HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2018.04.02\-
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda - Final
City Council
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Monday, April 2, 2018 7:00 PM Council Chambers
b
CLOSED SESSION - 6:15 p.m. - Conference Room A
a. Approval of the Closed Session Aqenda
Closed Session Communitv Forum: Members of the Public Mav Address the Council on
anv ltem on the Closed Session Aqenda at this Time
Adiournment into Closed Session
Conference with Real Propertv Neqotiators: (Government Code Section 54956.8)
Prooertv: 1200 Old Bavshore Hiohwav. Burlinqame. APN No.026-142-130
Aqency Neqotiators: Syed Murtuza, CarolAuoustine, Lisa Goldman. Mazarin Vakharia
Neootiatino Parties: San Mateo Countv T it Authority and Citv of Burlinoame Under
c.
d.
\-
Neqotiation: Price and terms
Note: Public comment is permitted on all action iferns 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 "requestto 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 adjustthe time limit in
light of the number of anticipated speakers.
All votes are unanimous unless separately noted for the record.
1. GALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGTANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL GALL
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
6. PRESENTATIONS
a. Proclamation Honorinq Charles Voltz
\-
City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 3/29/2018
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final April 2, 2018
1
a.
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 tocal agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any mafter
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 consenf calendar.
Adootion of Citv Council Meetinq Minutes March 14. 2018
Attachments: Meetinq Minutes
b. Adoption of Citv CouncilMeetino Minutes March 19.2018
Attachments: Meetino Minutes
Adootion of an Ordinance Amendinq Chaoter 13.52 of the Burlinqame Municipal Code
Reoardinq Requlation of Bicvcles
Attachments: Staff RePort
Prooosed Ordinance
d.Adoption of a Resolution Authorizino the Citv Manaoer to Execute an Amendment to the
Aqreement for Professional Services With Group 4 Architecture & Planninq lnc.
Attachments: Staff RePort
Resolution
Grouo 4 2nd Amendment
e.Adoption of a Resolution Approvino the Final Subdivision Map (PM 17-05), Lot Merqer
and Subdivision at 1028 Carolan Avenue
Attachments: Staff Reoort
Resolution
Final Subdivision Map
[/av 26 2015 Planning Commission Minutes
Conditions of Aoproval for Condominium Permit
c.
a
City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 3/29/2018
City Council Meeting Agenda. Final April 2,2018
ition
Neiqhborhood Sewer Rehabilitation P iect Phase 2. Citu Proiect No. 8419'l
AlTachments:Staff Reoort
Resolution
Final Proqress Pavment
Proiect Location Mao
on Acce tn the Ea nAd P rk Su nd
s a Resol
the Hillside and Skvview Reservoirs Exterior Coatinq Proiect. Citv Proiect No. 82780. and
Authorizino the Citv lVlan er to Execute the Contract
atlachments:Staff Reoo(
Resolution
Bid Summarv
Construction Aoreement
Proiect Location lrap
h. AdoDtion of a Resolution Approvinq 018-19 Street Resurfacinq Proiect to Complv
with Senat Bi (SB) 1
Atlachtuenls:Staff Reoort
Resolution
Proiect Location lvlao
Dtion of a Resolution of Su DDort for ProDosition 68. the Cal rnta D rouohl Wateri. Ado
Parks. Climate,tal Protection. and Outdoor Access for ofAII Act 2018
Atlachfienls:Staff Report
Resolution
j n aRe UN 201
Protectin To rrncnnrfAli^n Frnd< Fr m Rain.l T)h/crtc.l n.l .\hh^eiti^n t^ th6
November 20 18 Ballot Measure to Re S enate Bill 1
Staff Reoort
Resolution
Chart of San Mateo Countv SB 1 Fundino
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment)
City ot Budingane P nted on 3/29/201A
Gity Council Meeting Agenda - Final April 2,2018
-a.Public Hearino and Resolution of the Citv Council of the Citv of Burlinoame Adiustinq the
Storm Drainaqe Fee for Fiscal Year 2018-198v 2.0% Based On the CPI for the San
Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CAArea as Published March 14.2018
Attachments: Staff RePort
Resolution
CPI - Februarv 2018
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment)
a. Report from the State Lands Commission Communitv Meetinq
Attachments: Staff RePort
March 22. 2018 SLC Communitv Meetinq PowerPoint
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmembers repoft on committees and activities and make announcements.
a. Mayor Brownriqq's Committee Report
Attachments: Committee RePort
b. Vice Mavor Colson's Committee Report
Attachments: Committee Report
c. Councilmember Keiqhran's Committee Report
Atiachments: Committee Reoort
d. Councilmember Beach's Committee Report
Attachments: Committee Reoort
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking
Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission and Library Board of Irustees
are available online at vrww.burlingame.org.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at
(650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for
public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and
minutes are available at this srte.
City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 3/29/2018
-
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final April 2,2018
NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next regular City Councit Meeting -
Monday, April 16,2018
VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT www.burlingame.org/video - cO
TO "CIry COUNCIL VIDEOS"
Any writings or documents provided to a majorry of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda
will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office counter at City Ha at 501 Primrose
Road duing normal bus,ness hours.
tuinted on 3/29/2018
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 4/2/LB
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
2017 Mid-Year Budget Session on March 14,2018
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall
Council Chambers.
2. PLEDGE OFALLEG CE TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by Adrienne Leigh.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: NONC
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
No one spoke.
5. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a.ADOPTION OF A RESO LUTION AMENDING THE FY 2017.1 OPERATING AND -
CAPITAL BUDGETS TO REFLECT THE RECOMMENDED MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS
Finance Director Augustine explained that the purpose of the mid-year budget study session is to: inform the
Council and the public about the status of the City's finances; update the budget based on expenditure and
revenue projections; and provide a more precise fiscal forecast for FY 2018-19.
Finance Director Augustine explained that the annual budget is adopted prior to the completion of the current
fiscal year. Therefore, one of the biggest factors in the mid-year adjustments is the audit of the previous
year's budget. She noted that as a result of the completion of the audit, revenues are now projected to come
in}.2oh higher than anticipated in the FY 2017-18 adopted budget.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
March 14,2018
1
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date 2 4/2/Lg
Finance Director Augustine discussed the big three sources of revenue for the City: property tax, sales tax
and TOT. She stated that property tax is expected to be $961,000 (approximately So/o)better than the
adopted budget. She stated that this is mostly the result of the ERAF refund.
Next, she explained that the City continues to have a strong sales tax base. Automobile and transportation-
related sales continue to be the major source of sales tax revenue. She stated that the sales and use tax
actuals are expected to be on target, with the adopted budget about lo/ohigher than last year.
Councilmember Keighran asked why Burlingame's sales tax revenue is not increasing at the same pace as
the County. Finance Director Augustine replied that sales tax revenue is loh higher than last year. She noted
that staff expected that it would decrease from last year because the City's sales tax revenue is concentrated
in auto sales. She explained that auto sales have been leveling off throughout the country since the third
quarter of 2017. She stated that an additional factor was that a major consumer goods store closed for six
months.
Finance Director Augustine stated that TOT is expected to be $529,000 (approximately 2oh)better than the
adopted budget. She explained that TOT is a precursor of future economic trends, so it is carefully watched
by staff.
Finance Director Augustine stated that as part of the mid-year analysis of the General Fund, all of the
departments were asked to review their budget and note any discrepancies. She explained that there were not
a lot of requests for expenditure adjustments as funding for most unanticipated needs was found within each
department's budget. Expenditure adjustments for the General Fund equaled $575,000, or lo/o of the budget.
She stated that the adjustments include a few large items like improvements to the Broadway Business
District and funding of Burlingame School District storm drain fees. She noted that transfers out include the
$350,000 to assist in resurfacing the Burlingame School District turf f,relds.
Finance Director Augustine stated that the Section 115 Pension Trust ("PARS" - Public Agency Retirement
Services) funding also impacts the proposed transfers out. She explained that the PARS contributions are a
transfer of the City's available cash to another asset, and contributions to the trust can't be recorded as
current-year expenditures. As a result, the transfers out from the various funds for contributions to the
pension trust account must be reversed. The PARS contributions won't impact total fund balance but will be
reflected as a restricted fund balance. She added that unless the City pays CaIPERS directly, the funds aren't
expenditures.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that PARS contributions work similar to pension obligation bonds. She explained
that the pension obligation bond funds were transferred to CaIPERS, which reduced the City's liability with
CaIPERS, but the liability remains on the City's balance sheet.
Mayor Brownrigg asked why the City treats the pension restricted funds different than the City's
contributions to OPEB (Other Post-Employment Benefits). Finance Director Augustine replied that OPEB is
set up as a separate trust, and it's the City's own obligation.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
2
March 14,2018
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 4/2/LB
Mayor Brownrigg asked if there was a single chart that shows the commitments the City is making in terms
of reserving capital against employee costs. Finance Director Augustine replied that there isn't a single chart
because the obligations are to separate entities.
Next, Finance Director Augustine reviewed the chart on page 13 of the staff report. The chart shows the
City's projected General Fund balance as a result of the proposed adjustments. She explained that the chart
outlines FY 2016-11 actual fund balance and the FY 2017-I8 projected balance based on proposed
adjustments. She stated that in the original budget, staff predicted a budgetary deficit of $ 1 .6 million, which
was a conscious decision based on PARS funding. She stated that by reversing the PARS transfer, the City
ends up with a projected surplus of $2 million.
Finance Director Augustine explained that the allocation of $3.1 million into PARS came from the General
Fund's unassigned fund balance. She noted that it is predicted that the unassigned fund balance will be
approximately $12.6 million at the end of this fiscal year. She stated that the unassigned fund balance is
available for appropriation in future fiscal years or at the Council's discretion.
Finance Director Augustine next discussed the City's unfunded needs including City facilities, storm drain
repairs, and sidewalk repairs.
Finance Director Augustine reviewed the next steps. She stated that staff is requesting Council adopt a
resolution to amend the FY 2017-18 adopted budget for estimated revenues and supplemental appropriations.
Additionally, staff is asking Council to approve a $75,000 appropriation for consulting assistance in the
development of standards for placement of future cell antennas on City-owned poles.
Mayor Brownrigg discussed the upcoming March l9 City Council meeting, where the Council would be
discussing plans for a new community center. He explained that while Measure I would be the main source
of funding, some assistance would be required from the General Fund. City Manager Goldman explained
that the proposal was to combine $1 million from the General Fund with Measure I funds to obtain an
approximately $30 million lease revenue bond.
Finance Director Augustine explained that the $1 million from the General Fund was in the five-year
forecast labeled as additional debt service. She stated that debt service is increased by $ I million for the next
five years, and the transfer to the Capital Improvement Reserve is reduced by $1 million.
Councilmember Keighran stated that the November ballot would include a measure to repeal SB l. She
asked if staff had a back-up plan in case the repeal passed. DPW Murtuza replied that the City's only option
would be Measure M funds that are already utilized. Accordingly, staff would have to decrease the City's
resurfacing program.
Vice Mayor Colson asked if the potential400 room SFO hotel was included in the City's TOT projections.
City Manager Goldman replied that staff reduced its TOT projection because of the SFO hotel. She added
that the potential new hotel in Burlingame was not factored into TOT projections. This is because staff
doesn't add a project into the forecast until the City receives a start date.
3
Burlingame City Council March 14,2018
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Iten 8a
Meeting Date:4/2/L8
Vice Mayor Colson thanked staff for taking a conservative approach to its estimation of TOT revenue.
Finance Director Augustine discussed the five-year forecast. She began by reviewing the summary of
economic indicators. She stated that a majority of the information was from HdL and Beacon Economics.
She explained that the economy is projected to stay robust for the next two years. The U.S. real GDP has a
growth of 2.3%o in 2018-19.
Finance Director Augustine reviewed the General Fund's major revenue sources over the next five years.
She stated that it is predicted that property tax revenues will increase .7o/o, and sales tax revenues will
decrease .7o/o. Inreviewing the property tax assumptions, she explained that residential property values will
remain high, and the County's inventories of properties for sale will remain relatively low. She noted that
one of the assumptions in the five-year forecast is a decline in the excess ERAF distribution. It is projected
that the ERAF distribution will decrease by $100,000 a year.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if the City should be more realistic in how it budgets for excess ERAF
distributions. Finance Director Augustine stated that the City takes a conservative approach as it is a
decreasing source. She added that for FY 2017-18, the City's ERAF contribution was $2.6 million, and the
City received an excess ERAF distribution of $ 1 .7 million.
Finance Director Augustine stated that the expected sales tax growth is 3.5% statewide, but the City is only
expecting 1% growth. She explained that generally, sales tax is a declining revenue source for cities because
of online retail. However, this decline hasn't shown up in the City as sales tax revenues remain strong.
Finance Director Augustine stated that the five-year forecast for TOT assumptions remain strong. She
explained that it is predicted that Bay Area tourism will remain high, allowing for continued high occupancy
rates at the hotels.
Mayor Brownrigg explained that several of the hotel owners mentioned that with the Moscone Center
coming back online, they are expecting a greater demand for their rooms
Finance Director Augustine reviewed the City's General Fund forecast. She explained that the expenditure
increase for salaries and wages is based on the effects of the current collective bargaining agreements. She
noted that the five-year forecast considers the $l million increase in debt service for the lease revenue bonds.
Finance Director Augustine next discussed the forecast for CaIPERS rates. She stated that the cost for
miscellaneous employees goes up an average of l4.6Yo a year for the next five years. For safety employees,
the cost increases an average of 160/o a year for the next five years. She noted that the CaIPERS discount rate
for FY 2017-18 is 7 .5oh, which will be lowered to 7o/o in2020-21.
Finance Director Augustine stated that the City will maintain a threshold rate of 37 .7o/o for miscellaneous
employees. This is because the City anticipates that rates will continue to increase for the next five years.
She reviewed a graph that showed the effects of the discount rate reduction on miscellaneous employees
through FY 2028-29. She explained that after FY 2028-29, the cost for miscellaneous employees levels off
4
Burlingame City Council March 14,2018
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: a/2/Lg
and then begins to decrease. She noted that l00oh funded status for miscellaneous employees is supposed to
be reached in2042.
Finance Director Augustine stated that the threshold rate for safety employees is76.9Yo. She stated that after
FY 2028-29, the rate continues to increase. She added that 100% funded status is projected to be reached in
204r.
Finance Director Augustine noted that while maintaining the threshold rates, if rates do decrease, the City
will put the additional funds into PARS.
Vice Mayor Colson asked if staff had run a projection to ensure that the 37%ois what is needed to sustain the
City through the bubble. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that by putting assets into the PARs fund, the City has control over asset
allocation. She explained that under CaIPERS, the City has to abide by CaIPERS' asset allocation and risk
profile.
Finance Director Augustine explained that City employees have agreed to cost-sharing agreements with the
City to assist in reducing pension costs.
Vice Mayor Colson asked how the City compares to other cities in relation to employees assisting with
employer contributions. Finance Director Augustine stated that she would need to get back to Council with
this information. City Manager Goldman added that there are a lot of variables involved; therefore it
wouldn't be a straightforward comparison.
Finance Director Augustine stated that employees also contribute to their healthcare costs, and the retiree
medical program was closed to new employees beginning in Novembet 2011.
Vice Mayor Colson asked where pension payments show up on the General Fund forecast. Finance Director
Augustine stated that the City's payments to CaIPERS are seen in expenditures, and the City's payments to
the PARS trust are transfers.
Finance Director Augustine explained that the General Fund forecast shows that the City's expenditures are
outpacing its revenues. She added that because the City has conservative assumptions, it shouldn't be too
concerning.
Mayor Brownrigg discussed how the longer table in the handout breaks down the expenditure forecast. He
explained the expenditure forecast shows total expenditures growing by 25% and revenues growing by l4%.
He noted that what really jumped out to him was the 42oh growthin benefits. He asked if this was from the
exogenous assumptions and if it included OPEB contributions. Finance Director Augustine stated the OPEB
contributions aren't increasing and that the growth in benefits is the result of the pensions, healthcare rates,
and other factors. City Manager Goldman added that Finance Director Augustine and HR Director
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
5
March 14,2018
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 4/2/LB
Morrison have made presentations to staff and labor groups to discuss pension challenges so that everyone is
on the same page.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that she reviewed old staff reports and calculated what the numbers are for the
pension contribution. She explained that in FY 2016-17, the pension contribution for miscellaneous
employees was $5.2 million and that the required contribution increases to $10.6 million in2023. She noted
that the contribution for safety employees goes from $2 million to approximately $4 million. Therefore, in
five years, the City will experience a 100% increase in pension contributions.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment.
Mayor Brownrigg closed the public comment.
Mayor Brownrigg noted that staff is asking for direction on a few questions:
. does the Council want to consider additional options for pension funding;
o does the Council want to add additional funding to the Capital Investment Reserve; and
o does the Council want to consider funding for unfunded needs.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if the first question was about additional PARS funding. Finance Director
Augustine stated that this is one option for pension funding. She added that the Council could also choose to
make additional payments directly to CaIPERS.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if PARS acted as a reserve for future CaIPERS contributions. Finance Director
Augustine replied in the affirmative.
City Manager Goldman explained that the base question is would the Council like to put additional funds
towards pensions. She explained that often at the mid-year budget study session, Council approves an
additional fund allocation to the Capital Investment Reserve. However, this year, staff is asking whether the
Council wants to allocate funds towards pensions; allocate funds to the Capital Investment Reserve; or a
combination.
Councilmember Beach stated that the City is fortunate to be in a strong fiscal position. She thanked the
voters for passing Measure I which will allow for continued efforts to repair streets and sidewalks. She
explained that she would hate to see the City pull back significantly on funding the Capital Investment
Reserve as construction costs are rising and the City has facility needs and the Broadway Grade Separation
project looming. However, she explained that she also wanted to see the City allocate additional funds
towards pensions during strong financial times. She stated that she would rely on her colleagues' expertise
on whether the additional funds are put in PARS or sent to CaIPERS.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
6
March 14,2018
Burlingame resident Adrienne Leigh, secretary of BPAC, voiced her support of the staff s recommendation
in the CIP to update the Bicycle Master Plan.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: a/2/LB
Mayor Brownrigg asked what the total number the Council has to allocate to different funds. Finance
Director Augustine stated that it is approximately $3.3 million. She explained that this is the amount that
was put in the Capital Investment Reserve last year.
Councilmember Beach suggested that Council consider putting the excess ERAF refund of $1.7 million
towards pensions. She stated that the City shouldn't expect an ERAF refund every year and that the refund
will diminish in the future.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if the Council should hear DPW Murtuza's presentation on the Capital
Improvement projects for next year prior to recommending how best to divide the surplus funds. City
Manager Goldman stated that staff is recommending a huge CIP program of $7.8 million from the General
Fund. She explained that it is a large amount of projects and that it is what the staff feels best equipped to
accomplish this coming year. Therefore, the allocation of additional funds would be put into the Capital
Investment Reserve for future projects.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if the Capital Investment Reserve is the equivalent of a restricted fund but for
capital improvements. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if the funds are coming out of the unrestricted fund balance, why only $3.3 million.
Finance Director Augustine explained that the suggestion of $3.3 million was to be consistent with the prior
year's recommendation.
City Manager Goldman stated that the City should maintain some level of unassigned fund balance to cover
the unexpected.
Councilmember Beach stated that she would still like to see a significant chunk of the $3.3 million go into
the Capital Investment Reserve. She suggested adding a little more money to the $3.3 million because the
economy is strong and putting $3 million in the Capital Investment Reserve and $1 million towards pensions.
Vice Mayor Colson agreed that capital improvements are at least as important as the pensions. She
explained that the pensions are a long-term obligation, and it's going to be amortized over the next 18-20
years. She stated that what she is really concemed about is the rapidly increasing costs of capital
improvements. She noted that she believes the community center is going to cost more than budgeted.
Therefore, she stated that keeping funds flexible in the Capital Investment Reserve is important.
Vice Mayor Colson asked when the pension obligation bonds will be paid off. Finance Director Augustine
replied that she believed it was 2034.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that the City has been steadily paying the pension obligation bonds off for the past
decade. She explained that the debt service obligation on the bonds is dropping dramatically; therefore the
City could take the delta and put that towards PARS.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
7
March 14,2018
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: A/2/LB
Councilmember Ortiz stated he liked Vice Mayor Colson's suggestion. He recommended that the City
allocate an additional $1 million to PARS for the mid-year and put the remaining $2.3 million in the Capital
Investment Reserve.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she wanted to ensure funding for the Capital Investment Reserve
because of the increased costs of construction.
Vice Mayor Colson discussed the funding of PARS. She explained that if the Council puts additional
funding in it now and later the economy crashes or TOT goes down, then the City has gotten ahead of
CaIPERS payments. She noted that when the City gets to a point where equilibrium is reached, the Council
can determine if they want to continue allocating funds to PARS.
Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to adopt the resolution to approve the amended budget with the
following additions: 1) $75,000 for the wireless antenna study; 2) $1 million to PARS; and 3) $2.3 million to
the Capital lnvestment Reserve; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by
voice vote, 5-0.
b. REVIEW Otr'DRAF"T F'T 2018.19 GENERAL FUND. GAS TAX. MEASURE A. MEASURE I.
