 $57,412 $65,344 $259,945
Groups that are not considered Validated Youth User Organizations as described above can rent
the District’s turf fields, subject to availability; these groups are charged a fee set by the District.
The City collects these monies on the District’s behalf and remits them to the District, minus a 10%
handling fee. This formula is also contained in the Joint Use Agreement. The chart below shows
the field rental fees for the past six fiscal years, as well as the split between the City (10%) and the
District (90%).
2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Totals
Field rental fees $3,675 $4,830 $8,930 $8,070 $5,775 $9,990 $41,270
City management
fee (10%) $368 $483 $893 $807 $578 $999 $4,127
District total (90%) $3,308 $4,347 $8,037 $7,263 $5,198 $8,991 $37,143
Turf fields can last ten or more years if they are properly maintained through brushing, aerating,
raking, and sweeping the surface and infill top dressing. The Burlingame High School field that was
installed in 2001, for example, was replaced in 2011.
The Franklin and Osberg Fields opened for play in April 2010. Due to high use at certain times and
insufficient maintenance, they are nearing the end of their useful life. In addition, both fields have
crumb rubber infill, which may or may not create a health hazard. (Various governmental agencies
are studying the matter.) For these reasons, the District wishes to re-turf the two fields, at a cost of
$2.1 million.
As the City Council is aware, the City plans to turf Murray Field during the next fiscal year, at an
estimated cost of $1.75 million. Funding for this purpose has been included in the City’s proposed
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget for FY 2017-18, which will be brought to the Council
for approval in June (see attached). Staff selected Murray Field as the site of the City’s first turf
field as this facility is highly used by the community, and it has lights that allow for use into the
evening hours. By turfing this field, the City will ensure even greater use of the facility as it will not
Returfing of Franklin and Osberg Fields April 17, 2017
4
need to be shut down for annual maintenance in August as well as during the rainy season
(generally November through February) and for several days after rain storms at other times of
year in order to maintain a safe playing surface. Subject to Council approval, staff estimates that a
revamped Murray Field can be open for play as early as March 2018.
District Request
As discussed above, the District has requested that the City contribute to the cost of replacing
Franklin and Osberg Fields. At the February City/District liaison committee meeting, the City
representatives noted their belief that the District’s share of the field fees collected from the use of
both the City’s and District’s fields, along with any rental fees collected from the District’s fields and
future District bond funds, were to be used to replace the turf fields. (The District’s Board of Trustees
discussed the use of Measure M bond funds for the turf replacement at t heir January 31, 2017
meeting. The Trustees voted at that meeting to ask both the City and the Peninsula Health Care
District to help fund the turf replacement.)
As of the end of the last fiscal year, the City’s records show the combined total of funds from the
Validated Youth User Organizations and the rentals of the two District fields amounted to just under
$300,000. Unfortunately, the District staff confirmed at the February meeting that the District has
not set these funds aside for turf replacement. However, the District’s revised contribution proposal
credits these funds, as well as revenues received from enrichment programs, against the requested
one-half contribution toward the replacement of the fields.
In considering the District’s request, the City Council should determine if it wishes to contribute any
funding to the upcoming replacement of the District’s fields and if so, how much and over what time
period. The Council may also wish to discuss whether it wants to assist with any type of funding for
the future replacement of the fields that will be installed soon, either in addition to providing funding
for the 2017/2019 replacement or instead of providing that funding.
Should the Council wish to provide funding this summer, then City staff will need to return at a later
date with recommendations as to which City capital projects to defund or postpone in order to
provide this money to the District. Alternatively, the Council could choose to use General Fund
reserves for this purpose.
FISCAL IMPACT
No funds are currently allocated for this purpose, nor are any programmed in the FY 2017-18 CIP.