MEASURE M. AND SENATE BILL (SB 1) FUNDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM (CIP)
DPW Murtuza stated that staff is recommending $9.28 million in projects under the Capital Improvement
Program for next fiscal year. He explained that $6.84 million is from the General Fund, $ 1.865 is from gas
tax, SB 1, and Measure M funds, and $75,000 is estimated in Measure I projects. He noted that staff
received a total of $7.14 million in CIP requests.
DPW Murtuza discussed the proposed Parks and Recreation CIP projects including: Victoria playground,
pool deck improvements, and BSD synthetic turf replacement fund.
Councilmember Keighran asked for the total cost of the pool deck replacement and resurfacing project.
DPW Murtuza stated that the total cost was $1.2 million, with the City's contribution being $600,000.
Vice Mayor Colson noted that the Washington Park parking lot resurfacing project would not interfere with
the construction of a new community center. She explained that staff was recommending that the parking lot
adjacent to BHS be resurfaced.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was surprised by the cost of a batting cage. Parks and Recreation Director
Glomstad stated she wasn't convinced that the $100,000 was enough. She stated that she had talked to
BYBA and BGS about backfilling any shortage.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if it was staff s intention to replace the existing batting cage. Parks and Recreation
Director replied in the affirmative.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
8
March 14,2018
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: A/2/LB
Councilmember Beach asked for an elaboration on the vision for the Murray Playground removal and
installation of grass. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that it wasn't a complete vision yet.
She explained that the playground is old, and staff has received interest in replacing the playground with
grass. She stated that it is challenging because it is on top of the landfill cap and is raised. She added that
staff would be hiring consultants to determine how best to utilize those areas.
Councilmember Beach stated that if the City does lose that playground, she would like to see non-
programmed space created for children at Murray.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if the Bay Trail fitness equipment was located by the Marriott. Parks and
Recreation Director Glomstad replied in the negative. It is on Airport Boulevard. She explained that staff
will be working with the Parks and Recreation Foundation to help fund the project.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that she appreciated that the City was setting aside funds to re-turf fields at BSD
and Murray after their current installations.
DPW Murtuza discussed the proposed building and facilities projects for next fiscal year. He explained that
a major project is the Police Station underground fuel tank. He stated that staff is requesting $400,000 for
this project. Additionally, he discussed the request for $100,000 to conduct ADA improvements at City
facilities.
Councilmember Keighran asked what City Hall acoustic improvements entail. DPW Murtuza explained that
the walls in the executive offices and conference rooms are thin. Therefore, this project will help to mask
confidential conversations that occur.
DPW Murtuza next discussed the bicycle, pedestrian, and traffic safety projects. He stated that staff is
requesting $500,000 for sidewalk and ADA improvements, of which $200,000 is from the General Fund and
$300,000 is from Measure I. Additionally, staff is requesting funds to undertake a Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan study. The study would be citywide and would act as a foundation document to apply for
grants.
DPW Murtuza next discussed the Lyon Hoag neighborhood traffic calming study. He explained that staff
will work with the community and identify improvements that are needed to help calm the traffic.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the EIR for the Peninsula Interchange Project would also study the Lyon
Hoag neighborhood. DPW Murtuza stated that the EIR will project future traffic conditions under the new
project.
Mayor Brownrigg explained that during the summer, the City would begin construction on its first
roundabout. However, he noted that in the last couple of weeks, he had two narrow misses at the intersection
in front of City Hall. He asked whether staff can include in an existing study or a new study whether this
intersection should be turned into a roundabout. DPW Murtuza explained that about ayear ago, there was a
study done that included analysis of how to improve the intersection. He stated that this resulted in the
9
Burlingame City Council March 14,2018
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: A/2/LB
installation of a number of stop signs. He added that there are a few small projects in the pipeline that will
also improve the intersection. However, he explained that a roundabout in front of City Hall would create a
number of unintended consequences. This is because of how the various legs of the intersection are situated.
City Manager Goldman stated that the intersection in front of City Hall would require its own study and an
allocation of funds.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if staff could get a determination of how much the study would cost. DPW Murtuza
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach added that she believed this study would be incredibly valuable. However, staff
needed to determine where it fits in the priority queue.
Councilmember Beach stated that she was excited about the bicycle, pedestrian, and traffic safety projects.
She noted her approval of the Master Plan and the projects that will arise from it.
DPW Murtuza talked about the proposed finance department software for $500,000 and reviewed the
requested Police Department improvements.
DPW Murtuza discussed the proposed green infrastructure improvements. He stated that staff is
recommending streetscape and storm water treatment improvements on Chapin Avenue. He explained that
the project would promote carbon sequestration, encourage ground water recharge, and enhance pedestrian
safety.
Councilmember Beach asked if staff anticipated receiving grants from the state to help fund green
infrastructure improvements. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Brownrigg asked why staff is choosing Chapin. DPW Murtuza stated that Chapin is an area with
water runoff from El Camino Real. It has impervious areas with a lot of hard surfaces. The state regulators
look for locations with impervious areas to do green infrastructure improvements. Additionally, Chapin was
one of the projects identified at the County level for potential state funding.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he would like to see improvements at the north end of El Camino Real, where it
widens in front of the hospital and Burlingameplaza. He noted that this is on Caltrans' land.
DPW Murtuza explained that with gas tax, SB-1, Measure A, I and M funds, the City will be resurfacing 17
streets next year. These streets are identified through a comprehensive effort that looks at the life of the
streets and projects what is needed.
Councilmember Beach asked staff to discuss the importance of SB 1 funds. DPW Murtuza explained that
the amount of money the City receives from gas tax has been stagnant for decades. Therefore, SB I funding
helps increase the City's ability to complete necessary street repairs and address the backlog. He explained
that if the City doesn't have SB 1 funding, the number of street repairs will decrease by approximately 25o/o.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
10
March 14,2018
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: A/2/LB
Finance Director Augustine added that in the first full year of the SB I program, the City will have close to
$ 1.3 million in funding to repair roads.
Mayor Brownrigg asked that the slide outlining which streets will be resurfaced and where the funding
comes from should be inserted in the City's e-newsletter.
Council noted that staff would be busy this coming year.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
11
March 14,2018
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 4/2/L8
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting on March 19r 2018
1. CALL ORDER
A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall
Council Chambers.
2.PLEDGE OF ALLEG TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by Rino Betti.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE
4. STUDY SESSION
a. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION REGARDING THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY
CENTER CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND NEXT STEPS
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad reviewed the background of the project. She explained that in
2012, staff in collaboration with Group 4 Architecture, the Citizens' Advisory Committee ("CAC"), and
community members began working on plans for a new community center in Washington Park. In 2014, the
City Council approved the Community Center Master Plan. Thereafter, the architects and CAC began
working on the conceptual plan which outlined the specifics of what the residents wanted in a new
community center. She introduced the Group 4 Architecture representatives, Dawn Merkes and Teresa Rom.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad showed the proposed community center site plan. She stated that
the building was shifted a little to the left to allow for parking next to the building. By doing this, the
playground and basketball court are also shifted. She stated that surfacing parking by the Lions Club gets
reduced a bit to accommodate the basketball court. She noted that the CAC and community members
stressed the importance of maintaining the trees and passive spaces of Washington Park.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
March 19,2018
I
Agenda Iterr 8b
Meeting Date: A/2/LB
Mayor Brownrigg asked if the playground would be the same size. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad
replied in the affirmative.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad explained that there are two parking options to meet the required
143 spaces for the community center. The first option is a combination of parking under the community
center and surface parking. The second option is a combination of surface parking and a half-level below
grade parking under the tennis courts.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad reviewed the four conceptual design options: 1) traditionally
influenced "Mission," 2) traditionally influenced "Arts and Crafts," 3) warm and inviting "Gables," and 4)
warrn and inviting "Pavilions in the Park". She stated that from these options, the two that rose to the top
were the "Mission" and the "Pavilions in the Park" designs. In 2015, Council reviewed these options and
chose the "Mission" design. She noted that the design has changed since then based on input from Council,
CAC, Planning Commission, and Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad showed different views of the Mission design including the entry
view from Burlingame Avenue and the entry from the park. All of these views and layouts of the proposed
project can be found in staff report exhibits. Next she reviewed the proposed first and second floor plans.
She explained that while the square footage of the building is only fractionally larger, staff is able to increase
programmable space by adding a second floor. She discussed the different spaces within the building
including a community hall, interior/exterior restrooms, maker's space, senior lounge, and many others.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad explained that the design would allow for more programming hours.
She noted that in the fall, staff would be able to increase programming from 180 hours per week to 420
hours. In the summer, staff would be able to increase programming from 420 hours a week to 600 hours.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad explained that under the current design, the community center
would be LEED gold certified. She stated that Council could decide whether they wanted the building to be
certified above or below this level. Additionally, she asked the Council to consider whether the building
should be zerc net energy ("ZNE"). A ZNE building is a building that produces as much energy as it
consumes by being extremely energy-efficient and generating onsite renewable energy.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad reviewed the budget. She explained that if the Council requested
both parking options (surface parking next to the building plus parking a half grade under the tennis courts
and parking under the building), it is estimated that the project would cost between $51.6 million and $56.9
million. She stated that if the Council chose only Option 1 for parking (under the building and surface
parking), the cost would be between $45.4 million and $49.6 million. Or if Council chose only Option2 for
parking (under the tennis courts and surface parking), the cost would be between $43.3 million and $47.5
million.
2
Burlingame City Councit March 19, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
Councilmember Keighran asked if the community hall could be partitioned into two rooms. Parks and
Recreation Director replied in the affirmative. She explained that the community hall could hold 300 people
and if partitioned, one side would hold 100, while the other would hold 200.
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: a/2/L8
Councilmember Keighran asked if the underground parking was the traditional style and whether staff had
considered car stackers. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad replied that it was traditional underground
parking and that they hadn't looked into car stackers. Group 4 architect Dawn Merkes stated that while car
stackers are great and efficient, it requires you to dig deeper underground.
Parks and Recreation Glomstad reviewed options to reduce the price of the new community center. She
explained that there were three factors to consider in reducing the cost of the project: costs in the Bay Area,
quality, and quantity. She noted that the City is in an area where building costs are expensive. She stated
that construction costs are expected to escalate on average 5o/o a year until 2020. Therefore, under the first
option they would not be able to reduce costs.
The second opportunity for cost reduction is quality. She stated that the current project is budgeted for civic
construction, with the building's life expectancy being 40 to 50 years. She explained that some value
engineering could be done which would result inl0o/o savings. Additionally, she stated that staff explored
the options of pre-engineered, prefabricated, and concrete tilt-up type buildings.
The third opportunity for cost reduction is quantity. She stated that staff created two cost reduction
proposals for Council to consider. The first is to limit the scope of work to the community center,
underground parking, and associated site work. She noted that this meant that the City would be limiting the
project to the east-side of the Lions Club. Under this option, the building and playground will stay the same
size, but the basketball court may need to be reduced to half court. The projected cost of this option is
between $38 million and $42 million. The second option is to reduce the buildingsize from 35,700 GSF to
32,000 GSF. Under this option, the City could do surface only parking, the playground remains the same
size, and the basketball court may need to be reduced to half court. Additionally, under this option, the
community center would lose the drop-off area inside the parking lot. The projected cost of this option is
between $30 million and $33 million.
Councilmember Beach asked if there were any concems about the water table and underground parking. Ms
Merkes replied that they anticipate the water table being higher and therefore the budget includes full
waterproofing of the underground parking lot.
Councilmember Keighran asked how often the current basketball court is utilized. Parks and Recreation
Director Glomstad replied that it is often utilized.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad discussed the next steps in the project. She explained that Council
has three options:
1. The City could proceed directly into schematic design based on Council's direction and input after
this discussion. Under this option no additional commission or community input is necessary. She
explained that staff didn't choose to do CEQA upfront because at that time the City didn't have
funding and didn't know when funding would be made available. However, she noted that CEQA
can be done concurrently with the schematic design. It is anticipated that this will be a mitigated
negative declaration but that it wouldn't delay the project.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
J
March 19,2018
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Datez A/2/Lg
2. Staff can update the current conceptual design plan based on Council's input. She stated that if
Council decides to reduce the buildingsize, Ms. Merkes will need to revise the plans. She noted that
this would take 3-4 months and cost approximately $50,000 in design and engagement fees.
3. Staff can revise the current conceptual design based on Council direction. She explained that this
option would take 6 months and cost approximately $100,000
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad reviewed the five questions staff is looking for City Council
direction on:
1. Does the Council wish to keep the current Conceptual Design or revise it?
2. What are the preferred cost reduction strategies?
- Limit project scope?
- Reduce building size?
3. What is the preferred parking option for the proposed Community Center?
- Underground?
- Surface?
- Under-court?
4. What is the estimated maximum funding for this project?
5. What are Council's thoughts on LEED or Zero Net Energy ("ZNE") goals for the project?
Mayor Brownrigg stated he was disappointed to learn that staff expects the process to take l8-20 months
without any of the additional studies required in the above options. He asked how conservative this estimate
was. Ms. Merkes replied that it is a conservative estimate of how long before the City breaks ground on the
project. She explained that typically construction documents take 12 months, and adding in plan check and
the bid process makes it 16-18 months.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if during the 12 months that construction documents are being finalized, CEQA is
also underway. Ms. Merkes replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that about a quarter of the costs are soft costs. He asked if staff had looked at
reducing these costs as opposed to other cost reduction measures. Ms. Merkes stated that the soft costs were
conservatively estimated. She added that design engineering fees for a building of this size are running I l-
l2o/o. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad added that the soft cost includes temporary facilities during
construction of the community center.
Councilmember Beach stated that under the second option for cost reduction, the size of the building would
be reduced by l)oh, which would decrease required parking spaces and therefore allow for surface parking
only. She asked if there was any scenario where you can reduce the footprint of the building and still have
underground parking. Ms. Merkes stated that they ran this option and the cost comes in at $34.9 million to
$38.9 million.
Councilmember Keighran asked how much money the City would save by going ZNE. Ms. Merkes stated
that she would need to get back to Council with this information.
4
Burlingame City Council March 19, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: A/2/LB
Vice Mayor Colson and Ms. Merkes discussed the photovoltaic panels that would be used to obtain ZNE.
Ms. Merkes stated that the photovoltaics panels would go on the roof of the building.
Councilmember Keighran stated in regards to future code updates, ZNE is most likely going to be required.
Ms. Merkes stated that this could happen and added that the current building code requirements is the
equivalent of LEED certified
Councilmember Ortiz asked what the photovoltaic panels look like. Ms. Merkes stated that they are concrete
tiles.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment.
Burlingame resident Charles Voltz discussed future parking needs as a result of technological advancements
and stressed the importance of a drop-off area.
Burlingame resident Linda Field asked where staff would be parking at the new site. She voiced her concern
for adequate parking and a drop-off area.
Burlingame resident Elana Lieberman voiced her concern about the increased cost of the project. She
discussed decreasing the size of the project and adding affordable housing on top of the community center.
Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff discussed the community hall aspect of the project. She explained that
she felt strongly that if the City was going to rent out the hall that the community center needed to have
adequate parking.
Burlingame resident Laura Hesselgren voiced her support for a drop-off area, underground parking and a full
sized basketball court.
Burlingame resident Jeff Londer voiced his support for the project and stated that the community center
should be unique and special.
Burlingame resident Lesley Beatty stated that when designing the community center, the City should
encourage individuals to arrive there by walking, biking or taking shuttles.
Burlingame resident Adrienne Leigh stated that the plan was great and asked for additional handicap spots
and a large drop-offarea.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that in regards to Linda Field's question it would depend on
Council's direction for parking. If underground parking was established, staff would park there.
Mayor Brownrigg closed the public comment period.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
5
March 19, 2018
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Datez a/2/LB
Mayor Brownrigg asked that Council first focus on question 5: "What are Council's thoughts on LEED or
Zero Net Energy ("ZNE") goals for the project?"
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was more interested in ZNE because he believed it was the most important
element of a green building.
Vice Mayor Colson agreed with the Mayor. She explained that if the City can build a building that will last
80 years and is ZNE, then the value of that is millions of dollars to the residents.
Councilmernber Keighran, Councilmember Beach and Councilmember Ortiz all agreed to focus on ZNE
Mayor Brownrigg asked the Council for their thoughts on question l: "Does the Council wish to keep the
current Conceptual Design or revise it?"
Councilmember Ortiz stated that CAC had many conversations about the conceptual design of the
community center. He explained that he liked the "Mission" design but he wasn't married to it. He stated
that what he liked about the "Pavilions in the Park" design was the open windows to the park. He noted that
he believed that the solar panels would fit more with the "Pavilions in the Park" design. He asked that the
Council revisit the "Pavilions in the Park" design.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that prior to joining the City Council, she was a member of the CAC. She
explained that CAC did a great job siting the project and outlining programing options. She stated that she
had always had a good connection with the "Pavilions in the Park" design. She discussed how this design
opens up to the park and the windows make you feel like you are in the park. She stated that one of the most
iconic features in Burlingame are the trees. Therefore, whatever design the City chooses, openness to the
park should be the focus.
Councilmember Beach stated that she didn't feel particularly strongly about any of the designs. She noted
that she sat with Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad to review the process and had read through the
reports and CAC notes. She explained that based on the extensive process that was undertaken to select the
"Mission" design, she was inclined to respect that decision.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she and Councilmember Ortiz were on CAC together and CAC had a
healthy debate with regards to design choices. She stated that the tendency was to go towards traditional.
Therefore, because of the extensive public outreach and input from the community and commissions, her
preference was to stay with the "Mission" design". She asked if some tweaking could be done on the park-
side of the "Mission" design to make it more open to the park.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that the City is looking at spending approximately $50 million on a new community
center. He explained that when he looked at the "Mission" design it looked like everyone's high school built
in the 1990s. He explained that it is important that the community center welcome everyone and among that
group is teenagers. He stated that he didn't believe the average teenager wanted to go into a building that
looked like a school.
6
Burlingame City Council March 19, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date:4/2/Le
Mayor Brownrigg stated that if Council was amenable he would like to request a review of the "Pavilions in
the Park" design. He asked how much time the City would lose if they asked the architect to work on the
"Pavilions in the Park" design. Ms. Merkes stated that it depends on how much community engagement
would be involved. She explained that if Council became the design client, it would take 8 weeks.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that at her last CAC meeting, the youth's top choice was the "Pavilions in the
Park." She stated that some of her daughters' friends looked at the designs and asked if the City was
building a school in the park. She discussed the need to build the community center for future generations.
Additionally, she asked to see samples of what the photovoltaic panels would look like on the roof.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he believed there was a Council majority to revisit the "Pavilions in the Park"
design. He explained that once Group 4 worked on the design, the Council and community could compare,
contrast and consider the "Mission" and "Pavilions in the Park" designs.
Councilmember Beach stated that in consideration of the process and outreach that was conducted to reach
the decision to go with the "Mission" design, she wanted to ensure that the City conducted public outreach
on the "Pavilions in the Park" design prior to making a decision.
Mayor Brownrigg asked Council to review the third question: "What is the preferred parking option for the
proposed Community Center?"
Councilmember Ortiz explained that Council needed to focus on the present parking/traffic issues when
designing the community center. He added that he believed the City needed to be sensitive to the
neighborhood by providing parking for individuals who are attending events at the community hall.
Councilmemb er Ortiz stated that because the community center will be serving senior citizens, parking
should not be located under the tennis courts. Instead, he voiced support for parking under the building. He
added that if the City needed more parking in the future, the Council could consider parking under the tennis
courts, but that would be a separate project.
Councilmember Keighran concuffed with Councilmember Ortiz and added that parking under the building
was essential.
Councilmember Beach agreed that the community center should have underground parking. She discussed
her hope that eventually people don't utilize their cars as much and the underground lot could be repurposed.
She asked that the architects take another look to ensure that the drop-off area is adequate.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that she concurred with her colleagues.
Mayor Brownrigg agreed with his colleagues.
Mayor Brownrigg explained that he emphatically believes the City needs to keep a full-sized basketball
court. He stated that he was disappointed that the plan didn't include a gymnasium. He noted that the report
7
Burlingame City Council March 19, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: A/2/LB
stated that the City has great cooperation with the schools in terms of residents' access to the gymnasiums.
However, he explained that this was not true as the elementary gyms are inadequate for adults and BHS
doesn't have open time slots at their gym. He asked that staff re-engage with BHS about using their gyrn.
Vice Mayor Colson suggested making the fuIl-sized basketball court a multi-sport court, so that sports like
futsal could utilize the space.
Councilmernber Ortiz stated that he was in favor of the full-sized basketball court.
At this point it was 7:00 p.m.; the City Council agreed to reconvene the study session after the end of the
regular session.
The study session was resumed at8:22p.m.
Mayor Brownrigg explained that Council's decision to forgo parking under the tennis courts helped answer
question 2: "What are the preferred cost reduction strategies?" He noted that Council was asking for the
"Pavilions in the Park" design to be developed, and therefore he was unsure of its effects on the project cost.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if he was correct in assuming that his colleagues didn't think the building size
should be decreased. Council agreed.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that the City has committed to the project and has a good handle on the sources of
funding. She noted that it would be important to have a cost management strategy.
Vice Mayor Colson discussed the notion of putting housing on top of the community center. She explained
that Council was open to creative solutions to help address the City's housing needs, but she felt strongly that
this project was not the place.
Councilmember Beach agreed with Vice Mayor Colson. She discussed the possibility of using the
community center in the future to address other affordable housing issues such as daycare and children's
programming.
Mayor Brownrigg directed the Council to question 4: "What is the estimated maximum funding for this
project?" He asked City Manager Goldman to give Council some parameters on the budget.
City Manager Goldman stated that the City was fortunate to have the voters support Measure I. She
explained that using Measure I funds and taking on additional debt service, the City will be able to obtain a
$30 million lease revenue bond.
Mayor Brownrigg asked given Council's direction at the meeting what is the estimated project cost. Parks
and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that it is between $38-41 million.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
8
March 19,2018
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Datez 4/2/LB
City Manager Goldman stated that therefore the City obtains a large chunk of the project's funding through
the lease revenue bond. She explained that there is $25.8 million in the Capital Investment Reserve and that
these funds could be used for the community center. She stated that the City is adding about $2 million into
that reserve and realizing budget savings every year. Therefore, if the Council chose to use funds from the
Capital Investment Reserve, the City would still be able to maintain an adequate level of funds in reserve.
Mayor Brownrigg suggested setting a nominal budget of $40 million.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he believed the City would go over that number and that the budget should
be set above the projected cost.
Councilmember Beach asked whether the Council would be open to naming rights on rooms in the
community center in order to raise money for the project.
City Manager Goldman stated that the Library had used naming rights to raise money for their renovation.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that the City could use the Burlingame Parks and Recreation Foundation to
fundraise. She added that staff should hire consultants to help in the pricing of naming rights. She talked
about public organizations that had successfully used naming rights in fundraising such as UC Berkeley.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that there was Council consensus to buy down the public commitment but he didn't
want the project to be reliant on fundraising. Council agreed.
Ms. Merkes stated that the projected costs were based on 2018 prices and therefore the escalation factor (5o/o
construction cost increase per year) should be considered when determining maximum budget.
Vice Mayor Colson suggested setting the budget at $40 million. She explained that by giving staff direction
to target $40 million in today's dollars, staff can value engineer the project and Council can revisit the cost
as the project moves forward.
Councilmember Keighran agreed.
Vice Mayor Colson asked about the timing of the bonds. Finance Director Augustine stated that you don't
want to sit on the bonds and therefore they wouldn't be obtained until closer to the start date.
Vice Mayor Colson discussed drawing on the bonds first so that the City would have a better idea of what
was needed from the Capital Investment Reserve.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that if the City didn't obtain the bonds for 2 years they would have $4 million
identified in debt service that could be added to the project. Finance Director Augustine responded in the
affirmative. City Attorney Kane stated that coincidentally when you factor in the construction cost
escalation in two years the $40 million project would be $44.8 million.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
9
March 19,2018
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 4/2/L8
Council agreed to a $40 million budget.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad summarized the Council's discussion:
o Community Center would be ZNE
o Re-visit the "Pavilions in the Park" design
. Parking under the building
o Review the curb management to ensure that it is adequate
o Limit the scope of the project but not building size
. Approximately $40 million budget
o Full-sized basketball court
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad asked about the process the Council would like to go through to get
to the final design. She explained that the quickest process would be to treat the Council as the design client.
However, staff will still need to conduct public outreach. She explained that this could be done through
commission meetings, CAC meetings, or with Council study sessions.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that Council as the design client would be his preference. He explained that he
envisioned the process working in a similar fashion to when public art was installed at the hospital. This
included putting up the potential designs in the library for the public to review and then holding a public
hearing at Council. He stated that this way the public has a chance to provide their input.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that she believed that it was important at this point in the project to incorporate the
whole Council in the conversation instead of returning to the CAC.
Councilmember Beach asked if the Mayor was requesting a preliminary sketch of the "Pavilions in the Park"
design be completed. Then the "Mission" and "Pavilions in the Park" design could be reviewed together by
the public and Council. Mayor Brownrigg replied in the affirmative.
Council discussed the timeline for making a decision on the conceptual design.
City Manager Goldman reminded the Council that they go on recess after July 2. She recommended that this
conversation happen on June 18 or July 2. Council agreed.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Brownrigg reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City
6. PRESENTATIONS
i. CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION TO FORMER FIRE BOARD
MEMBER ANN KEIGHRAN
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
10
March 19,2018
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Datez a/2/LB
Fire Chief Kammeyer recognized Councilmember Keighran for her service on the CCFD Fire Board. He
then presented her with a plaque to honor her time.
Councilmember Keighran thanked Fire Chief Kammeyer and welcomed Councilmember Ortizlo the Fire
Board.
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Brownrigg asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the
Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Colson pulled item 8d.
Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to adopt 8a, 8b, 8c and 8e; seconded by Councilmember Keighran.
The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
^. ADOPTION OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE MARCH 5. 2018
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes of March 5,2018.
b.ADOPTION OF A RES OLUTION AUTIIORIZING THE CITY AGER TO EXECUTE
AMENDMENT NO.3 THE RENTAL AGREEMENT WITII RIN O BETTI. DBA SAM'S
SANDWICH SHOP. FOR THE PREMISES AT 1O8O HOWARD AVENUE. BURLINGAME.
CALIFORNIA
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 35-2018.
c.F A RESOL ONSTRUCTI
VALENTINE CORPORATION FOR THE SANCHEZ LAGOON FLAP GATES PROJECT -
CITY PROJECT NO. 84740
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 36-2018.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that the City hadn't gone with the lowest bidder on this project because it was
inadequate and deficient in several respects.
d. ADOPTION RESOLUTIONS AWARI)G A CONSTRUCTION TO
REDGWICK TRUCTION CO. FOR CALIFORNIA DRIVE RO UNDABOUT
PROJECT" CITY PROJECT NO. 83920. AND APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH I{ANNA GROUP FOR CONSTRUCTION MAIIAGEMENT
SERVICES RELATED TO THE PROJECT
11
Burlingame City Council March 19, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: a/2/LB
DpW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 37 -2018 and Resolution Number 38-2018.
DPW Murtuza explained that the California Drive intersection with Lorton and Bellevue Avenue is a
convoluted and complex intersection. He stated that the intersection has more than 13 traffic movements.
Additionally there are long crosswalks across 4 lanes of traffic on California Drive. He explained that in the
mid-2000s, an initial feasibility study was conducted, and a roundabout was identified as the City's best
option. Subsequently, staff worked on preliminary designs and applied for grants.
DpW Murtuza explained that the key purpose of the project is to construct a roundabout to slow down traffic
on California Drive and provide shorter pedestrian crossings. He stated that the proposed project is a traffic
calming measure with safety elements. He explained that because the project is in close proximity to
downtown businesses, residential areas, parking lots, and the train station, staff is planning on constructing
this project in four stages. However, he assured the Council that traffic on Califomia Drive will be
maintained at all times during construction. He stated that the idea is to begin construction during the
summer, so that the most disruptive phase is done prior to schools reopening.
DPW Murtuza explained that staff has been meeting with property owners and businesses to address their
concerns. He discussed the public outreach that staff is proposing to undertake prior to the start of
construction including: installing signage to inform the public of the project; sending mailers to all
businesses in the area, e-newsletter updates, and coordinating with DBID.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if the goal is to start the project in May and be done by January 2019. DPW
Murtuza replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Keighran asked that BHS be notified of the project so that the school can inform parents
DPW Murtuza thanked Councilmember Keighran for her suggestion.
Councilmemb er Ortiz stated that he was originally opposed to the project. However, because of the changes
that were made, he now believed it would improve mobility and safety.
Mayor Brownrigg asked how the City is able to use $500,000 from storm drain measure funds for the
project. DPW Murtuza explained that the project contained storm drain improvements on California Drive.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke
Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 37-2018 and Resolution Number 38-
2018 seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
e. OPEN NOMIN TION PERIOD TO FILL VACANCY ON THE L BOARD OF
TRUSTEES
City Manager Goldman requested Council open the nomination period to fill one vacancy on the Library
Board of Trustees.
l2
Burlingame City Council March 19, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Iten 8b
Meeting Datez A/2/LB
f. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL ONE VACANCY ON THE PARKS AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
City Manager Goldman requested Council open the nomination period to fill one vacancy on the Parks and
Recreation Commission.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a.INTRODUCTION OF AN ORI)AMENDING CHAPTER 13.52 OF THE
BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING REGULATION OF BICYCLES
City Attorney Kane stated that the amendments to the ordinance were being brought to Council to update
regulations concerning bicycles that were written in the 1940s and last amended meaningfully in the 1970s.
She explained that the primary purpose is to remove the local licensing requirement and various provisions
that are inconsistent with state law and best practices.
City Attorney Kane stated that the Council discussed an earlier version of the ordinance at its previous
meeting and requested a few changes that are included in the current draft.
Mayor Brownrigg asked the City Clerk to read the title of the ordinance. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer read the
title of the ordinance.
Councilmember Keighran made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by
Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the public hearing. No one spoke.
Mayor Brownrigg asked that the item be brought back at the next Council meeting to consider adoption.
10.STAFF REPORTS COMMUNICATIONS
a.UPDATE ON PROPOSED PA ON STATE LANDS PARCEL
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad explained that the State Lands Commission ("SLC") owns two
parcels of land on the Bayfront. She stated that the parcels are available for long-term lease and a public
meeting would be held on March 22,2018 to discuss potential uses for the land.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad explained that the City previously worked on a plan for the parcel.
The City's proposal was to utilize the parcel as open space with a big grassy field, restrooms, picnic tables, a
continuation of the Bay Trail, and parking on each side. The plan was conditionally pulled from SLC
consideration to allow another opportunity to evolve on the site.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
13
March 19,2018
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date. 4/2/Lg
City Attorney Kane noted that the parcel has wetlands that are considered seasonal wetlands and are not an
endangered species' habitat.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that the open grassy park was the City's initial proposal. He asked the Parks and
Recreation Director to review SLC's reaction and what their guidance was to the City. Parks and Recreation
Director Glomstad stated that it was a long process and every time the City submitted an application, SLC
required more information. She explained that after 4 years, the City submitted their final application.
Around that time SLC received a competing application from a hotel developer. She stated that it was her
understanding that the hotel developer was interested in building a park on part of the parcel and turning it
over to the City.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that the SLC preference was to see a revenue generating function on the site. Parks
and Recreation Director Glomstad replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment
Burlingame residents Molly Gomez and CynthiaGomez asked the City to endorse a labor peace policy if a
hotel is ultimately built on the site.
Sphere Institute representative Greg Boro stated that his organization was proposing to turn the parcel into
open space with tidal wetlands. He explained that Sphere envisioned the space being used to educate
residents and visitors on the benefits of transition zone habitat and the impacts of climate change and sea
level rise. He asked for the City Council's support when Sphere makes their presentation to SLC at the
March 22 pttblic meeting.
Mayor Brownrigg asked what tidal wetlands are. Mr. Boro stated that instead of rebuilding the sea wall,
Sphere would eliminate it to allow for water to flow onto the land during high tide. He explained that about
one-third of the land would be under water during high tide.
Mayor Brownrigg asked what would happen to the Bay Trail. Mr. Boro stated that the Bay Trail would go
through the middle of the land.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that this wouldn't be the only tidal wetlands on the Peninsula because the lagoon
and the north end of the landfill are tidal wetlands.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that she met with Sphere about their proposal. She discussed Sphere's idea of
creating an eco-system to mitigate sea level rise and combat climate change. Mr. Boro stated that the main
goal is to preserve open space, but the current plan includes improving tidal wetland.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that in Sphere's design there was an ingress and egress for small crafts like
paddleboards and kayaks. She explained that she asked Sphere about the pricing of the project and that she
was told it would be $10 million. She asked if Mr. Boro could clarify what the City's responsibility would
be for the project. Mr. Boro stated it is their goal to put together partnerships to assist in funding the project.
Burlingame City Council 14
Unapproved Minutes March 19' 2ol8
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: A/2/L8
Councilmember Keighran asked how likely it would be for Sphere to get those partnerships. Mr. Boro stated
that Sphere had been very encouraged by conversations with different organizations. He explained that until
Sphere learns more from SLC, they won't contact engineers to assess the project's true cost. However, he
didn't expect it to be a financial burden to the City.
Councilmember Beach asked Mr. Boro to talk about Sphere's experience obtaining grants. Mr. Boro stated
that Sphere is quiet successful in obtaining grants and has worked with government agencies and
organizations since its inception.
Committee for Green Foothills representative Helen Walter voiced her support for the City entering into a
public/private partnership with Sphere.
Burlingame resident Todd Keliher voiced his support for keeping the site as open space. He suggested
including a track for runners and organizations.
Burlingame resident Matt Feemster voiced his support for tidal wetlands on the parcel.
Mayor Brownrigg closed the public comment period.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that she wanted the public to understand that while the Council can give input,
SLC will have final say. She stated that it is a great opportunity for the City to re-capture open space on the
Bay. She stated that some residents wanted the space to be utilized for additional field space for soccer and
other sports because of the high demand on current fields. However, she noted that with Murray Field being
turfed and SMUHSD adding lights to their fields, this need wasn't as prevalent. Therefore, she explained
that she leaned into a more ecologically sensitive use for the parcel.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he remained convinced that open space is the ideal use for the parcel. He
explained that when putting a hotel on the land became an option the City was assured that the property
would include open land. However, he stated he would prefer the parcel being fully used as open space. He
explained that his concern if the parcel was turned into tidal lands was that it might not be useable.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he agreed with Councilmember Ortiz. He explained that if the City wanted to
educate people about tidal wetlands, Sherman Lagoon exists. He stated that the notion of giving away good
land and destroying the sea wall was not the correct option.
Councilmember Beach asked if Sphere's initial schematic plan included grassy fields. Mr. Boro replied in
the affirmative. He explained that the Sphere proposal included tidal wetlands, open space, a boardwalk to
continue the Bay Trail and a pavilion.
Councilmember Keighran asked if this was the first time Sphere was taking on a project of this nature. Mr
Boro replied in the affirmative.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
15
March 19,2018
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date2 4/2/La
Vice Mayor Colson asked if a hotel was chosen and the hotel determined it couldn't build underground,
could the hotel potentially pave the whole parcel and therefore remove any open space. City Attorney Kane
stated that this depends on the SLC and under what circumstances they grant approval.
City Attomey Kane noted that Sphere's proposal wasn't restoration of wetlands. Instead it was creating
wetlands.
Councilmember Keighran asked what the City was being asked to decide.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that only one Councilmember was able to attend the March 22 meeting. Therefore
he requested that this item be agendized so that the Councilmember could hear their colleagues' opinions.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she had mixed feelings as she wanted usable open space. She noted
that the hotel application included below grade parking, and she didn't see how this was feasible. Therefore,
she was concerned that the hotel wouldn't be able to create open grassy fields for the City. She added that
she was also concemed about Sphere's proposal as they have never tackled a project of this nature.
Councilmember Beach stated that she values connecting the Bay Trail and having some sort of open space.
She stated that she was open to wetlands as long as it has useable pathways and pavilions. However, she
explained she was also open to the parcel being tumed into grassy fields. She was interested to know what
role the City would have as a community stakeholder if Sphere was awarded the land. She explained that
without seeing a presentation from Sphere, it would be pre-mature to take a firm stand. However, she is
open to the wetlands option, especially if the organization didn't ask the City for funds.
Mayor Brownrigg noted that the Council is on record supporting the hotel/park proposal.
Vice Mayor Colson noted that the Council did not move forward with the City's open land proposal because
SLC only wanted to lease the land for a short period of time with a high price tag.
Councilmember Beach stated that one of the clear messages that Council can give to SLC is that something
has to be done and the status quo is not acceptable. She stated that as the sole representative at the SLC
meeting, she wanted to work with the City Manager to understand the City's position. City Manager
Goldman stated that the staff report contains the City's last letter to SLC and it states that the City is
conditionally withdrawing their park proposal in favor of working with H&Q on their hotel/park combo. She
stated that she didn't hear consensus from the Council on which proposal they now favored.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he believed that there was consensus that the ideal position was for open
space. He stated that he wanted to ensure that SLC knew that the Council was united on wanting open space.
City Manager Goldman stated that the City could say that the City wants significant open space. Council
agreed.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
t6
March 19,2018
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 4/2/LB
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. VICE MAYOR COLSON'S COMMITTEE REPORT
b. COUNCILMEMBER BEACH'S COMMITTEE REPORT
c. COUNCILMEMBER ORTIZ,S COMMITTEE REPORT
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
There were no future agenda requests.
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.burlinqame.org.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 8:53 p.m. in memory of Joanne McCardle.
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
t7
March 19, 2018
STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8c
MEETING DATE: April 2,2018
To:Honorable Mayor and City Counci!
Date: April2,2018
From:Kathleen Kane - (650) 558-7204
Syed Murtuza- (650) 558-7234
Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Ghapter 13.52 of the Burlingame
Municipal Code Regarding Regulatio n of Bicycles
A.
B.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter
13.52 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to eliminate the requirement for locally issued bicycle
licenses and update the Code to reflect current state law and best practices regarding the
regulation of bicycles within the city. ln order to do so, the Council should:
By motion, adopt the proposed ordinance.
Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption
BACKGROUND
City staff, the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC), and the Parks and Recreation
Commission have recently reviewed Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 13.52. That chapter was
determined to be in need of updating in light of current state law and best practices for regional cities.
The current regulations require bicyclists to register their bikes with the Police Department,
although the Department no longer receives requests for licenses. The regulations also prohibit
riding bicycles in parks and further prohibit baby and child seats. The regulations have also
become inconsistent in certain areas with state codes regarding how to ride bicycles on streets
and roads.
The TSPC and Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the existing and proposed
ordinances, and their recommendations are incorporated in the attached draft. A version of the
attached proposed ordinance was introduced at the Council's March 5, 2018 meeting. Council
requested some modifications to the draft, which were included in the version that was re-
introduced at the March 19 meeting. After holding a public hearing on the ordinance, Council
directed that staff bring the ordinance back for adoption.
1
Ordinance Amending Bicycle Regulations April2,2018
DISCUSSION
Several portions of the existing Chapter 13.52 are recommended for removal. All requirements
for a local City license would be deleted under the recommended amendment (Sections
13.52.010, 13.52.020, 13.52.030, 13.52.080, and a portion of 13.52.160). Other portions of the
code would be removed or significantly modified, such as those relating to transfer of ownership
(13.52.040, 13.52.050) and lost or stolen bikes (13.52.060). The code would be updated to
include the standards for safe bicycle riding set forth in the California Vehicle Code. Further,
baby and child seats would be permitted, as would riding bicycles in parks with the requirement
that cyclists yield to pedestrians.
Staff recommends removal of the license requirement (with its related provisions) and bringing
the code into conformance with the relevant California Vehicle Code provisions. As discussed
above, the attached draft includes the suggested amendments discussed at the Council's March
5,2018 meeting. Any further changes may be incorporated if directed by Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
None. The City currently does not collect licensing fees from bicyclists; the other suggested
revisions are to regulations that do not affect revenue.
Exhibit:
. Proposed Ordinance
2
ORD!NANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING CHAPTER 13.52 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, the City has received requests to amend portions of Chapter 13.52
to better reflect current conditions; and
WHEREAS, the City's bicycle regulations were adopted over eighty years ago
and last substantively amended in 1975; and
WHEREAS, subsequent changes in both state law and recognized best practices
relating to bicycle use necessitate revision of the City's bicycle regulations; and
WHEREAS, the amendments to the bicycle ordinance have been reviewed by
City staff, interested members of the public, and both the Traffic Safety and Parking
Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council first introduced and held a public hearing on
proposed amendments to Chapter 13.52 at its March 5, 2018 meeting, at which time
Council directed that certain additional revisions be made which are incorporated below;
and
DIVISION 1:
Section 1: Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 13.52 Bicycles is hereby amended as
follows (deletions denoted as strikethrough text and additions as underlined text):
"Bieyele" means any deviee upen whieh a persen-may ride whieh is
prepelled by human pewer threugh a system ef belts' ehains er gears;
It is unlaMul fer any persen te eperate er use a bieyele prepelled
whelly er in part by museular pewer upen any ef the streets; alleys er
puOtie hlghways o
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
13.52.015 Police exempt.
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to a member of the police
department while operating a bicycle in the course and scope of his or her
duties.
tnse'
Upen written applieatien and payment ef the lieense fee speeified, the
ieense
te the applieant, whieh lieense when issued shall entitle the lieensee fer a
rnay be designated by the direeter ef meter vehieles; te eperate and use
the bieyele fer whieh the lieense was ebtained upen-the streets' alleys
(19 l1 Cede S 1 168; erd,493; (1950); erd' 1048 S 2' (1975))
13,52,030 tieense plates and registratien eards Reeerds,
The eity shall previde sueh lieense indieia as may be supplied by the
unique lieense number, lt shall be the duty ef the peliee department te
+censee
+eia
shall keep a reeerd ef the date and number ef every sueh lieense and the
during the peried ef validity ef the lieense; er upen netifieatien that the
bieyele ne lenger is te be eperated, (1911 Cede S 1 169; Ord' 19 l' (1950);
W
ie
It shall be the duty ef every persen whe sells er transfers ewnership ef
any used er seeendhand bieyele t+ repert sueh sale er transfer te the
peliee department within ten (10) days thereafter' returning the
registratien eard theretefere issued te the seller as lieensee' and giving
the name and address ef the persen te whem sueh bieyele was seld er
transferred, lt shall be the duty ef the purehaser er transferee te applrte
$48#-1€75))
13,52.050 Repert ef pur€hases and sales by bi€yGle Cealers.