Exhibits:
Burlingame School District presentation
Joint Use Agreement between the City of Burlingame and the Burlingame School District
FY 2017-18 Draft General Fund Capital Improvement Program
Measure M Implementation Plan materials from January 31, 2017 Board of Trustees meeting
City of Burlingame
Partnership
Purpose of Presentation
To propose a partnership with the City to share
in the cost of resurfacing the Franklin and BIS
artificial turf fields that service the Burlingame
Community
Burlingame School District -April 17, 2017
District Artificial Turf Fields
The School District has
two (2) artificial grass
fields, both installed
November 2009 with
construction
completing April 2010
Burlingame School District -April 17, 2017
District Artificial Turf Fields
Burlingame School District -April 17, 2017
District Artificial Turf Fields
Burlingame School District -April 17, 2017
District Artificial Turf Fields
Burlingame School District -April 17, 2017
District Artificial Turf Fields
Burlingame School District -April 17, 2017
•Natural grass fields have an expected life use
of 600 annual hours, while our Artificial Turf
fields can have use up to 3000 hours
•Artificial Turf fields were installed in response
to input from community groups for extended
hours of use
Intention of Artificial Turf Fields
Burlingame School District -April 17, 2017
•The initial project cost in 2009 for these fields was
$2,516,061.29
•The Industry Standard is an eight year pro-rated
warranty on turf materials
•Next week the fields enter into their 8th year of
warranty
•The field life can be extended two years by enrolling in
service agreements. This could delay installation to
await funding sources
District Artificial Turf Fields
Burlingame School District -April 17, 2017
History of Joint Use Agreement
City contributed to partnership
•Uncharged Water Fees for BIS and Franklin
•Maintenance of grass play fields at Roosevelt and
McKinley
•In lieu of storm drain fees BSD Property exchange
•Garbage collection on weekends when used by
non school district community and commercial
use
Burlingame School District -April 17, 2017
BSD contributed to partnership
•Use of gyms, blacktops, and facilities for Park and
Recreation Community Programs
•Grant the City exclusive programming of school
enrichment
•Grant the City priority use and scheduling of fields
•Office and storage for Park and Rec program at BIS
•Equipment use for city holiday events
Burlingame School District -April 17, 2017
History of Joint Use Agreement
Fees Paid to District
For field use, the city collects all rental fees from
community users for city and BSD fields
•Park and Rec collects all community use revenue
and the City, keeps first $50,000, and splits the
remaining balance of revenue (50/50). This
averages approximately $60,000 paid to the
district annually for the use of BIS and Franklin
Fields
Burlingame School District -April 17, 2017
Fees Paid to District
For field use, the city collects all rental fees from
commercial users for BSD fields and gyms
•Park and Rec collects all revenue from
commercial renters, and pays the school district
90% of commercial use revenue. This averages
approximately $8,000 paid to the district annually
for the use of BIS, Franklin Fields, and gyms
Burlingame School District -April 17, 2017
Fees Paid to District
For enrichment program, Park and Rec collects all
revenue from community and provides after school
enrichment programs at all seven (7) district school
sites using classrooms, gyms, fields and blacktops at
no charge
•City pays the district 10% of revenue. This
averages approximately $40,000 paid to the
district annually
Burlingame School District -April 17, 2017
Fees Paid to District
Approximate fees paid to BSD since fields installed
•Fields: $360,000
•Enrichment: $240,000
•Commercial: $ 45,000
•Total: $645,000
Burlingame School District -April 17, 2017
•The District Board of Trustees has budgeted a
project cost of $2,091,955.80 to resurface
these fields Summer 2017
•If fields are resurfaced summer 2019,
construction escalation could add an
estimated $360,481.12 to the cost for a
project total budget of $2,452,436.92
District Artificial Turf Fields
Burlingame School District -April 17, 2017
The District Board of Trustees tonight is asking:
•The City to consider contributing towards the
cost of resurfacing these fields in the next two
years
•The City to consider establishing a fund to save
toward 50% of the future replacement in 2027-