It shall be the duty ef all persens; firms er eerperatiens engaged in the
eentain the name and address ef the persen frem whem any seeendhand
ef the psrchaser and a desoriptien and frame number ef the bieyole,
hventy feur (24) heurs after sueh purehase er sale, (1941 eede S 1'171)
13.52,060 Netice ef lost er stelen bicy€les,
thereef shall immediately netify the peli€e department' (1911 eede S
1474
13,52.080 Remeving er mutilating licenses,
rnutilate er alter any biey€le license indieia; plate; sealr registratien eard er
13,52,090 tieense fee Fee fer replaeing lest lieense indieia.
ffi))
previded; hewever
ne serial number ean be feund; er en whish the number is illegible er
(rs75)
13.52.100 Keeping to right-Two abreast-Riding on sidewalks.
Every persen riding er eperating a bieyele en any publie street; alley er
publie plaee in the eity shall keep te the extreme right ef the traffie lane;
, ,nla...f, rl far anrr narean la rirla ar ^h6rat6 - himrala an tha cirlarrrallz in anrr
ciAa'.,allz ia haina lcarl hv h^i6.1ri.nc /'lO,,t'1 a^da A '1ll7A\
(b) Anv person operatinq a bicycl e upon a roadwav of a hiqhwav, which
hiqhwav carries traffic in one directio n onlv and has t\ivo or more marked
raffic lanes ma ride as near the left-hand curb or ed
as practicable.
(c) lt is unlawful for two (2) or more bicvcles to travel abreast when
motorized vehicle traffic is present exce ot when ridin in a Cla ss ll bikeo
lane of at least seven feet wid e with a three feet wide buffer
(a) Anv person ooeratinq a bicvcle uoon a roadwav at a soeed less than
the normal speed of traffic movinq in the same direction at that time shall
ride as close as oracticable to the riqht-hand curb or edoe of the roadwav
exceot under anv of the followinq situations:
(1) When ove(akino and passinq another bicycle. oedestrian. or
vehicle proceedinq in the same direction.
(2) When oreoarinq for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or drivewav.
(3) When reasonablv necessarv to avoid conditions (includinq, but
not limited to. fixed or movinq obiects. vehicles, bicvcles.
oedestrians. animals. surface hazards. or substandard width
lanes) that make it unsafe to continue alono the riqhthand curb or
edqe. subiect to the orovisions of California Vehicle Code Section
21656. For purposes of this section. a "substandard width lane" is
a lane that is too narrow for a bicvcle and a vehicle to travel safelv
side bv side within the lane.
(4) When aoproachinq a place where a right turn is authorized.
(d) lt is unlaMul for anv person to ride or operate a bicvcle on the
sidewalk in anv of the business districts of the citv. and no bicycle shall be
operated on the sidewalk in anv of the residential districts when and
where the sidewalk is beinq used bv pedestrians. Bicvcles on sidewalks
shall be walked in anv business district or in anv residential district when
pedestrians are present.
(e) lf anv of the above orovisions of this section become inconsistent with
the California Vehicle Code due to sub seo uent am end enls to thal Code
the state law provi sions then in effect shall suoersede the inconsistent
provisions of this section.
13.52.110 One person onlyj-@Els.
Bicycles designed and constructed to carry only one person shall not be
used to carry any additional person or persons either on the handlebars
thereof or elsewhere thereon . unless eouioment that has been desroned
and manufactured for transportatio of additional Dassenoers in a safe
manner has been orooerlv affixed to the bi cvc le and is used as desioned.
13.52.120 Pulling other vehicle.
Bicvcles shall onl v be allowed to oull another vehicle/trailer that ha
been manufactured and desion for transDortation of additional
SSEN ers or ul ment. ln ord I ton an
iler must be ro and safel affixed to eb
manner that is consistent with the manufacturer's instructions
Ne persen while riding any bieyele shall held en te er pull anether meving
vefte-flea+e€d€++478)
13.52.130 Obedience to traffic signs and signals-Signaling
intention to turn.
Every person riding and operating a bicycle shall obey all traffic
signals and signs, and before making turns shall give the same signals as
required of the operators of motor vehicles.
No rider of a bicycle shall ride the same at night without an adequate
white headlight on the front thereof and a red light or red reflector on the
rear, as required by the Vehicle Code of the state of California.
13.52.150 Parking in racks-lmpounding bicycles lying
sidewalks.
on
The Citv pe+i€e-d€padm€nt shall provide and set up suitable racks
adjacent to the curb or gutter at such places in the business districts of
the city as may be deemed advisable for the parking of bicycles by
persons who have occasion to stop temporarily in such districts. All
bicycles found lying on the sidewalk may be taken up and impounded by
13.52.140 Lights at night.
the police department, from whence they may be recovered by proving
property and obtaining an order from the chief of police or his or her
desiqnee.
13.52.160 lmpoundment of bicycles and_slJspensiell-€f-.li€ense for
violations.
ln addition to or in lieu of any other penalty to be imposed for the
violation of any of the provisions of this chapter, the court may prohibit the
operation upon the streets, alleys and public places of the city for a period
of not to exceed thirty (30) days, of the bicycle used in such violation, in
which event the bicycle so used shall be impounded with the police
department and retained there for the prohibited period. .ln-su€h-€ase+he
ewner's liGense shall be Euspended and his er her eard held fer the peried
1482)
13.52.180 Riding on park or playground
Bicvcles operated on an v oath in anv oublic oark or olavoround within the
citv shall vield riqht of wa v when and where the p ath is beino used bv
destrian eR shall obe all lcrl nark rrt and s ed limitsOS
and mav be cited for fail ure to do so. lt is unlaMul for a ny person to ride,
drive or operate a bi€y€lq motorcycle or motor scooter in or on any public
park or playground within the city. (19'11 Cede S 1222'3
(i€4e)
lf any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance. The Council declares that it would have adopted the
Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses
or phrases be declared invalid.
DIVISION 2:
This Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance
with California Government Code Section 36933, published, and circulated in the City of
Burlingame, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage.
Michael Brownrigg, Mayor
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
DIVISION 3:
l, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the
foregoing ordinance was introduced at a public hearing at a regular meeting of the City
Council held on the 19rh day of March, 2018, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting
of the City Council held on the _ day of _ 2018, by the following
vote:
STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8d
MEETING DATE: April 2,2018
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April2,2018
From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director - (650) 558-7307
Subiect: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Gity Manager to Execute an
Amendment to the Agreement for Professional Services With Group 4
Architecture & Planning !nc.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City
Manager to execute the 2nd Amendment to the Agreement for Professional Services with Group 4
Architecture & Planning lnc. (Group 4) to enable Group 4 to refine the conceptual plans for the
Community Center, develop schematic designs, and complete the CEQA documentation and
associated work to complete those tasks at a cost of $672,887.
BACKGROUND
On May 4, 2015, the City Council ratified a contract with Group 4 for the conceptual design
services for the Burlingame Community Center and Washington Park renovation in the amount of
9192,310. On March 19,2018, the City Council reviewed the latest building plans for the
Community Center. After public comment and Council discussion, the City Council requested
that Group 4 further refine the Pavilions conceptual building option and reduce the scope of the
project as a cost-saving measure. The revised scope includes the Community Center building,
parking underneath the building and adjacent to the building, a playground, and a full-sized
basketball court.
DISCUSSION
The two remaining conceptual options (Mission and Pavilions) and revised plans incorporating
the reduced scope will be presented to the Council at a future meeting anticipated for JuneiJuly.
Once the Council approves the preferred conceptual design, the next step is to begin the CEQA
process and schematic design phase (15o/o of the construction documents). At the completion of
the schematic design phase, the Council will receive a cost update, and staff will request
additional funds for the completion of the construction documents and bidding construction
management.
FISCAL IMPACT
The 1't amendment, in the amount of $33,000, included renderings and a Parks and Recreation
promotional video, bringing the budget to $225,310. The cost to refine the project scope and
1
Amendment to the Agreement with Group 4 Architecture & Planning lnc.April 2,2018
develop an additional conceptual design is $79,669. The cost to conduct the CEQA
documentation is $87,504, the cost for the schematic design phase is $403,386, and the cost for
associated work to complete these tasks is $102,328.
Conceptual Design Services $79,669
CEQA Documentation $87,s04
Geotechnical Services $11,328
Land Surveying Services $23,000
Schematic Design $403,386
Project Participation $33,000
Reimbursable Expenses $35,000
Total $672,887
The Community Center Planning project within the Facilities Capital lmprovement Fund has a
balance of approximately $244,000. An additional appropriation in the amount of $428,800 is
requested to complete the next phase of the work as described above. lf approved, the work will
be funded by a transfer of $428,800 from the General Fund to the Capital lmprovement Fund.
Exhibits:
. Resolution
o Group 4 2nd Amendment
2
RESOLUTION NO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE 2ND AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR
THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH GROUP 4 ARGHITECTURE & PLANNING INC.
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2015 the City Council ratified a contract with Group 4
Architecture & Planning, lnc. for the conceptual design services for the Burlingame Community
Center and Washington Park renovation in the amount of $192,310; and
WHEREAS, the City Council amended the agreement to include artist renderings and a
promotional video increasing the amount to $225,310; and
WHEREAS, the City requires additional services from Group 4 to include refinement to
the conceptual plans, development of schematic designs, CEQA documentation, and
associated work.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City Council approves the additional services to include refinement to the
conceptual plans, development of schematic designs, CEQA documentation and
associated work at a project cost of $672,887.
2. An additional appropriation of $428,800 from the City's General Fund is approved for the
additional services included in the amended contract.
3. The City Manager is authorized to execute the contract amendment and any necessary
documents to undertake the above said work.
Michael Brownrigg, Mayor
l, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council held on April 2,
2018 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers.
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 2
GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH & PIANNING, !NC.
PROFESSIONAT SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO INCLUDE REFINEMENT TO
CONCEPTUAL PLANS, SCHEMATIC DESIGNS. AND CEQA REVIEW FOR THE BURLINGAME
CoMMUNTTY CENTER PROJEST
THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into this 2nd day of April, 2018, by
and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"CtTYu and GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE RESEACH & PLANNING, lNC. hereinafter referred to as
"coNSULTANT,"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT have previously entered into an agreement for
certain services, said agreement being dated March 4,20L5; and
WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT amended said agreement on August 1, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the CITY requires additional CONSULTANT services to include refinement to
the Conceptual Plans, develop Schematic Designs, complete CEQA documentation, and
complete associated work for the Burlingame Community Center Project; and
WHEREAS, the agreement term needs to be extended; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties to further amend said agreement as hereinafter
set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Amendment of Agreement
Sa[d agreement dated March 4,20L5 and August 1,2016, is hereby
amended to include those services and compensation set forth in Exhibit A, B and G attached
hereto and extended until December 3L,2A2O.
2. ln all other respects said agreement dated, March 4,2075 and August 1,
2016, shall remain in fullforce and effect.
lN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT on the day and year
first above written.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
A municipal corporation
City Manager - Lisa K. Goldman Consultant - Group 4 Architecture Research &
Planning, !nc.
Approved as to form:
City Attorney - Kathleen Kane
ATTEST
City Clerk - Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
I
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
TIM PROJECT
The Project consists ofprofessional services for updating the conceptual design and developing the
schematic design of tle ne,'l' 35,700 square foot (sf) Burlingame Cornmunity Center and associated
site work, which includes tle relocated playgroun4 full-size basketball court, and surface and
underground parking east of the Community Center.
SCOPE OP BASIC SERVICES
2. General
2.4 The intcnt of the Consultant's Basic Services is to provide dcsign and participation services
in support of the Project as identified in Section 3. Consultant's Basic Services irrclude a civil
engineer, landscape architect, traffic engineer, geotechnical engineer, CEQA consultant,
struchral engineer, mechanical engrneer, elechical engineer, kitchen consultant, specification
u'riter and cost estimator, in addition to architectmal services.
2.8 In seleoting the Consultant, the Ciry recognizes that the Consultant has the qualifications to
provide full planning, architecture, and interior desip services including conceptual design,
schematic design, design development, construction documents, bidding, constuction
administration, and post-construction phase services. The City, at its discretion, may choose
to amend this contract to add services to the Consultant's Scope of Services for Additional
Compensation if mutually agreed to by the Client and Consultant.
?.C Basic Services for this Project are based on completing the conceptual design and schematic
design phases for the Community Center.
2.D The Consultant's assumption is that the project will be constructed through a conventional
public design-bid-build delivery method. Basic and Optional Services assume the
construction work will be developed as a single bid package to be constructed in a single
phase.
2.8 The governing code for this project will be 201 6 California Buitding Code (CBC). Plan check
will be carried outby the City of Burlingame.
2.F The City shall provide the following for the Project as needed:
I . A City representative who can render decisions on behalf of the Project in a timcly
m'n?rer.
2. Scheduling and invitations for public meetings.
3- Information about:
a. Title Report
b. City Standards
c. City Requiremeuts
4. Services of other specialized consultants if needed for the Project,
5. Any other information not included in Consultant's Basic Services or Optional Services
t}rat is reasonably needed for the Project.
6. The Bid Documents and the General Conditions for the Project.
2.G During each phase of the project, direction will be given to the Consultant in Project
Management Team (PMT) rneetings. Attending these meetings will be tle Consultant, City
G:\ 12421-03 Eudingome CCCD-SD\Y-Conkocl\CU[NT\Drofts\8CC ExhibilA Scope 2018-03-24.dacx
Poge i ol7
3.
representatives, the City's Project Manager, and others as determined by the City
Agreements and action iterns will be doeumented in meeting minutes.
2H Except whers olherwise specified in this agreement, summaries of decisions, design
direction, establishment of project requirements may be communicated and documented
through written meeting minntes and e-mails.
2.I Susrainable Design: The Consultant shall include sustainable design shategies. The project
will be designed in accordance with tle sustainable design practices described by the
CALGreen state building code. The City has elected to pursue zero-net energy for this
project.
2.1 At this timg tlre City does not have ttre intention to pursue LEED certification- The
prepararion ofLEED analyses, LEED credit evaluatior and identification ofprobable
constnrction costs and design fees associated u/ith LEED certitication by the USGBC, if
desired by the City may be provided as Additional Services.
2.K The Conzultant shall coordinate with CaliforniaUtilitics for participation in the Savings By
Design Program.
Consultant's Basic Services: Basic Serrices includes the services described in this Section 3
including zubsections and subparagraphs.
3.A Task I Conceptual Design Serviccs
The Consultants shall:
l. Based on the input from City Council atthe 31L912018 Study Session, develop the
'?avilions in the Park" scheme and prepare updated conceptual desigrr exhibitsr
a- BuildingProgramSpreadsheet
b. Site plans, floorplans and elevations
c. Narrative specifications (Architectural, Landscape, Civil)
d. Vignettes of exterior and/or interior (2 exterior and 2 interior)
2. Define exterior material palette and interior spaces
3. Prepare arefined costmodel corresponding to the updated conceptual design documenB.
Design and construction contingencies appropriate to each phase ofthe project shall be
included-
4. Prepare an estimatsd project schedule for fuhre phases
5. Upon direction from City Council on the preferred conceptual option, the Consultant
shall prepare final concqltual desip report
6. Meetings:
a. Project Management Team (PMT): three (3)
b. Tectnical Meetings: Up to three (3) meetings with City Stalf
c. City Council: One (l), allowance included in Txk 2 Project Participation
7 - Deliverables:
a. Updated Conceptual Design Report
(1) Building Program
(2) Design Drawings (floorplan and massing options, site plan, site sections)
(3) Narratives
(4) Vignettes of exterjor and/or interior (2 exterior and 2 interior)
(5) Project Cost Model
b. Estimated Project Schedule
3.B Task 2 Project Participation
The Consultant shall:
1. Attend project mectings and presentations as directed by the City or as reasonably
needed for the project. The Consultant's responsibilities to conduct and/or attend
meetings and presentations shall terminate when the maximum compensation for
Poge 2 of 7
meetings stipulated in Exhibit B is reached unless tbe City provides additional
compensation and authorizes the Consultant to attend additional meetings.
2. Coordinate and conduct community engagement for the project. The outreach shall
include engaglng the community at large through:
a, Community Kiosk: The Consultant shall preparc exhibits for display at the
Community Center and Library to give project updates and garher communily
input on the Updated Conceptual Design Option.
b. Online Surveys: The Consultant shall utilize online surveys to give project
updates and gather community input on the Updated Conceptual Design Option
3. City Council Presentations:
a. The Consultantmay at a mid-point in the Conceptual Design phase assist Ciry
staff to update the City Council on the Conceptual Design, either in individual or
pairs of two briefing format.
b. The Consultant shall attend one (l) Ciff Council meeting, presentiug the updated
conceptual design option to the Council for their action and approval. The
Consultant shall preview the presentation with the PMT for their input prior to
Council meetings-
c. The Consultant shall attend one (l) City Council Study session and one (1)
regular meeting, presenting the updated schematic desip to the Council fortheir
action and approval. The Consultant shall preview the presentation with the PMT
for their inputprior to Council meetings.
4, Boards and Commissions:
a. The Consultant shall at a mid-point in the Schematic Design phase attend one (1)
Planning Commission meeting.
b. The Consultant shall attend trvo (2) Park and Recreation Commission Meetings to
presenting the updated conceptual design and the schematic design.
c. The Consultant shall attend other Boards or Commission meetings as directed by
the City.
5. Mectings;
a. Integrated Design Workshop: One (1)
b. Planning Commission: One (1)
c. Park and Recreation Commission: Two (2)
d. City Council: Up to Three (3)
6. Deliverables:
a. Meeting agendas, exhibits and minutes
3.C Task 3 CEOA Documentation.
Thc Conzultant shall coordinate prepare the environmental analysis undcr thc California
Environmental Aot (CEQA) for the Project The work plan shall include tie resources for
preparation of an Initial Studyfivtitigated Negative Declaration flS/MND), which shall
include a planning subconsultant and traffrc engineer. The City may deem a lesser level of
CEQA documentation is required, and if so, the actual work may be less.
The Consultant shall:
1. Prepare the Initial Study:
a. Meet with City staffand the design team to discuss the environmentat review
strategy, timeline, and scope tasks. Visit the site to walk through and photograph
the project site and ie suroundings in order to document existing conditions and
site fearures.
b. Prepare a base map of &e project site and vicinity.
c. Gather and evaluate existing data and complele analyses applicable to the project
site and vicinity and potential environmental impacts of the project'
d. Prepare the project description based on materials provided by the City arrd design
team.
2. Conduct thc environmeutal analysis:
Poge 3 of7
a. Aesthetics; Agriculture and Forestry Resources; Air Quality; Biological
Resor:rces; Cultural Resources; Geolory and Soils; Green House Gas Emissions;
Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology aad Water Quality; Land Use and
Planning; Mineral Resources; Noise; Population and Housing; Public Services,
Utilities and Recreation; Transportation and Circulation.
Prepare Draft ISA{ND
a. Based on the environmental analysis conducted aspart of Section 3.D2 prepate an
IS/[4ND for review by tbe City. If it is determined during the research and
analysis stage of Section 3.D2 that the project would result in significant
unavoidable impacts, the Consrltant shall skategize with the City on alternate
environmental review approaches.
b. After publication of the IS/I\{ND, the Consultant shall prepare a response to
comments docurnent and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MMRP)c. Prepare an Administrative Draft IS/IVIND with the following componcnts:
(1) ProjectDescription
(2) CEQAEnvironmental ChecklistForm
(3) Mandatory Findings of Significance
(4) Contacts and Bibliography
(5) MitigatedNegativeDeclaration
(6) TEchnicalAppendices
d,. Amend the AdministrativE Draft ISdUND based on a single-set of consolidated
non-contradictory commsnts providcd by thc City.
e. Produce copies of the Public Review Draft IS/lvlND forpublic distribution and
submittal to the State Clearinghouse.
t'. Prepare a Notice of Completion, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines.
g. Prepare resporses to any public and agency comments received on the ISA{ND
during the public review period, as appropriate.
h. Prepare an electronic copy of thc Mitigation Monitoring antl Reporting Program
(I!ffvfRP) for all mitigation measures in lhe ISA{ND. The MMRP will list
mitigation mca$ues that arc recomrnended in the IS/}IND and provide standards
and timelines for monitoring these measures.
i. The Consultant shall attend up to two general technim[ meetings and two public
hearings regarding the IS/IvIND.
Meetings:
a. CEQA Technical Meetings #l &Z
b. Public Hearings #1 &.2
Deliverables:
a. Initial Study to CEQA Impacts
b. Topographio, boundaryorotherfield surveying
c. Traffic and Parking Study
d. Soils Report
3.D Task 4 Geotechnical Services
1. The Consultant shall provide geotechnical services, consisting ofevaluation of
subsruface soil conditions in the vicinity of the proposed improvements and provide
geotechnical recommendations relating to ths foundation and earthwork componcnts of
the Project. The initial services shall include:
iL County drilling notification form
b. Undergroundservicealert
c. Subsurface exploration
d. Labaratory testing
e. Office Studies
2. The Engineer will review the field and laboratory data and perfomr engineering
analyscs to evaluate the plannsd cornmunity center improvements, from a geotechnical
perspective, including building foundations, basement retaining walls, slabs-on-grade,
pavements, tie earthwork, and surface drainage
Poge 4 ol 7
J
4.
5
The Engineer will prepare a report that summarizes the investigation and couclusions,
and presents geotechnical recornmendations for design of the proposed improvements.
The Engineer will provide site class and spectral accelerarions for seismic design based
on the 2016 California Building Code. To graphically illustate the site conditions,
several figures will be presented in the report, including a vicinity plan, site plan, local
geologic map, boring logs, and laboratory test results.
3.E Task 5 Land Survwine Services
1. The Consultant shall provide land surveying services, eonsisting of the following:
a. Obtain block maps for water systems, storm drains, sanitary sewer and street
liehts'
b. Review existing infrastucture to be mapped onto topographic survey
c" Site visits to verifo field conditions
d. Aerial Survey
e- Topographic Survey
f. Base sheet Production
g. Record Boundary
3.F Task 6 Schematic Design (J5% Construction Documents). Upon approval of the preferred
Conceptual Design option by the Ciry Council, written Notice to Proceed by the City" and
receip of the City's comrnents on the Conceptual Design docume,tts, the Consultant shall
advancc thc design of the Commrmity Center during the schematic design phase. The
Consultant shall:
l. Conduct Integrated Design Workshop with the City and design and engineering team to
confirm and integrate building and site systems for efficienry, sustainability,
functionality, performance, first and life cycle costs and other project considerations.
2. Develop the Schematic Design package for Architectural, Landscape, Civil, Structural,
Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Kitchen, Audio Visual, and Securiry and Access
Control for the Community/Recr€ation center buildings, consisting of:
a.. Civil Site Plan, including parking layout, preliminary grading, drainagc,
hydrolory, utility touting
b. Landscape preliminary site plan showing hardscape and landscape areas
c. Floor antl roof,plans
d. Reflested ceiling plans
e. Exterior elevations
f. Building sections
C. Structural design sketches and narrative and preliminary sizes ofkey struchral
msmbers
h. Prelirainary lighting plan- buildings and site
i. Renderinp (two interior and two exterior)
j. Outline specifications and/or narratives of each of the major building systems
k. Buildingprogramspreadsheet
I. Estimate of probable construction cost
m. LEED checklist (forreference)
3. Provide Life Cycle Cost Analysis for HVAC Buildiug Systems and Building Envelope
4. Prepare an estimatc of probable construction cost corresponding to the Schematic
Design documcnts. Design and construction contingencies appropriate to each phase of
the project shall be included.
5. Conduct four (a) technical meetings with City recreation staff to review the schematic
design.
6. Conduct one (1) technical meeting wi& the Planning Department to review the
schematic site and building plans.
7. Conduct one (l) technical rneeting each with the Building, Fire, and Polioe Deparments
to review the updated schematic code analysis.
L Review the schematic design with the Planning Commission.
9. Rcvicw thc schcmatic dcsign with the Parks & Recreation Commission.
Poge 5 of I
3
t2
Review the schematic desiga with the City Council.
Meetings:
a. ProjectManagement Team (PMT): Up to three (3)
b. Technical Meetings: Up to Eight (8)
c. Plauning Commission: One (1), allowance included in Task 2 Project
Participotion
d. Park & Recreation Cornmission: One (l), allowance ineluded inTask 2 Project
Participation
e. City Council: One (l), atlowance included in Tak 2 Project Participation
Deliverables:
a. Schematic Design (15% Construction Documents) Report
(l) Building program
(2) Dosign drawings
(3) Outline Spccifications/Naratives
(4) Project Cost Model
b. Schematic 30% Design Review Submittal
c. Meeting Agendas, exhibits and minutes
SCOPE OF OPTIONAL SERVICES
4. Consultant's Optional Services: Optional Services includes the services described in this Section 4,
insluding subsections and subparagraphs. The following services are not part of the Consultants
Basic Services and shall only be performed by Consultant upon direction of the City.
4A Design Development (30% Conskuction Documents):
4.8 ConstructionDocuments
4.C Fumiture, Fixtures & Equipment (FF&E)
4.D Construction Administration
4.E Project Closeout
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The following services are not included in the Consultant's Scope of Basic Services and shall be
provided if requested by the City. The Consultant shall be compensated for Additional Services in
addition to compensation for Basie Services and Reimbursable Expenses.
5.A Any other service not included in Basic Services or S Services.
53 Detailed analysis or engineering analysis of existing facilities
5.C Ssrvices of Subconsultants to the Consuhant other than those included in Basic Scrvices or
Optional Services.
5.D Providing services to verifr the accuracy of drawings or other information firmished by the
ciry.
5.E' Providing financial feasibility or olher special studies.
5.F Providing cost estirnates beyond what is included in the basic services or optional services.
5.G Preparation of communication, marketing, and fundraising materials including PowerPoint,
flyers, kiosks, animations, artist renderings, physical ptesentation models, videos, web design
and content other than those included in basic ssrtices or optional services.
5.H Providing services for preparing measured drawings of existing building oonditions with the
exception of the site survey and site plan.
5.I Additional architecturai images of new community center otler than those included iu basic
services or optional services.
5.J Making revisions in drawings, or documents when such revisions are:
1. Inconsistent with directions or instructions previously given by the City.
2. Required by the enactrnent or revision of codes, laws or regulatious subsequent to the
preparation of such documents.
3. Duc to chmges required as a result of the City's failure to render decisions in a timely
manner.
10.
11.
5
Page 6 of 7
6_
5.K Site Surveys, inoluding on site features, sub surfbce features, topography, boundary, survey,
etc. other than those included in basic services or optional services.
5.L Testing and/or evaluation of any off-site utilities
5.M Hazardous matcrial asseswlcnts ot documentation of any rcmoval or abatement ifrequired.
5.N Prepamtion, attcndancc and follow-up for meetings or prcsentations that are in addition to
those that are specified and budgeted in basic seruices or optional services.
5-O Preparation of LEED anatyses, LEED credit evaluation and identification ofprobable
construction costs and design fees associated with a LEED certification by the USGBC if
desired by the City
5.P LEED services including LEED project management services, preparalion of LEED
documentation, Design Phase LEED subrnission to USGBC, LEED-based reviews during
Construction phase services, Construction Phase LEED submission, and other related
sei:rices.
RESPONSIBILMES OF THE CITY
Throughnut the Project, the City will have responsibilities and will provide services on behalf of the
Froject such as the following.
6-A Provide written Notice to Proceed with each phase
6.8 Tabulation and writtsn summary of community survey results.
6.C Managcment of the overall project budget
6.D Infomration about the City's needs
6.8 A project representative ulho is authorized to make decisions in a timely manner with respect
to the Projecl
6.F Copy of current title report with boundaries and easements, if any, defined.
6.G Provide Consultant access to the site
6.H ldenti$ reviewing departnents and agencies that are stakeholders in the Project.
6.I City's typical street and curb details
6.J Sitc information including topographic and other survey information.
6.K Geotechnical engineering including inspecdon and testing during construction.
6.L Special studies, testing aud the services of special consultants if required by agencies having
jurisdiction over the project.
6.M Testing of sewer and other site systems if needed.
6.N Iderrtificarion and cost estimation of oflsite improvements required for the project.
6.0 The Consultant shall be able to rely on the accuracy of information providedby the City
Poge 7 of 7
1
DGIIBIT B
COMPENSATION
COMPENSATION FOR BASIC SERVICES
1.A Compensation to the Consultant for Basic Services described in Exhibit A, shall be a
stipulated sum of Six Hundred Four Thousand Eight Two Hundred and Eight Seven Dollars
(s604,887.00).
I .B Basic Compensation per project phase shall not exceed tlre following portions of the Basic
Services compensation unless approved by thc City.
$604,887.00
l.C Compensation for meetings described in ExhibitA hojectParticipation shall be on a per
meeting basis at the rat6s below. Compensation for meetings shall not exceed the
Participation Allowance identified below unless approvcd by the City:
Task I Conceptual Design Services
Task 3 CEQA Documentation
Task 4 Geotechnical Services
Task 5 Land Surveying Services
Task 6 Schematic Design (15% Construction Docunrents)
Total Basic Compensation (fask lr3r4l5, & 6)
Project Meetings
Community Open House and Formal Meeting
Advisory Commitke (CAC) Meetings
Commission Meetings:
City Council Presentation
Community Meetings
Task 2 Proiect Participation Allowance
$ 79,669.00
$ 87,504.00
$ 1 1,328.00
$ 23,000.00
$403,386.00
No Charge
S5,500 p€r event
S1,750 permeeting
$1,750 permeeting
S2,500 per meeting
$2,500 per meeting
.,
s 33,000.00
Reimbursable Expenses Allowance. Paraeraph 4,0 below: $ 35.000.00
Total Maxirrum Compensartonfor Basic Seruices, Task 1,2),4,5,
and 6, including the Reimbursable Expenses Allowonce 8672,887.00
COMPENSATION T'OR OPTIONAL SERVICES
2.A Compensation to the Consultant for Optional Services described in Exhibit A are not included
in the Consultant's Scope of Basic Services and shall be provided if requested by the City.
The Consultant shall be compensated for Additional Serrlices in addition to compensation for
Basic Senices and Reimbursable Expenses.
1. Design Development (30% Conshuction Documents):
2. ConstructionDocunents
3. Fumiture, Fixtures & Equipment (FF&E)
4. ConstructionAdminishation
5. Project Closeout
BCC Exhib,t B Compensolion 2018-03-24.ciocx EXt-'l8lT I Poge I of 3
3 COMPENSATION FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES
3.A Compensation to the Consultant for Additional Services described jn Exhibit A is in addition
to compensation tbr Basic Services and shall be either at the following hourly rates, or made
as a negotiated stipulated sum. The rates below will be in effcct through Dcccmber 31't, 2018
and are subject to annual revisions atthe start ofeach calendaryear.
Consulting Principal
Frincipal in Charge
Principal
Associate
Senior Proj ect Designer
Senior Project Manager
Project Manager
Architect III
Architect II
Architect I
Intern Itr
Intern II
Intern I
Project Support
$290.00 per hour
230.00 per hour
220-00 per hour
200.00 per hour
185.00 per hour
175.00 per hour
1 50.00 per hour
1?0.00 per hour
160.00 per hour
1 50.00 per hour
140.00 per hour
130.00 per hour
120.00 per hour
(100.00 -230.00) per hour
4. COMPENSATION FOR REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
4.A Reimbursable expenses related to the Project, whether for consultanq subconsultant, or Cit5r
use, and are billable at l.l0 times direct cost Reimbursable expenses are in addition to
eompensation for Basic Services in Exhibit A and shall not exceed Thirty-Five Thousand
Dollars ($35,000) without approval by the City. Reimbursable expeilses include expenses
incurred by the Architect and subconsultants in the interest of the hoject. Such cosls include,
but arc not necessarily limitcd !o:
. CAD plotting of check sets and preseltation drawings larger than 17"x77' .r Outside senrice printing/copying of &awings and documents of any size.r In-house black and white printing/copying of tlrawings larger than 1 l"x 17".. In-house black and white printing/copying for draft and final reports and specifications.r In-house color printing and photocopying up to 1l'117" for in-housq consultant or client
use.
Softrare purchase and licensure on behalf of the client with prior client approval.
Postage, delivery and messenger service.
Photographic and digital imaging, including color aud grayscale copies of any sizc.
Outside telephone conferencing serrrices.
Ovefiime expenses with prior client approval.
Architecturdl renderings, physical and digital scale models and animations other than tlose
specified under Basic Services.
Travel sxpenses such as mileage, bridge tolls, and meals.
Subconsultant sosts.
Prese,ntation boards.
Facilitation tools.
Workshop accessories and facilitation materials.
Videos, web services, opinion surveys.
Additional consultant services.
8CC Exh,bit B Compensotion 2018-A3-24.docx EXHIBIT B Pcse 2 of3
I
I
I
I
I
I
The following expcnses are included in the hourly billing rares and are not billed separately:
r General in-house black and white printindcopyrng of I l"x I 7" or smaller, except as noted
above.. Telephone and fax usage, unless stipulated othenaise by Agreement.
4,8 Rates for Reimbursabls Expenses are subject to annual revision each January lst.
BCC Exhibtt 8 Compensolion 2018-O3-24.docx EXHTBIT B Poge 3 of3
E)CIIBIT C
SCHEDULE OF SERVICES
SCEEDT]LE OT PERFORMANCE
1. Consultant shall complete all Basic Services Tasks 1 tfuough 6, as described in Exhibit A,
by end of December 2018.
l.A The preliminary schedule for Tasks i through 6 of Basic Sewices is as follows-
aq!qple!e4!Y-e'r{-ql-Tasks
Task I Conceptual Desigtr Services
Task2 ProjectParticipation
Task 3 CEQA Docurnentation
Task 4 Geotechnical Services
Task 5 Land Surveying Services
Task 6 Schematic Desigrr (I59lo Construction
I)ocuments)
The schedule for the project overall or any phase(s) may be adjusted upon mutual
agreemsnt of the City and the Consultant to meet changing project needs.
June 2018
October 20lB
December 2018
October 2018
October 2018
October 2018
1.B
BCC Exlr,bil C Scheduie 2018-O3-24.docx IXH'EII C Poge I of I
STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8e
MEETING DATE: April 2,20'tB
To Honorable Mayor and City Gouncil
Date: April2,2018
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works - (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Final Subdivision Map (PM 17-05),
Lot Merger and Subdivision at 1028 Carolan Avenue
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the Final
Subdivision Map (PM 17-05) forthe lot merger and subdivision of land parcels described in the
grant deed recorded on December 28,2Q17 as document number 2017-116737, and grant deed
recorded on December 28, 2017 as document number 2017-116758, subject to the following
conditions:
1. All frontage sidewalk, driveway, curb, and gutter within the public right of way along Carolan
Avenue and Rollins Road shall be replaced with new improvements in compliance with City
and ADA standards.
2. All property corners shall be set in the field and shown on the final subdivision map.
3. The project shall dedicate necessary easements for emergency vehicle access, public
pedestrian access purposes, general public utility purposes, and public sanitary sewer
services as shown on the maP.
4. The final subdivision map shall comply with all the conditions of approval associated with the
condominium permit.
5. The final subdivision map and the associated development shall comply with all the conditions
of approval of the project as approved by the City Council on June 15,2015.
6. The conditions, covenants, and restrictions for the condominiums shall be in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney and shall conform to all approved conditions and city codes.
BACKGROUND
The proposed subdivision map involves the merger of four existing parcels, and its subdivision
into two new parcels, Parcel A and Parcel B. Parcel A will be the site for the construction of 268
new apartment units, and Parcel B will be subdivided into 22 new condominium units.
Additionally, Parcel B contains a private lane to be named as Anson Lane to be part of this
subdivision.
1
Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Final Subdivision Map
(PM 17-05), Lot Merger and Subdivision at 1028 Carolan Avenue
April 2,2018
On May 26, 2015, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the tentative subdivision
map and recommended Council approval with the conditions listed above. The City Council
followed the Planning Commission's recommendation and approved the tentative map on June
15,2015. Over the past two years, staff has been working with the developer to ensure all the
project requirements are met to prepare the final subdivision map. Staff has reviewed the
attached final subdivision map, and recommends its approval subject to the above listed
conditions.
Exhibits:
. Resolution
. Final Subdivision Map
o May 26,2015 Planning Commission Minutes
o Conditions of Approval for Condominium Permit
2
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE FINAL
SUBDIVISION MAP (PM I7-05), LOT MERGER AND SUBDIVISION AT ,I028 CAROLAN AVENUE
The City Council of the City of Burlingame, California resolves as follows
WHEREAS, on May 26, 2015, the Planning Commission reviewed the Project and recommended City
Council approval, and on June 15, 20"15, the City Council followed Planning Commission's recommendation and
approved the tentative subdivision map and the associated Project Development; and
WHEREAS, the final subdivision map will allow the developer to construct a multi-family development
consisting of 22 new residential condominiums and 268 new residential apartment units; and
WHEREAS, the final parcel map for the lot subdivision must be filed by the applicant within the time
period as allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, all property corners shall be set and shown on the final parcel map; and
WHEREAS, the final map shall show the widths of the right-of-way for Carolan Avenue and Rollins
Road, including the centerline of right-of-way, bearings and distances of centerlines; and
WHEREAS, the final map shall provide a private lane with the name Anson Lane; and the dedication of
easements for the purposes of public pedestrian access, maintenance access for public sanitary sewer
pipeline, public utilities, and emergency vehicle access as approved by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED BY THE COUNCIL, AS
FOLLOWS:
1. Staff shall verify that all conditions of approval are met and arrange for the recording with the
County of San Mateo for the final parcel map.
Michael Brownrigg, Mayor
t, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of April, 2018, and was
adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT
Councilmembers
Councilmembers
Councilmembers
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
RESOLUTTON NO._
OWNER'S STATEMENT CITY ENCINEER'S STATEMENT
I HTREBY SATT THAT I HAVT EXAMINID THIS MAP AND THAT THT SUBDIUSION SHOWN HIREON 15
SUBSTAMALLY THE $ME A5 If APPEAREO ON THT TENTATIVE MAPAND ANY APPROVED AITEMTIONs
THEREOFi THAI THE MAP CONFORMS TO CHAnER 2 OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP Aqi ANO THAT THE MAP
COMPLIES WTH ALT LOCAT OROIMNCES APPTIGBLE AT THT TIMT OE APPROVAL OF IH€ TENTATIVE MAP,
APROVALWAS RTCOMMENDTD 8Y THT ruANNINC COMMISSION ON----------,
CITY SURV€YOR'S STAIEMENT
THE UNDERSICNEO OWNERS ARE THI ONLY PARTI€S I]AVING &tCORO TITTI INTTREST NECESSARY TO
CONSENT TO THE PREPARATION AND TIlINC OF THIS MAP, TITLED FINAL MAP NO. ] 7.05, COMPRISINC
fOUR (4) SHEETS 8Y OUR SICNATURT5 BERETO WT HtREEY CONStNT TO THE PREPAUTION AND
RTCORDATION OF SIO MAP 45 SHOWN WTHIN THI DISTINCTIVT EORDER IINE
I HAVI TUMINTD THIs MAP ON BEHALF OF THT CIfr OF BURLINCAME AND I AM SATISFITO THAT THT
SURVEY DATA SHOWN HEREON IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT,
Wt HTRTBY IRREVOCASLY OFFER FOR OIDICATION AN ASIMINT FOR ruBlIC UTILIil OWR THE ilO (2)
ARFAS INDICATED AS'P U E ' SEE SI1EETS ] AND 4
DAT€D: -----------ffi Dii-si. aiiiR,i.i. ;rG*-
AfrING CITY 5URVEYOR, CIil Of BURTINCAMT.
CATIIORNIA
WE HTREBY IRRIVOGSLY OFFER FOR DTDICATION AN ASEMENf FOR EMIRGENO VEHICLE ACCTSS OWR
THt ilO {2) AREAS tNDtOTtD 6"f VA E ". SEt SHttTS 3 NO 4.
DATEOT
WE HTREBY IRRTVOCABLY OftTR fOR DTDICATION AN ASEMTNT IOR PUBLIC PTDEsTRIAN ACCTSS OVER
THE THREE 13) AREAS INDICATEO AS "P P.A [ " SET SHIETS 3 AND 4,
ART MORIMOTO. R,C,E. 42634
SSISANT OIREOOR Of PUBIICWORKS
CIfr Of BURTINCAMT. qLIFORNIA
WE HIREEY IRREVOCAETY OFfTR FOR OEDICATION AN ASEMINT fOR ruBLIC SNIfARY sEWER OWR THI
ARA INDICATEO A5'P,S S.E.'. SET SHETTS 3 ANO 4.
owNER: 5HAC CAROUN APARTMTNTS LLC. A OEHWARE tlMlTtO LIABILITY COMPANY SURVEYOR'5 STATEM€NT
NAMEI
Tr[i
NAME]
TITLT:
CITY CLERK'S STATEMENT
I, MAGUN M55E!.SHUR[R. CITY CLERX Of THT CIil OT SURLINGAMI, STATE OF AITORNIA,
HTREAY SATT THE Cfr COUNCII OI $IO CIW ACCEIS THT WTHIN A$MTNTS OTTEREO FOR
DTDICATION WTHIN THE OWNERS STATEMENT, AND MAP ON---------------...,.....-20] E,
THIS MAPWAS PREPARTO BY ME OR UNOER MY OIREfrION ANO IS hSED UrcN A FIETO SURWY IN
CONTORMANCT UTH THE REQUIREMTNTS OI fHE sUSDIVISION MAPAd AND LOru OSOIMNCT, AT
THt RIQUEST OT SUMMERHILL trARTMENT COMMUNIfIES INVEflMENTS, TTC, IN AUCUS 20]5, I
HIRIBY STATE THAT ALL THE MONUMENIs ART Of THT CHAUqER AND OCCUryTHT TSIfIONS
INOICATTD OR THAT THTY WLL 8T SET IN THOSI POSITIONS EEFORE OECTMBER 20] 9, AND THAT THT
MONUMTNTS AR€. OR WLL BE, SUFTICIENT TO ENABLE THT SURV€Y TO BT RETRACTD, AND THAT IHIS
FINAL MM SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS TO THT CONDITIONATTYAPROVED TENTATIVT MAP,
DATTO:
owNER: 5HAC CAROUN HOMES LLC. A DEUWARE tlMlTtD tlABlLlTY COMPANY
MAGHAN HASST!.SHEARIR
.IW CLERK
CIry OF EURLINCAMT, OLIFORNIA BYr DATI:
ALEX GLDER. P.L.S E86]
8Y:
NAME]
TtrTt:
8Y OWNER's ACKNOWL€DGMENT
NAME:
TITLE:
q NOTARY PUELIC OR OTHER OIfICTR COMPITTINC THIS
:TRIIFICATT VERIFITS ONLY THE IDENTIil Of THE INDIVIOUAI
{HO SIcNEO THE OOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CTRIIFIqTE 15
{TACHED, AND NOTTHT TRfrHfUlNtSS, ACCUUCY, OR
r'ALIOIfr OE THAI DOCUMTNT
COUNTY RECORDER's STATEMENT
FILTD THIs.--- DAY OF 2018, AT: ---- A.M./P.M.
OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDCMENT sATE OF --_________________________,)SS.
\ NO]ARY PUELIC OR OTHER OFTICTR COMPLITINC THIS
:TRTIFICATI WRITITS ONLY THE IOENTITY OF THT INDIVIOUAT
UHO SIGNEO THE DOCUMENTTO WHICH THIS CERTITIATE IS
\NACBED, AND NOT THE TRIHIULNE55, ACCUUCY, OR
/ALIDITY Of THAT DOCUMENT
COUNry Of
tN voLUMt _______ ot Mm, AT PACES _-------------,-. AT
THI REQUTST OT BKF TNCINEERS.
$^TI OF __-____-_____________________)Ss
oN --,------ 2018, EEIORE ME, _________----------, A NOTARY PUBLIC,
MRSMTLY APPhRTD,
mo PRowD fo ME oN TH€ USIS OF $TI5IAOORY IVIDINCE TO 8t THt P[RSON(S) ffiO* MMt lS
SU8SI8€D TO THT WfrIN INSRUMTNT AND AC(NONIDGIO IO MT TMT HE/sHT TXTCUTTD THE $ME
IN HIs/HER AUTHORIZ€D CAPACIN, AND THAT BY HIs/HTR SICNATURI ON fHE INSTRUMENT THT PER$N,
OR THE ENIIil UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON ACTED, EXECSEO THE INSTRUMENT,
I CERTIfr UNDTR MNATil OT PTRJURY UNDTR IHT UWS OT THT STATT Of ALITORNIA IHATTHE
FORIGOINC PAMCRM ISTRUT AND CORRICT,
WTNES MY HANO:
FILE NO ----------------------- Ftt:--.--- -
MARK CHURCH. $N MATTO COUNil RTCORDER
8Y:
D-EmrYIEadro-E[
COUNry OF
oN __-_----- 2018, EttoRt Mt, --_________________, A NoTARY PUELlC,
PIRSONALLY APPEARID,
WHO PROVED TO ME ON THE UsI5 OF $TISFAflORY IVIOENCT TO 8E THE PERSON(s) WHOSE NAM€ IS
SUBSCRIBID TO THE WTHIN INSRUMTNT ANO ACXNOMEDGTD TO MT THAT HTISHI EXECUTED THE $ME
IN HIS/HTR AUTHORIZTO CAPACITY, AND THAT BY HIS/HER SICNATURT ON THT INSTRUMENT THt PTRSON.
OR THI INTIry UrcN ffBALF OT WHICH THE PTRSON ACTTD, TXICWIO THt INSTRUMINT.
NOTARYS SIGNATURE:
I CERTIFY UNDER PENALry OF PERIURY UNDIR THE LAWS OF THT STATI OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE
FORECOINC PAUcRAPH IS TRUI AND CORRTCT,
COMMISSION No:
COMMISSION EXPIUTION DATT
WTNISS MY HAND:FINAL MAP NO. 17.05
NOTARYS 5IGNATURE A MERCER ANO A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION: PARCEL B TO CONTAIN A
MAXIMUM OF 22 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS
STINC A MIRCTR ANO SUEDIVISION OI THAT RAT PROPERE DESCRIEEO IN THAT
CIRIAIN CMNT DTTD RTCOROTD ON OTCEMETR 26. 20I7. AS OOCUMENT NUMBTR
2OI 7.I I67]7 AND THAT RAL PROftRT DTSCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN CUNT DEEO
RECOROED OECEMBER 2E, 20t 7 A5 DOCUMENT NUMBER 20] 7, I ] 5758
PRLNTED NAME:SOILs REPORT STATEMENT
A SOIIS RTrcRT FOR THIS $8DIUsION WAs PRIPMTO 8Y RGXRIOGT GTOTTCHNIAL, DATTO
O2l28/20I4. A COry Of Tffi RtrcRI 15 ON FILT WTH THt CITY Of EURLINGAME BUILOING
DTPARTMENI
PRINCIPAL PLACT OI BUSINT55 ...,,
COMMISSION No.:
COMMISSION EXPIUTION DATE:
CITY Of BURLINGAMT COUNry Of qN MATIO STATI OF qLIFORNIA
MARCH 20IA
til! B lt l 199. iii.ft$i':[':*..,
ErOXEEtl,tUl9EYOta.rtIrXEl! M.btt(om
SHEET ONE OF IOUR SHEETs
ALEX M,
CALDER
FND M CRG, NRF, ON
PRO]EfrIil OFIfrERIM TOT UNE,
0.6'ffiEruY OFOTD
FND EMIE OF ff CR6 R+W UilE
HED FNO CWCRG, NR4 SUMED
TO BE IMESEMON OF
PRO]EOIOfl OF ffiEruY P/L WH
OD HW RO'W UNE
(SEE OffdL BONTHE 5HEED
\
NIS OF 8AroNG
ftE EARNG OE NOffiH 62"26tr'WS OFNE rcMERLY UIE SROUN
AVEilUE 6 SWN ONNAT CEffiAN ilP RKORDEDOX ]UTY 25, 19D IN
rcNME {7 ff PARCE! ilAE AT PAGES 55 ANO $, SN MATEO COW 6
ESABLIsHEO BY CURB SPLtrS,
ENO 3/{'I,P. WCP. ANOTAC( I
NO NUMEE& l)m 0.10 rX
\l
I
PER 6 PM 9,0,1I'
WESERLY Of P/L PRO]EffiD
NORTHERLY, 17,74'FROU
CORNER OF ADJOINE(
(SEE DflAL BON
!G9I. SEE SflEffi 3 ANO 4 rcR PROMED *EMEM
2. AIL IffiERML Td TINB TO 8E MERGED BYTHIS MP
3, ORBSPM ALONGTOYON DWE WERE HELD rcR MEfl CEMRUilE
8W MTUSEOTO PERPMATETBE NERIY UN€ OFTHE $S'fr
srE.
4. OM SPffiALdGCMOUN AVENUE WERE U$DTO SAEUS THE
CEffiERUNE OF BE ftfl SO WERE OFEETHE HALF SREfl
WIOTHTO HABUSH THE SREfl RIGflOFWAY LINE,
rcRMER
SYSHORE
HIGHWAY LINE
(18.00) (3)
r0.w
R.3887@'
(rx2x3)REFERENCES(l) 22 MA66567r1(2)
(3)
(4)
(s)
(6)
47 ffi 55-$
6 PH 9. S Pr S.57
D.N. ml7-1167$
o.N.2017-116737
1089 0R l4l
o
I
I
L
OND:
OPEN,
r/4'r.P. t\-N2909',15'tprrtzt- | o44',. . \a {o oo1(2)
SYMEOL LECIND
O TOUND MONUMTNT AS NOTTO
a, *T 3/4' |RON PIE WTH P6S|C
ftuc sTMPtD.ts 8863
J
PARCEL 2 PER
58 PM 54.57
026 231 -O2a
DETAIL A
NO gTE
r *1
!E9E!9.
c
c/L
clF
ctR
o.N.
€.v.4.E.
FND
I.P.
Ntr
OR
P.PAE.
p,P.
P,U.E,
P.S.S.E,
SMS PARCEL NUHSER
ALCUUTED
CENTER TINE
CIAII UNK EErcE
claRMflEE NUHE€R
EtrERGErcY VEHICLE ACCS reEfrEff
ruND
IRON PIP€
NO REFERErcE ruNO
oFHCUt RECOrc
PRMRry UNE
ruBUC PEDM ACS 6EHE[PffiC PLI}G
PUBUC WIW ASEMEffi
PU8UC $NTARY SilER #EMEffi
ruffi{F,WAY
7\ ----.i\- t: - i-r,o 'n, *."*. n*.dl r LNSUHEO TO 8E IffiEEEOImtl i oE PRoffiIoN oF ffiERLY
?l i P/L wH oLD HW R-GW utEFND 3/4'I.P. W P.P. NDTAC(
Ttr, rc NUff8E&Im 0.ro lil s,/w l+-N29 O915't
14.17'
Nt 8'
(v^
4 99',
J NNNY UNE
!fr UNE
ffiEMEffi UNE
CEffiERlINEDETAIL B
NO gTE
FINAL MAP NO. 17-05
r.04' -- - -- -
I a EililtrrD,I --
s62',26',00',t 349.45', (35O.OONl)
lyl!!!tp{L _ __ _!4:ls_oi_!! ]rNCs __ __ _ _ -
aRouN AwNUt r3o'w@q
{.00'r.13'
A MERCER AND A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION: PARCEL B TO CONTAIN A
MAXIMUM OF 22 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS
EIINC A MTRcER AND SUEOIVISION Of TBAT RTAI PROPIRil DTSCRISED IN THAT
CIRTAIN CMNT DTTD RECOROEO ON DTCTMB[R 2A, 20I7. AS OOCUMTNTNUMSIR
20] 7. ] ]67]7 AND THAf RTAT PROPERTY OTSCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN CMNT DEEO
RtcoRotD DtctMEtR 28, 20t 7 N OOCUMENT NUMBTR 201 7.1 I 6758.
CIil OF EURLINCAME COUNN Of W MATTO STATT OI GTIFORNIA
I
(r2s.m)(r)r.rf,
GRAPHIC SCAI
MARCH 20I6
tilr BIrt lg9. pp$*:,':*,
EN0lllEEL.aUwEYOtt.,UrXEtl ww.bttcom
100,28'
(lm.@)(l)
125.fr'
OF TOYON PERoresPtm
:p;st-F=
b?
a{
r:
- om.mirl -
100.28',
OF TOYON
ORBsPffi
r2s.24', (r25.0X1)
I
i
)
:
PRO]EfrIONON
LOTOF UNE
PERrcUNO (2)
O@ LOT UNE
TOTAL AREA
PARCELS A & B
235,030 SQ. FT.1
5.39 AC.a
PARCEL A
l 70,992 5Q. FT. t
3.92 AC. t
FND I V2'I,P, OPEN,
AT GMOE
PER(2) HELD
l,,ii!i)lr .)ir alll i(: (lri li,:,i.lN).Ji.\t(ttlIs':5 l.i.( ,i t!i:ra
1 r\(,)ria! H:)!1r:s l,:..1
i.:i ?r17 I l,t?1.;
PARCEL B
64,038 SQ. FI. !
1.47 AC. r
i,AN,:i5 iF sirr,)
^t^Kt
|:Nl$
LL{: i! SHr'l
,JtLtili t.h:
ruxD 3/4',1.P.
OPEil, PER (2)
(SEE OffAIT A ON
\,
"-19
rs,
\2
9,87
ril 55.5$
J
60 60 20
SHIEf ryO Of FOUR SHEETS
I
v\
9l+l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
{,:li!llrt ,)ij 1'il1(:
tltlitutNIl)
l,l,c & rillr,rl
4? f[r 5:):;i'
8,,
l
l!:\lri!1lri{is Li,il
iiir&li_rl l_Li:'
HOM}:ri i.:.(:
il:i:r)::' I l:-.ii5 i
I
M:TXI:T
SEE SHEET 4
::::5IIN::IT:ilITT::::X::N I:I
20.00,E.V.A.E.
\
I r.v.le.I
P
-a6E+-
EETs
JZz
&
F
P
P,P.A.E,
9.87
SEE TAIL A -g;8qr3
EEEEq
8615 OF EARINGS
T8E 8ilroNc OF NORTH 62'26'M'WES OFTHE rcRTHERLY IINE AROUN
AVENUE 6 SIOWil ON THAT CERTAN XAP RECOrcED Oil ]UIY 25, I9N IN
WIUUE 47 S PARCEL ffi AT PAGS 55 ANO $, $N UTEO CfuW.
L ON SHEfl4 .
---JE.V.A,E.
20.w
I qa
RR g!@!_!!g$s.
. TOUND MONUM€ffi N NOTTD$2026'@',E $.50',
a
6I.
nPo
I
stT
i l-
b
F
d
b
a9
z
5,
q>
o:
PIUC LS 8853
E,V,A.E,
li ,-4.50'.P.P.A.E.
lEGElS SM PffiC€L NUfr8ER
ATOUTED
CEMERUNE
CMIN UNX FENCE
c!aR
UUAEM NMSER
EM€RGEW VEHICG ACCS SEMEM
ruND
IRON PIPE
ilO REFESNCE &ilD
trECI& RECORO
PROERil UNE
ru8UC PEOMN rcCS SE{Effi
PffiC PL6
ruBUC WILN ASEilEffi
PUBUC $NtrARY SMR SEMEffi
ruGfr'F.WAY
ll
ll
!
Lr
fiF
zUo F-sa b6*.K =8=GEg 5E:-
a,
c
c/L
cf
cu
D.N.
E.V.A.E,
FND
I.P,
OR
P,P.A.E,
P,U,E.
P.S.S.E.
20.o'E.V.A_E_
PARCEL'B'
64,038 SQ. Fr. I
1.47 AC. r
Ut
zp
l6
PARCEL 2 PER
58 PM 54-57
A.P.N. 026 23) -O28
F
i6
a
I
8L
PARCEL'A'
170,992 SQ. FT. r
3.92 AC. t
I
ilLF$&&
20.00'
28.@',
8-m'
18.00
o(r9*
9iPb ruNOARY UNE
-
touilE
-- -
-- -- CENTERLINE
ll
ll
- - 4.s,P.P.A.E.
I
o-?-
=aI9
GRAPEIC SCALE
lt
Fl- e.(D'
lt
ll
il
|l
ll
m.m,r.v.re _l_J-+_l
ro.m'p.u,e J + I
30 0 JO 60
13.00'P.s.s.E.
I I hEI6.8*E- €8s8E- EEg
.i
:FINAL MAP NO. 17-05
A MERC€R AND A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION: PARCEL B TO CONTAIN A
MAXIMUM OF 22 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS
8tIN6 A MTRGTR AND SUBOIVISION Of TUI RTAL PROPERry DTsCRISIO IN fHAT
CIRTAIN CMNT OEED RECOROEO ON DECEMBER 28. 20I7. AS OOCUMENT NUMETR
2OI 7, I I6737 AND IHAT RTAT PROPERTY OI5CRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN CMNT DEEO
RtcoRDtD DtctMEIR 28, ?0t 7 6 oocuMtNT NUMBER 201 7.1 I 5758.
N62.26'mY }9,{', OOAL)
CIY OT SURLINCAMT COUNry Of $N MATTO STATT OT GLIFORNIA
MARCH 20I8
255 SHOREUNE DR.
suft m
RENO@ Ory. CA%s
(650) 482-6U
CAROLAN AVENUE (80'wlDE)(12s.m)(1)
LElBlrtl99.
SHETT THRTE Of FOUR sHETTs
: I:5::
I
I
I
1l
1l
1l
1l
1l
1l
1l
llll
lltt
lllt
ltll
trlt
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EilCrilEElt . ,UwEYotl , ,t^XNEtt
I
!9[E
AN ffiEMEffi rcRTELECOMilUNIATIONS RECOROED MAY 17, MIOAS
INSRUMENT NUMBER 20TO-053192 OF $N HATEO OFTICR RECORDS, THE
LBNON OFIHE rcEMEffi qNIfr 8E DflERXINEO FRO! RECORD
\
lir
l^\e
I
r
I
I_ 20.m.E.V.AE. ilOI P.PI.E.
I
.T
\
ll'tb$'d8i-'
9.87
I
;t
qrtl_-___-_dt_
E-B-
isE:
b**E8:PEi"tv
FORMER
BAYSHORE t-
I
L
lr ll
1 itHIGHWAY LINE \---------"'1
a
R=S77.m'SEE DNAIL 8
ON THIS SHEfl I
10.00'A=0"1758'J I"1-Itl
^(
sl
Er
I
8.&'
18.m',
llrl Er
8r
2)
aE8-
?E*E
L *i
e
28.00'DETAIL AI
t
qEi l': l0'
I 10.16'-
r*"1
^l
3r
kr
UMIT OT IO' PT&T
roTAl
es3978 50''; -.03.55';s'18'a8'
)ti::l
- * i!:gagso'
r.403 53',
A_.5'47',54'
rOTAL
TNIMTNI
PtR 78ll OR
-9A
odF
NS:
5t
f 10.m' P.U.E.E
-,ilr, ,1 ii-i!!-tl \ r - - -t-
El!H
B159E
EHliefidsHd;
+
I -r -,1 1-:-: i! i) ' -i ) L
bfiF9FUYoe
gd
uSE-
lo
P
EE9bt
E
,H
H
5
d
I 9.P :-
o E-
5
10.03'R
i
b
i
I
P
P
PARCEL'A'
170,992 SQ. FT. r
3.92 AC. t
PARCEL'B'
64,O3a SQ. FT. t
t.47 AC. t
F
a
_o
zszo
z
a;i-
3EIo
M,M PP,A.E.
L J
lECElS
c
c/L
cLr
CLR
o.N.
E.V.A.E.
FflO
l.P.
OR
P.P.A.E.
P,U,E,
SM6 PARCEL ilUT8ER
qLOUTEO
CEffiER TINE
CBAIN LINK fENCE
CTAR
mt€ffi rufl8ER
ETERGEB WHICE ACCS EAEHEffi
ruND
IRON PIPE
NO REFERENCE ruNO
OFNCIA RECOrc
'ROERil
UNE
tuadc PEom rccs rcEf,Em
PffiC Pt6
ruBLIC Mfr NffEffi
PUBLIC $iltrARY SilER ffiEMEM
ruGflOF.WAY
5
d?
tr!t;9
DETAIL B
SGLE: l" = l0'
20.m,E.V.A.E.
I:.';'1 3
p
s
s!EE+^
gECIE
'22
&
3
b
P.P.A.E.FINAL MAP NO. 17-05
9.47
UTNY UNE
-
lquilE
- _ reEHEM UilE
------ -
cEffiERUilE
SEE DtrAIL A cl
?E
':*claBP{:
A MERCERANDA 2 LOT SUBDIVISION: PARCEL BTOCONTAINA
MAXIMUM OF 22 RESIDENTIAL CONOOMINIUM UNITS
BTING A MIRCTR AND SUBDIVSION OF THAT RtA PROPERN DTSCRIEED IN THAT
CTRTAIN CUNT DEED RECOROEO ON DICTM&R 24, 20 ) 7, A5 rcCUMENT NUMBER
20I 7.I I67]7 ANO THAT RAT PROERTY DETRIEIO IN IMT CTRTAIN GUNT DTTO
RECOROED DECIMSTR 2E, 2O] 7 A5 DOCUMENI NUMEER 20] 7. I ] 5758.L ONTHESHEfl |
E.V.AE.
a.m,
I
R R
CIN OF SURLINCAMT COUNfr OF 9N MATIO STAft Of AUFORNIA
P.P.A.E,
GRAPHIC SCALE
I
MARCH 2OI8
!!s B Iil tgg. ili#ff ':[': *.,
lx0lxEEia.,UrVEVOtl.rUxxEIl M.brt<om
I
JO I
EV.A.E
$2026'@',E S.$',
30
SEE SHEET 3
SHEET FOUR OF FOUR sHETTs
t,t
Itl
Itl
II
I
E.V,A.E.
I
I
n,'r-
B'B
\a
-\9- -
FriHr\4T I
I
I
I
I
+
diF20.0ff
l.(l rl
lfil1l
F
L-7.6cJ I
arro.sr4l' t
I
hl
$r
1l
1l
1l
1l
1l
1l
1l
1l
1l
1l
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1l
1l
1l
1l
1l
I
I
I
I
I
I
llll
mxffi ffi wMm**HsnumrnxxHxtmrxxHnlmwntnxBtrnrnxx
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes - Final
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CIry HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
a.
Tuesday, May 26,2015 7:00 PM Council Chambers
1008 - 1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007 - 1025 Rollins Road Certiflcation of a Final
Environmental lmpact Report (FEIR), Condominium Permit and Tentative
Condominium Map, Design Review, Conditional Use Permits for multi-family use and
building height, Special Permits for vehicular access within the 20-ft. setback adjacent
to the south property line & for building height within 100ft. of the south property line,
Demolition Permit Exception, and Fence Height Exception for a new 268-unit
residential apartment building and Z2-unit residential condominium project
(SummerHill Apartment Communities, applicant; SummerHill Apartment Communities;
Stucker Family Trust and Oscar F. Person Testamentary Trust, property owners) (134
noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner
Atlachments: 1008-1028 Carolan Staff Reoort
1 008-1 028 Carolan Attachments
'1008-1028 Carolan Final EIR
1008-1028 Carolan Project Plans
1008-1028 Carolan Received After 1
1008-1028 Carolan Received After 2
1 008-1028 Carolan Received After 3
Att Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Ierrones and Gum noted that they had an
e-mail exchange with Etaine Breeze. Commissioner Gaul indicated that he had a telephone
conversation with Ms. Breeze. Chair DeMartini noted that he had met with the applicant and toured the
property some time ago.