2029 of between $3.4 and $3.7 million
Partnership Contribution
Burlingame School District -April 17, 2017
Partnership Contribution
Cost Impacts to BSD
Annual Turf Maintenance Contract (going forward)*$15,000 +/-
Annual Refinish Hardwood Gym Floors *$32,000 +/-
Custodial Services for facility use $50 / Hour
50% Project cost to resurface field summer 2017 *$1,045,977.90
or
50% Project cost to resurface field summer 2019 *$1,226,218.46
*Estimate only,actual revenues and cost may vary
Burlingame School District -April 17, 2017
Partnership Contribution
Cost Impacts to City
50% Project cost to resurface field summer 2017 *$1,045,977.90
City Revenue to date *($645,000.00)
2017 Partnership City Contribution *$400,977.90
or
50% Project cost to resurface field summer 2019 *$1,226,218.46
City Revenue to date *($645,000.00)
2019 Partnership City Contribution *$581,217.46
*Estimate only,actual revenues and cost may vary
Burlingame School District -April 17, 2017
Partnership Contribution
Cost Impacts to Each Partner in 10 years
Field Resurface in 10 years 2027 -Initial Budget**$3,407,575.56
50% Project cost to resurface field 2027 *$1,703,787.78
50% 10 year annual contributions *$170,378.78
or
Field Resurface in 10 years 2029 -Initial Budget**$3,756,852.06
50% Project cost to resurface field 2029 *$1,878,426.03
50% 10 year annual contributions *$187,842.60
*More detailed cost estimates to follow with staff
Burlingame School District -April 17, 2017
Questions please contact:
Maggie MacIsaac Ed.D, Superintendent
mmacisaac@burlingameschools.org
FY2017-18 Draft General Fund Capital Improvement Program 3/15/2017
Projects Description Project Costs
Existing
Funds/Grants
FY-17-18 CIP
Requests
Draft
Recommendations
(in thousands)(in thousands)(in thousands)(in thousands)
A Building Facilities Improvements
1 City Hall - HVAC and Plumbing Improvements and Asbestos Abatement 5,200 - 5,200
2 Parks Corporation Yard Renovation 1,750 - 1,750
3 Carriage House Improvements 1,300 - 1,300
4 FS #35 HVAC, Roof Replacement and Living Quarters Improvements 1,200 450 750 750
5 Energy Efficiency Improvements 1,000 - 300 300
6
Recreation Center Roof Replacement, Fire Sprinklers and Emergency
Generator Improvements 900 - 900
7 Fire stations emergency generators upgrade project (FS 34, 35 and 36)700 - 150 150
8 Donnelly Parking Garage Deck Coating 575 70 505
9 FS #36 Foundation Rehabilitation 350 - 350
10 FS #34 Roof Replacement and HVAC upgrades 300 - 300
11 PW Corporation Yard Roof Repairs 210 - 210
12 Fuel Pump Station Improvements at Corp Yard 200 - 200 100
13 Library Basement Flood Protection Improvements 200 - 200
14 Easton Library HVAC Improvements 115 - 115
15 Building Facilities ADA Improvements 100 - 100 100
Building Facilities Improvements Total 14,100 520 12,330 1,400
B Bicycle, Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Improvements
1 California Drive Class I Bike/Ped Track Project (Long Term Solution)10,000 - - -
2 California Drive Class II Bike Lane Project (Near Term Solution)500 - 500 500
3 Broadway Grade Separation Project (PA/ED Phase)4,350 4,350 - -
4 Sidewalk Repairs Program and ADA improvements 1,000 1,000 - -
5 Hoover School Sidewalk Improvements (local match for federal grant)900 700 200 200
6 Broadway Pedestrian Lighting (local matching funds for federal grant)900 720 180 180
7 Residential Traffic Calming Program 100 - 100 100
8 Bike Boulevards Implementation Feasibility Study 70 - 70 70
Bicycle, Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Improvements Total 17,820 6,770 1,050 1,050
C Parks & Recreation Improvements
1 Murray Synthetic Turf Installation Project 2,200 450 1,750 1,750
2 Burlingame High School Aquatic Center Pool Deck Replacement Project 1,200 - 1,200 90
3 Ray Park Playground Upgrade 800 372 428 428
4 Burlingame Square Improvements 600 140 460
5 Paloma Park Playground - Fire Damage Replacement 325 - 325 325
6 City Parks Master Plan 275 - 275 275
7 Washington Park Restroom Replacement 250 250 250
8 Bay Trail Fitness Equipment Upgrade.150 - 150
9 Playground Repairs and Trees Planting 60 60 60
10 Playground Resilient Surfacing Repairs 50 - 50 50
Parks & Recreation Improvements Total 5,910 962 4,948 3,228
D Finance
1 New Financial System 200 - 200 200
Finance 200 - 200 200
E Police
1 Digital portable radio replacement 80 - 80 80
2 Police Dispatch Furniture Upgrades 80 - 80 80
Police 160 - 160 160
F City Clerk
1 Electronic Records Management System 250 - 250 250
City Clerk 250 250 250
Total 38,440 8,252 18,938 6,288