Ptanning Manager Gardiner presented an overview of the staff repoft-
John Schwarz, David J. Powers & Assocrafes, provided an overview of the findings of the Environmental
lmpact Repoft (ElR).
Questions of staff/environmental consultant:
> Page 13 - massing and height; conclusion was that the change in visual character would not be a
significant impact. Also noted that the proposed project is only slightly taller than the adiacent prolect -
At what point does the height become a significant lssueZ (Schwarz - under the California
Environmentat Quality Act ICEQA] are concerned with impacts to scenic vlewsheds, visual resources.
The type of infilt development that would occur under the City's land-use policies would typically not
result in a significant impact.) Noted that the staff provided information that this proiect would be 55%
taler than the adjacent multi-famity project (Norlh Park Apaftments). Not clear what should be
considered significant. The height difference between the two proiects iumps out.
> /s rT fair to say that per CEQA, if a project were exceeding a City standard, then would it rise to a
level of significance? (Schwarz - not typically if the change is ten to fifteen feet; will vary.)
> The height, massing, etc. is something that is more the purview of the Commisslon as parl of design
CW of Budingame Page 1 Printed on 6ts/2015
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final May 26, 2015
review? (Schwarz - yes.)
> Page 30 - requested information regarding occupancy of other buildings cited in the analysis,
questioned what is considered full-occupancy? Was looking for some consistency in this information.
Were there special conditions that existed to show the occupancy per building. Could certainly get the
specific information regarding the survey of buildings. (Schwarz - Can certainly get the specific
information requested, but does not have it with him at this time. Gardiner - the parking study contains
the full information.)
> Which Housing Element applies? Requested claification regarding references in the ElR.
(Gardiner - was submitted under the former element, but a new element was adopted during processing .
State law requires that the latest element numbers would apply. Noted that the zoning and other
land-use policies did not change from one Housing Element to another.)
> Requested an explanation of grovrth-inducing impacts. (Schwarz - the c/assic growth-inducing
scenario is a situation where utility infrastructure is expanded to provide the opportunity to develop
propefties that were not previously developed. Development of this site could possibly encourage
development of other properties in the area, but doesn't feel that this is likely.)
> Sea-Leye/ Rise - assuming that impacts upon underground parking are not analyzed; if we
expeience sea-level ise that causes the parking to be unusable, is that scenaio evaluated per CEQA?
(Schwaz - difftcult to speculate on what the impact could be under that scenario. Only livable areas are
evaluated. Most flooding rssues are typically shorter term and will ultimately be rectified.)
> SeaJeye/ rise will occur incrementally. lf sea-level rises fo the point that this project's garages are
flooded, there wilt be many /arger rssues that must be faced other than impacts upon parking for this
prqect. The impacts will be other greater impacts upon the entire community.
> The Bay Area must evaluate sea-level ise on a more global basis. (Schwarz - many Bayfront cities
are looking at measures to minimize impacts from sealevel rise on a broader basis.)
> Should we not be planning projects with subterranean garages due to potential impact from
sea-level ise? Doesn't hear this from the community. (Meeker - the General Plan update will look at
the broader, more global impacts of sea-level rise.)
> Park lmpacts - concern about impact upon Alpine Park. Perhaps there are improvements that can
be made on-site to minimize this impact. (Schwarz - will need to defer to the applicant on on-site
improvements. The project will pay patu impact fees.)
> The EIR is saying that there are no significant, unavoidable impacts due to the proiect under CEQA.
(Schwarz - that is correct.)
> Noted that the pa*ing and traffic patterns may change due to the change from non-residential to
residential usage and due to the roadway improvements in the area. The level of service in the area
may improve in spite of this proiect being introduced into the area. (Schwaz - conect.)
Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing.
Elaine Breeze, Summerhitl Apaftment Communities and Alex SerUe/, Seidel Architects; presented an
overview of the project.
Quesfions of developer team:
> ls there an estimate ofthe school impactfee? (Breeze - $1,020,000.)
> A couple of years into the project, what should one expect to see relative to the fencing and trees?
(Breeze - tree specimens are quite large (36-inch box), there will be ground cover plantings and
stormwater mitigation installed. Wll install the wall per the neighbors' request.)
> Explain what the rents would be today for the moderate incomes. (Gardiner - rents are set by the
housing management company employed by the City. Meeker - moderate income units have rents
based upon 120% of the median household income for the San Mateo County area, taking into account
family size. You cannot exceed 30% of monthly income for the household. Breeze - based upon 2014
numbers, the rents would be around $2,100 for a one-bedroom and $2,600 for a two-bedroom unit.)
> Ctarified that Summerhill doesn't set the rents for the affordable units. (Meeker - that is conect.)
> Wth respecf to the community room - keep in mind that once the new community center is built for
the City, the rent rates wouldn't be tied to the rates of the existing facility.
> Asked where the existing tenants on the property will be going; the auto uses are among the top tax
City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on a/gnfio
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final May 26, 2015
generators in the City? ls there anything the City may need to do to keep them within the community?
(Breeze - canT speak to all tenant's circumstances, but claified that Hyundai is required to leave due to
a franch i se ag reement.)
> With respect to the eight foot high wall - is the applicant still working on receiving total agreement as
only eight residents have provided letters of support. (Breeze - doesn't include the entire group as some
members already have eight foot walls. Want to receive an approval to allow construction of an eight
foot wall on all propefties if deemed necessary.)
> What if some of the owners don't wish to have an eight foot wall, but only want a seven foot wall?
(Breeze - will commit to eight feet as /ong as there is an aesthetically pleasing design.)
> What measures are being taken to conserve water in the apaftment development? (Breeze - the
City of Burlingame has stricf requirements for meeting CalGreen requirements. Sub-meter hot and cold
water. Iankless water heating is fo be provided in the townhouse units. The landscape design includes
smart irrigation sysfems. The City requires the estimation of a water use budget for the landscaping and
requires conformance.)
> Wtt the new eight foot watt be built to match the existing wall? (Breeze - will not match, but will
construct a very simple wall with a simple texture that will blend well.)
> Coutd the wall be instalted pior to construction on the rest of the site? (Breeze - intend to install a
protective fence during demolition, fotlowed by installation of the new fence thereafter. Landscaping will
be installed later.)
> Property tine change - asked for elaboration of the measures being taken to mitigate the changes.
(Breeze - met with affected neighbors. Wll re-establish the fence line based upon the survey, but will
meet with affected neighbors with an eye to minimizing impacts whether it be through routing a fence
around existing trees, or instatling new trees on properties. One neighbor's lean-to shed will be replaced
with a conforming storage shed and additional shrubbety.)
> Wlt property line surveys be done by both involved pafties? Are the neighbors accepting of the
property tines that have been estabtished? (Breeze - not aware that the neighbors have done so, but
have been consistently reaching out to the involved property owners.)
> What is the reasoning for an eight-foot fence? Sees fhis as residential uses are abutting residential
uses. Encouraged the neighbors to claify the purpose.
Public comments:
Noveed Safipour, works in Burlingame:
> President of local potitical ctub (Peninsula Young Democrats) that has a pro-affordable housing
stance.> A project like this will help meet housing needs.
> Encouraged project approval. lt is near public transit opportunities-
> Only the bare minimum of affordable housing units are being provided. Asked the Commission to
take a closer look at this and perhaps encourage a lower level of affordability, or more units.
Marianne Saucedo, 925 Larkspur Dive:
> Supports the proiect.
> parking has been an rssue in the neighborhood for a long time. Neighbors have expressed concern
regarding the parking. The City has done what it can to address the parking problem. Presented six
letters from neighbors suppofting the proiect with one against due to parking and traffic.
> Assumes that there witl be overnight parking available on Carolan after the reconfiguration of the
street. (Commissioner - is the parking impact due to fhe buslnesses or North Park?) Likely from the
apaftments around the comer, not from North Park.
Shannon Chircop, Floribunda Avenue;
> Supporfs the project. Lives and works in Burlingame and grew up on the Peninsula.
> /mpressed with the design, location and the parking.
> Wlt be a huge visual improvement for the area. To have a project that makes a statement in the
City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 6/9/2015
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final May 26, 2015
area will be a positive improvement.
> Pertect location for those wishing a connected lifestyle.
> The parking provided is phenomenal.
Pat Callahan, 921 Linden Avenue:
> Sf,// concerned with some of the project massing and how it fits in with the neighborhood. Have
made positive improvements to the design.
> Have continued parking problems; is there a means of prohibiting residents within the proiect from
parking within the low-density neighborhood?
> Feels the traffic analysis is confusing. Feels there will be impacts caused by people going to school.
Jesse Ososky, Toyon Drive:
> Like what Summerhitt has done to refine the project and their responsiveness to the neighbors.
> Wll be a great improvement to have townhomes behind their homes'
> Have been assured that ample parking is being provided-
> Suppotts the Proiect.
Cynthia Cornell, Burlingame Advocates for Renters Protection:
> Wondeing if the environmental analysis assesses traffic impacts upon Cadillac Way as it is the
access to the freewaY?
> Want to be certain that Summerhilt witt be a good tandlord in Buflingame. Noted problems with the
tandtord at North Park reducing tenant parking.
> Noted numerous tenant impacts at North Park-
> Doesn't agree with the moderate income rental amount-
> Wll rent increases be tied to the Consumer Price lndex?
> The Commission needs to vet who will be running the development.
> Concerned about the volatile organic compound (VOC) levels outside the development after
construction.
John Kevranian, Chairman of the Broadway Burlingame Eustness lmprovement Distict:
> The board supports the Proiect.> Wtll be good for businesses on Broadway.
> Urged support of the Proiect.
Wayne, 1008Toyon Dive:
> The eight foot wall is a good sound and pivacy barrier, doesnT want to /ose his.
Appl icant reb utta I (El ai n e Breeze) :
> Were advised that the tenants cannot be prohibited from parking in the neighborttood. Noted other
measure in the conditions.
> Wil develop a construction peiod parking plan as a condition pior to tssuance of a building permit.
> Summerhl,I uses third-party management companies. Develop on the Peninsula and remain in the
communities.> parking Counts were taken September 10-12 at midnight. The occupancy of the Plaza was 95%o,
the Metropotitan was 90%o, Archstone San Mateo was 95%o and Avalon San Bruno was at 93-95%.
> Irees will be placed eighteen feet on center.
Chair DeMaftini closed the public hearing.
Commission discusslon:
City of Budingame Page 4 Prinled on 6E/2015
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final May 26, 2015
EIR Ceftification:
> Need to rely on the consultantb analysls relative to CEQA.
> Feels that the questions that have been asked duing the scoping sesslon and the EIR review were
good.
> ls comfortable with the conclusions of the FEIR-
Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner DeMaftini, to certify the FEIR for the
project. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 6 - Terrones, DeMaftini, Bandrapalli, Loftis, Gum and Gaul
Absent: 1 - Sargent
Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for Height:
> Llkes the project de.srgn; is the type of smaft development that needs to be taken in the area.
> Very nicely mediates between the high- and low-density developments in the area'
> Nicely articulated, great landscaping.
> The project represents a significant contrast to the North Park Apartments; the design approach
embraces the street and the pedestrian reatm; provides pedestrian circulation within and through the
project.
> Significant amenities are provided within the devleopment'
> Stiuck by the neighborhood support given the s/e desrgnb sensitivity to the existing neighborhood
pattem.
> The project successfully creates a good transition between the high-density to low4ensity
neighborhood.> Good massing, character and pedestian scale.
> lmpressed with the pubtic spaces; have embraced the community with amenities built into the
project.
> Wtl be greatfor Broadway and CalTrain.
> Feels that the new top story setback change has allowed the design to better fit into the setting.
> The project's location and design encourage walking'
> Pteased with providing a community meeting space.
> Doubts whether a befter company could be selected to run the devleopment. Summerhill is
thoroughly capable. Summerhitl has remain engaged in the community in other areas as well.
> ls concemed about the height of the buitding. Every ptanning document in the City has dlscussed
how critical it is for the project to fit in with the Toyon neighborhood - feels that the proiect is one -story
too tatl. Doesn't feel that alt land-use poilbies have been followed in this realm.
> The slte is a fantastic place for housing and replaces an eyesore. The use is perfect for the location.
> Disagrees with comments regarding the building height. The plans for the area provide the
opportunity to buitd up to TSfeet in height in a manner fhat rs sensrtrve fo its setting. Could not think of a
btetter design solution. The project makes a good transition between the density areas and providees a
townhouse development area that provides a transition to the single-family neighborhood to the south.
Commissioner Tenones moved, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapatli to approve the application for
Design Review and Conditional lJse Permits for height of the apartment buildings. Chair DeMartini
asked for a voice vote, and the motion canied by the following vote:
Aye: 5 - Terrones, Bandrapalli, Loftis, Gum and Gaul
Nay: 1 - DeMartini
Absent: 1 - Sargent
City of Budingame Page 5 Printed on 6E/2015
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final May 26,2015
Specla/ Permits:
> The driveway is a benefit to the transition to the single-family neighborhood to the south.
> The landscape plan providesfor extensive screening'
Commissioner Gum moved, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the requesfs for
Specia/ permit for a driveway in the 100-foot buffer adiacent to the Toyon neighborhood and for the
height of the condominium structures. Chair DeMaftini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by
the following vote:
Aye: 5 - Tenones, Bandrapalli, Loftis, Gum and Gaul
Nay: 1 - DeMaftini
Absent: 1 - Sargent
Earty Demolition of existing improvements:
> There are special circumstances that exist in this instance, in that site preparation will require the
potential clean-up of contaminants.
Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the reguest for early
demolition of existing site improvements. Chair DeMaftini asked for a voice vote' and the motion carried
by the following vote:
Aye: 6 - Terrones, DeMartini, Bandrapalli, Loftis, Gum and Gaul
Absent: 1 - Sargent
Fence Height ExcePtion:
> can,t support this aspect; it creates a separation between the neighbors. understand that it is
coming from the affected neighbors.
> Doesn,t necessaity d-isagree, but considers this request from the perspective of those who are
being impacted. ln this case, the neighbors are requesting the desires of the neighbors'
, Feels obligated to consider the reguest, given the genesls of the request.
> Do not have consensus of att property owners, but do have a maioity represented. ls comfortable
with allowing.
Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to grant the request for a fence
height exception. Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
> /s an exceptional example of the developer attempting to work with the neighbors.
> The owners have asked to keep the taller fence. No one came forward not wanting the fence.
The motion passed on the following vote:
Aye: 5 - Tenones, DeMartini, Bandrapalli, Loftis and Gum
Nay: 1 - Gaul
Absent: 1 - Sargent
Condominium Permit and MaPs:
Motion by Commissioner Terrones, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the
Conditional Use permit for multi-family use and Tentative and Final Maps' Chair DeMartini asked
City of Burtingame Page 6 Printed on 6R/2015
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Final May 26, 2015
for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 6 - DeMartini, Lofris, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli
Absent: 1 - Sargent
City ol Bu.tingane P.inted on 6A/2015
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Burlingame Planning Commission,
I am a neighbor of the proposed SummerHill Carolan Ave-Rollins Road project (268 apartments
and22 townhomes) and I support the project forthe following reasons:
. lmproves property values in our neighborhood - a first rate project with attractive
architecture, high-quality building materials, high-end community amenities and interior
unit finishes.. Eliminates the automotive uses in our neighborhood, including parking lots, pole signs,
flood lights, noise, and employee and customer parking impacts.
. Extends the caltrans u.s. 101 sound wall along the project frontage.
. provides the necessary parking onsite with 466 spaces for the apartments in a 2-level
enclosed garage and 58 spaces forthe townhomes in 2-3 car garages, totaling 524
spaces, including guest parking. More than 50% of the projectwill be 1-bedroom units.
street frontage parking on carolan and Rollins will remain.
. Both the Highway l0liBroadway interchange and Carolan Complete Streets projects will
be completed before the SummerHill project. These public projects will improve our
existing traffic conditions, and according to the city's traffic studies, the SummerHill
project does not create any significant impacts under those future conditions.
. provides 171 new trees, landscaping, and a public path connecting Carolan to Rollins.
I encourage the Planning Commission to support this projecl'
Sincerely,
b 4t3 A:u\a A,,,0-5
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Burlingame Planning Commission,
I am a neighbor of the proposed SummerHill Carolan Ave-Rollins Road project (268 apafiments
and 22 townhomes) and I support the project for the following reasons:
lmproves property values in our neighborhood - a first rate project with attractive
architecture, high-quality building materials, high-end community amenities and interior
unit finishes.
Eliminates the automotive uses in our neighborhood, including parking lots, pole signs,
flood lights, noise, and employee and customer parking impacts-
Extends the Caltrans U.S. 101 sound wall along the project frontage.
Provides the necessary parking onsite with 466 spaces for the apartments in a 2-level
enclosed garage and 58 spaces for the townhomes in 2-3 car garages, totaling 524
spaces, including guest parking. More than 50% of the project will be 1-bedroom units.
Street frontage parking on Carolan and Rollins will remain.
Both the Highway 101/Broadway interchange and Carolan Complete Streets projects will
be completed before the SummerHill project. These public projects will improve our
existing traffic conditions, and according to the city's traffic studies, the SummerHill
project does not create any significant impacts under those future conditions.
Provides 171 new trees, landscaping, and a public path connecting Carolan to Rollins.
I encourage the ing Commission to support this project.
Sincerely
I
a
a
r/ctAz .{Ut /'6;4o "t/
qA/La.KsV,r Dr
a
l
I
i
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Burlingame Planning Commission,
I am a neighbor of the proposed SummerHillCarolan Ave-Rollins Road project (268 apartments
and 22 townhomes) and I support the project for the following reasons:
lmproves propefi values in our neighborhood - a first rate project with attractive
architecture, high-quality building materials, high-end community amenities and interior
unit finishes.
Eliminates the automotive uses in our neighborhood, including parking lots, pole signs,
flood lights, noise, and employee and customer parking impacts'
Extends the caltrans u.s. 101 sound wall along the project frontage.
provides the necessary parking onsite with 466 spaces for the apartments in a 2-level
enclosed garage and 58 Spaces for the townhomes in 2-3 car garages, totaling 524
spaces, including guest parking. More than 50% of the project will be 1-bedroom units.
Street frontage parking on Carolan and Rollins will remain'
Both the Highway 101/Broadway interchange and Carolan Complete Streets projects will
be completed before the SummerHill project. These public projects will improve our
existing traffic conditions, and according to the city's traffic studies, the SummerHill
project does not create any signiflcant impacts under those future conditions.
provides 171 newtrees, landscaping, and a public path connecting Carolanto Rollins.
I encourage the Planning Commission to support this project'
Sincerely,
!)
a
a
a
a
o L,4r9.{(r .->
f - "Li.-=.j12 *-tJw l.v- I i:: i:./ t it r!{}c<' Lf, ,'tr
1u 1". {\.:, I
\ .j j' . .> *- .'=Z'i''\- !. r:t-r;: I
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Burlingame Planning Commission,
I am a neighbor of the proposed SummerHill Carolan Ave-Rollins Road project (268 apartments
and 22 townhomes) and I support the project for the following reasons:
. lmproves properly values in our neighborhood - a first rate project with attractive
architecture, high-quality building materials, high-end community amenities and interior
unit finishes.
' Eliminates the automotive uses in our neighborhood, including parking lots, pole signs,
flood lights, noise, and employee and customer parking impacts'
. Extends the Caltrans U.S. '101 sound wall along the project frontage.
. Provides the necessary parking onsite with 466 spaces for the apartments in a 2-level
enclosed garage and 58 spaces for the townhomes in 2-3 car garages, totaling 524
spaces, including guest parking. More than 50% of the project will be 1-bedroom units.
Street frontage parking on Carolan and Rollins will remain.
. Both the Highway 101/Broadway interchange and Carolan Complete Streets projects will
be completed before the SummerHill project. These public projects will improve our
existing traffic conditions, and according to the city's traffic studies, the SummerHill
project does not create any significant impacts under those future conditions.
. Provides 171 new trees, landscaping, and a public path connecting Carolan to Rollins.
I encourage the Planning Commission to support this project
Sincerely,
G il' F f:[l
/4 /tr rEH ,,7/t /D
Planning Commlssion
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Burlingame Planning Commission,
I am a neighbor of the proposed SummerHillCarolan Ave-Rollins Road project (268 apartments
and 22 townhomes) and I support the project for the following reasons:
lmproves property values in our neighborhood - a first rate project with attractive
architecture, high-quality building materials, high-end community amenities and interior
unit fln!shes.
Eliminates the automotive uses in our neighborhood, including parking lots, pole signs,
flood lights, noise, and employee and customer parking impacts'
Extends the caltrans u.s. 101 sound wall along the project frontage.
provides the necessary parking onsite with 466 spaces for the apartments in a 2-level
enclosed garage and 58 spaces for the townhomes in 2-3 car garages, totaling 524
spaces, including guest parking. More than 50% of the project will be 1-bedroom units.
Street frontage parking on Carolan and Rollins will remain-
Both the Highway 101/Broadway interchange and Carolan Complete Streets projects will
be completed before the SummerHill project. These public projects will improve our
existing traffic conditions, and according to the city's traffic studies, the SummerHill
project does not create any significant impacts under those future conditions.
provides 171 new trees, landscaping, and a public path connecting Carolan to Rollins.
I encourage the Planning Commission to support this project'
Sincerely,
a
t
a
e fut.,ue- Jr*$h oLe*v io*,t tteq*ou.a f, ,'-lntro'l' t't." h^tt.e;
\.EriQL -a^hiru U."\,"Uf vnh,. 1 C J"' I t]dh '" -1fl'"f
or.,rto- i" htu; ""0,^-+^[.L1-
tt c or.Lourrb.,e /)a-e4 o.^ C*'u{.^^ uelfl"t etht^rrrJ tl,-
i:'t*V^0orJ ; notttz 4)te *3 u^ef\ I *' l'*k [o '<'e.--
bt^e.,* cl o
- Yr.^ *'l- tr, {;t.'*dHc. k, he,-;h- ,0.0 {0,, bcuo,,^l* *il! lf-L
td* ca) ; hao-, d**o - g.{ er'4i 'hc,ot o '*'*vo'ltd'tt1d
0a {[r,.a * \r*h*+
'nl1n"e .,.^ ot*t affcuV l.
\r*'rrr),p
lzq x Flui,@ o4 (*,,lrrlsw
-)ru{|fr^u-,*
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Burlingame Planning Commission,
I am a neighbor of the proposed SummerHill Carolan Ave.Rollins Road project (268 apartments
and 22 townhomes) and I support the project for the following reasons:
. lmproves property values in our neighborhood - a first rate project with attractive
architecture, high-quality building materials, high-end community amenities and interior
unit finishes.. Eliminates the automotive uses in our neighborhood, including parking lots, pole signs,
flood lights, noise, and employee and customer parking impacts'
. Extends the Caltrans U.S. 101 sound wall along the project frontage.
. provides the necessary parking onsite with 466 spaces for the apartments in a 2-level
enclosed garage and 58 spaces for the townhomes in 2-3 car garages, totaling 524
spaces, including guest parking. More than 50% of the project will be 1-bedroom units.
Street frontage parking on Carolan and Rollins will remain.
. Both the Highway 101/Broadway interchange and Carolan Complete Streets projects will
be completed before the SummerHill project. These public projects will improve our
existing traffic conditions, and according to the city's traffic studies, the SummerHlll
project does not create any significant impacts under those future conditions.
. provides 171 new trees, landscaping, and a public path connecting Carolan to Rollins.
I encourage the Planning Commission to support this project'
incerelyS
I":itt,!l
t!iii/,,I V'r'
q oq L,rlu^ Ave-
Nrrn(y /),rrl, llcl
1J
t, :)Jf
1,"
,l
,',Lii i,!
i
l
I
iJl.+t1,'lJ!,r
,,1;,
I
i
I
I
i
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
I am a neighbor of the proposed SummerHill Carolan Ave-Rollins Road project (268 apartments
and 22 townhomes) and I support the project for the following reasons:
lmproves property values in our neighborhood - a first rate project with attractive
architecture, high-quality building materials, high-end community amenities and interior
unit finishes.
Eliminates the automotive uses in our neighborhood, including parking lots, pole signs,
flood lights, noise, and employee and customer parking impacts.
Extends the Caltrans U.S. 101 sound wall along the project frontage.
Provides the necessary parking onsite with 466 spaces for the apartments in a 2-level
enclosed garage and 58 spaces for the townhomes in 2-3 car garages, totaling 524
spaces, including guest parking. More than 50% of the project will be 1-bedroom units.
Street frontage parking on Carolan and Rollins will remain.
Both the Highway 101/Broadway interchange and Carolan Complete Streets projects will
be completed before the SummerHill project. These public projects will improve our
existing traffic conditions, and according to the city's traffic studies, the SummerHill
project does not create any significant impacts under those future conditions.
provides 171 new trees, landscaping, and a public path connecting Carolan to Rollins.
I encourage the Planning Commission to support this project.
Sincerely,
q06
1'L(4 c
a
a
a
a
Dear Burlingame Planning Commission,
a (y a*i S
I
I
CITY OF BURLINGAME
City Hall - 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, Catifornia 9401 0-3997
July 18,2017
Elaine Breeze
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 $. California Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94304
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
planning Division
PH: (650) sS&72S0
FAX; (6s0) 696-3790
Re: 1028-1008 Carolan Avenue & ,002-{025 Rollins Road
Dear Ms. Breeee,
since there was no appeal to or suspension by the city council, the May g,2017, planning commission
lPPrwat o{ your application for a one Year Extension of a previously "appioreO Condominium permit,
Conditional Use Permits, and Special Permils became effective iu[ 6, ztiri. irris application was for a newz!!luni!lesidential apartment glrt{il9 and 22-unit condominium pioject at 1003-102'B Carotan Avenue and1007-1025 Rollins Road, zoned C-?R4 Overlay.
The May 8, 2A17, minutes of the Planning Commission state your application was approved with thefollowing conditions:
1. that the proiect shall be built as ![own on the plans submitted to the planning Division datestampod May 19, 2015, sheets A0.0 through A5.4, L1"1 through L6,1, anJTM T.o tnrorgr, Tivl8.1;
2. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construdion of the project, the projed constructionplans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditioni of appr|vai adopted i'tih;Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; wnicn shall remairi'i-part of all sets ofapprovad plans throtFhout the construction process. Compliance wtth allconditions of approvaiis requlred; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed winout tfre appid,var oithe Planning Commissisn, or City Councilon appeal;
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which woutd include changing or addingexterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to lhis permit;
4. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roofheight or pitctr, and amount or typg,of hardscape materiais shalt be subj"Jio pfrnning Oivisio;or Planning Commission review (FYl or amendment to be determined by itanning sta6; -'-"
5' that the townhome unils shall incorporate aluminum clad wood windows with divided orsimulated true divided lites;
6. that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 6.t'-6,, as
HH Register online to receive city of Burlingame e-mail updates at wyrur.burlingame.org #fr
May 30, 3017
1AA8-1428 Carolan Avenue & 1OO?-1025 Rolline Road
Page 2
measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Carolan Avenue {g'-6'), and
that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by tre City
Engineer as the fr*ming praceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. Should any
framing exceed the stated elevation it shell be removed or adjustad so that the finat height of
the structure urith roof shall not exceed the maximum height shoyun on the approved plansf
7. that the project shall include lhe following Transportation Demand Management Measures as
proposed in the project description provided by the applicant dated July 11, 2O14
a. Four efectric vehicle charging stations
b. Preparation for ten additianal electric vehicle charging stations for apartments
c. Preparation for electric vehicle charging outlet in all townhome garages
d. Provislon for two-car-sharing vehicle spaces te.g., Zipcarl
e. 134 secure guest bicycle parking spaces
f. Bike repair station
g. Tenant web portal for carpooling
h. Business cenler and conferenqe room fortelecommuting.
8.that as a community benefit, the prqject shall include 29 .ftrloderate lncome" rental units, in
conjunclion with allowance for up to {5? compact parking space$. The Cig Manager ehall be
authorhed to execute an agreement with the applicant, with the provision that the units be
affordable ts households of 'Moderate lncome' category as defined as eaming a maximum of
l\fra/a af $an Mateo County Area Median lncome {AMl}, for a period of at least twenty-five (25)
yearE;
that the City Manager will be authorized to negotiate a Uee Agreement with the applicant to
formalize the work share space in the apartment building to be available for community use by
local community organizations consistent with the community meeting room use eligibility
criteria set forth by the Burlingame Public Library.
that the conditions of the Suilding Division's June 13, 2014, May 14, 2AU and March 2A, 2A14
memos, the Park's Division's May 25, 2014 memo, , th6 Engineering Division's June 19, 2014
mamo, and the Fire Division's June 16, 2014 and March 24, 2A14 rnemos shall be met;
11 that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of
the public facitities impact fee in the amount of $613,809.50, made payable to the City of
Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division;
#*i Register online to receive City of Burlingame e-mail updates at w$,w.burllngama.org ffiH
9
10.
12. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection, the applicant shall pay the second half of
i
i
May 30, 2017
1008-1024 Carolan Avenue & 1002-102S Roltins Road
Page 3
the pubtic facilities impact fee in the amount of $619,g09.50, made payabte to the City ofBurlingame and submitted to the planning Division;
13- that the proiect ehell cornply with the construction and Demotition Debris Recycting ordinancewhich require* affected demalition, new con$truction and alteration prj*.t* to submit a WasteReduction plan and meel recycling requirements; any pafiial or tuit Cimotition of a structuie,interior or exterior, shall require a demolition pennit;
14- that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or ea*h moving on the siteshall not occur.until a building permit hls baen iseued and Jucn sle work shafi bJreqrir"d i;cornply with att the regutations of the Bay Area Air euatity Management District, uiC"pij"provided unde_r Condition of Approval #1i andtor unless aiplicsntiroduces evidence, to thesatisfactlcn of .the _C..omm.unrty Development Director, tnii speciirl clrCumstances exist tewarant early demolition, in accordance with the provision* of Burlingame Municipaf CoO-eChaprer 1B.tir.o6s;
15' that eady d".f?l.,tjqn and grading permits shall be issued in adyance of a buitding permit toimplement M[il HAz-1-1 through MM HAz-1.6 in order to prepare the required ,,"po,i'to **piywith MM H}f-1.7- Prior to issuance of the demolition anO iyraOing permits, tne ippficant i*fiprovide evidence that it is havinq plans prepared for ttre fop*ior which the deinotitian isintended;
15. that during constnlction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh)around the projecl site to ensure that all construction CIquipment, materiats and debds is kept onsite;
17 - that atorage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-wayshall be prohibited;
18. that the applicant_shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burtingame Storm WaterManagement and Discharge Gontrol Ordinance;
19- that the groject shall rneet all the requiremente of the califomia Building and uniform FireCodes, 2013 Edition, as arnended by the City of Burlingame;
20. that all construdion shall abide by the construction hours eetablished in the municipal code,with the exception that there shall lie no construclion activitiei on sunouv* .na nouory*;
21.
22.
that this project shall cornply with Ordinance No. 14?7, Extanor lllumination Ordinance:
that the applicant shall prepare a construction staging and traffie control plan for the duratinn ofconstruction for review and acceptance by.the Ciiy Engineer prior to the issuance of a buildingpermit; the constructlon_ staging plan ehall include ccnstruction aquipment parking, constructionemployee parking, timing and duralio,n of various phases of ionstructibn anl'construction
operations hours; the staging plan shall address puLtic safety and shall ansure that workefsvehicles and construction equipment shall not be pa$ed in punUc parking areas with exceptionsfor construction parking along the street frontages of the prdject siie.
Register online to receive Glty of Burllngame a-mail updales at www,[urllngame.org #$
May 30,2017
1008-1028 Sarolan Avenue & 10014A25 RoHins Road
Page 4
23" that a construction traffic management plan shall be submitted to the City for approval prior tothe iEsuancq 9f a demolition permit which addresses: {1) construction-venicie and delivery
routes to and from the projeet site, including streets providing the safest access and having the
least impact on existing traffic, and (2) additionaltraffic controtsuch as signals, waming sigls or
flaggers to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian movement during construction activities.
The fallowing four (4) conditions sfiaII be rnet durtng t?t* Building tnspection process prlor toffie rnspecfions nated in eaeh condition:
24. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property
comers, set the building envelope;
25. that prior to scheduling the frarning inspection, the projec{ architest, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural cerlification that the architectural details such as window
locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed
professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the
certification under penalty of perjury. Certilications shall be submitted to the Building Division;
76. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspedion, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of
the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division;
27 ' 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 projed has been buitt
according to the approved Planning and Euilding plans;
28. that an exception from permitted fence heights shatl be allowed to construct a solid fence or
wall up to eight feet in height along the southern property line, with the following provisions:
. Story poles shall be erected prior to construction of the fence or wall indicating the
proposed height of the fence or wall structure;. Written documentation ehall be provided to the Community Development Director
indicating that the majority of abutting property owners have viewed the story poles and
are in agreement with the proposed structure;. $hould there not be majori$ agreement from abutting properly ownors regarding the
height of the fence or wall, the item will return to the Planning Comrnission for further
review.
Mitigation Measures from Environmental lmpact Report:
29. Mfill NOI'I.1: The proposed project includes a six-foot tatl, acoustical glass fence al the opening
of the central courtyard along the northem boundary of the project site to shield the outdoor us6
area from traffie noise along Carolan Avenue. The tolal tength of the proposed fence would be
approxirnatety 45.5 feet, stretching from unit 2A to unit 1G, with approximately 3.5 feet used as
an access gate.
The proposed fence shall be continuous from grade to top, with no cracks or gaps, and have a
minimum surface density of three pounds per square feet [e,g., one-inch lhick rnarine-grade
#1{ Register qnline tq receive City of Burlingame e-mail updates at www.burlingama.org i*$
May 30, 2017
1008-1028 Carolan Avenue & $OT-1O2S Rollins Road
Page 5
plywood, %-!yc^h laminated glass,.concrete masonry units (CMU)]. A fence height of six feetwould be sufficient for reducing noise levels to 60 dEiA CNEL or less. The fence [eight snafilemeasured relative to the elevation of the central courtyard.
30' MM t'l0l-I.2: At the time of final site design, a qualified acoustical consultant shall review thefinal site plan, building elevations, and floor plans prior to issuance of a building permit andproject construction to calculate expected interior noise levels. Specific acousti;dl analyses
shall be completed lo confirm that the final site design results in interior noise levels reOuced to45 dBA CNEL or lower for all floors in each building on the project site. Buildings on the proj"a
site would need sound-rated construc,tion methods anO buiiding facade treatmlnts to miiniain
interior noise levels at or below acceptable levela. These treatments could include, but are not
limited to, sound-rated windows and doors, sound-rated wall constructions, acoustical caulking,
and protected ventilation openings. lmplementation of these measures will result in reduaiojs
of at leasl 33 dBA CNEL in interior noise levels nearest US 101 having the worst-case noise
exposure, which will achieve resulting interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEU or less at the units.
Similarly, interior noise levels wittrin the remaining units have a relatively lower future noise
exposures will also be maintained at or below 45 dBA CNEL with the impiementation of lhese
measures.
The specific determination of what noise insulation treatments are necessary shall be
conducted on a unit-by-unit basis during final design of the project. Resuhs of the analysis,
including lhe doscription of the necessary noise control treatrnents, shall be submitted to tne
City along with the building plans and approved design priorto issuance of a building permi;
31. ltrM Nol-{.s: Building sound insulation requirements shall include the provision of forced-air
mechanical ventilation for all perimeter residential units so that windows could be kept closed at
the occupant's disaetion to control noise.
32' MM Nol-2.1: The proiect shall implement the following standard construction best management
practices during all phases of construction:
. Construction activities shall be limited to the daytime hours between 7:00 AM and 7:00
PM, Monday through Friday, and between g:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturdays. There
shall be no construction activities on Sundays and holidays.
. Equip all intemal combustion enginedriven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers
that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
. Unnecessary idling of intemal combustion engines shall be strictly prohibited.
Locate stationary noisegenerating equipment, such as air compressors or portable
power generators, as far as possible from sensitive receptors. Construct temporary
noise barriers lo screen slationary noise-generating equipment when located near
adjoining sensitive land uses. Temporary noise bariers could reduce construction noise
levels by five dBA.
a
** Registor onlino to receive City of Burlingame e-mail updates ai www.burltngame.org fi$
a Utilize 'quief air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology
May 30, 2017
1008-1028 Carolan Airenue & 1O0T-102S Rollins Road
Page 6
exists.
a
a
Control noise from construction workers' radios to a point where they are not audible at
existing residences bordering tlre project site.
The contractor shall prepare a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for
major noisegenerating construction activities. The construction plan shall identify a
procedure for coordination with adjacent residential land uses so that construciion
ac.tivities can be scheduled to minimize noise disturbance.
33.
a
Air Quality
a
Illllil AIR-1.1: The projec{ shatl implement the following standard BAAQMD dust controt
measures during all phases of consiruction on the project site:
r All exposed surfaes (e,g-, parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded area$, and
unpaved access roadsi shall be watered two times per day.
. All haultrucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
r All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shalt be removed using wet
power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry po$rer sweeping is
prohibited.
r All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
Designate a .disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to any
complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will'deteniine thi
cause of the noise complaint (e.9., bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable
rneasures be implemented to conect the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone
number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include in it the
notice sent ao neighhors regarding the construction schedule.
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or
soil binders are used.
ldling times shall be rninimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling tirne to five minutes [as required by the California Airborne
Toxics Control Measure Title 13, Section 2485 of Califomia Code of Regulations
{CCR)1. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly luned in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic
and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
a
a
BX Registar online to receive City of Burlingame e*mail updates at www.burlingame.og fffi
May 30, 2017
100&1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007-1025 Rollins Road
Fage 7
A publicly visibte *ign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact
at lhe City of Burlingarre regarding dust complaints. This pareon shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The Bay Area Air Quality Management Air District's
phone number shallalso be visihle to ensur€ compliance with applicable regulations
34. llJlM AIR-2.{: All diesel-powered rff-road equipment larger than $0 horsepower and operating at
the site for more than two days continuously shall meet U$ EPA particulate matter emission
standards for Tier 2 engines or equivalent.
35. MM AIR-2.2: All portable pieces of construction nquipment {i.e", air compressors, cement
mixers, concrete/industrial sews, g€neretors, and welders) shall meet US EPA particulate
matter emissions standards forTier 4 enginas or equivalent.
36. Itllil AIR-2.3: Avoid ataging diesel-powered equipment within 100 feet of adjacent residences.
37. irllll AIR-3.1: lnstall air filtration for residential units that have predicted cancer risks in exoes$
of 10 in one million or PM2.5 concentrations above 0.3 micrograms p6r cubic meter {pg/m3)
from either US 101 or the Caltrain rait line. Air filtration devices shall be rated MERV13 or
higher. To ensure adequate heaRh protec{ion to sensitive receptors, a ventilation system *hall
meet the following minimal design standards {Department of Fublic Health, Cig and County of
San Franeisco, 2008):
A MERVI3 or higher rating;
At least one air exchanges(s) per hour of fresh ouleide filtered air; and
38.
r At laast four air exchange(s) per hour recirculation.
Alternately, at the approval of the City, equivalent control technology may be used if it is
shown by a qualified air quality consultant or heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC) engineer that it worlld reduce risk below significance thresholds.
IU[fi AIR-3.2: Require an ongoing maintenance plan for the buildings' HVAC air filtration
system. Recognizing that emissions from air pollution sourcee are decreasing, the maintenance
period shall last as tong as significant excess cancer risk or annual PM?.5 exposures are
predicted. Subsequent studies shall be conducted by an air quality expert approved by the City
to identify the ongoing need for the filtered ventilation systeme as future information becomes
available.
39. MM AIR-3.3: Ensure that the lease agreement and other properly documents {e.9., CC&Rs}:
r Require cleaning, maintenance, and monitoring of the affected units for air flow leaks;
lnclude assurance that new owners and tenants are provided information on the
ventilation system; and
ffiS fr*gister cnline to reqeiye City of Burlingame s-mail updates at uy$rt {.burllngame.org ffi#
a
t
a
1
I
I
t
I
I
I
i
l
:
May 30, 2017
1008-1028 Garolan Avenue & 1007,1025 Roiltns Road
Page I
. lnclude provisions that fees associated with owning or leasing a unit(s) in the building
include funds for cleaning, maintenance, rnonitoring, and replacements of the filters, ai
needed.
4CI.MlLl AIR-3.4: Require that, prior to building occupancy, an authorized air pollutant consultant or
HVAC engineer verify the installation of all necessary measures to reduce toxic air contaminant
(TAC) exposure.
MM AIR-3.5: The type of MERV-rated filtration required to be installed as part of the ventilation
system in the residential building shall be as follows:
A minimum of MERVI3 shall be installed unless the increased cancer risk can be
demonstrated to be less than '10 in one million; and
41.
a
MERV16 filtration shall be utilized for areas where the increased cancer risk is greater
than 20,0 in one million for unmitigated cancer risks.
Note that PM2.5 concentrations at all sensilive receptor locations across the site would
also be reduced to a level o-f less than significant by using MERV13 and MERV16 fitters
necessary lo rnitigate excess cancer risk.
Biological Resources
43.
MM Bl0-1.{:Ayoidance and-lnhibit.$estinq" Construction and tree removal/pruning activities
shell be scheduled to avoid the nesting season to the extent feasible. lf feasible, tree removal
andlor pruning shall be cornpleted before the etart of the nesting season to help preclude
nesting, The nesting s€ason for most birds and raptors in the $an Francisco Bay area extends
from 1 February through 31 Augusl
MFJ| 3lO-1.2: Preconstrq$tion $urvev{s). lf it is not possible to schedule construction activities
between 1 September and 31 January then a qualified ornithologist shall conduot a
preconstruction survey to identify active bird nests that may be disturbed during project
construction. This survey shall be completed no more than seven (7) days prior to the initiation
of demolition/construction actMities (including tre6 removal and pruning). During this survey, the
omithologist shall inspect all trebs and other possible nesting habitats in and immediately
adjacent to the construction areas for nests.
lf the survey does not identify any nesting birds that would be affected by construction activitiee ,
no further mitigation is required.
lf an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the
ornithologist (in consultation with the COFW) shall designate a csnstruction-free buffer zone
(typically 300 feet for raptors and 100 feet for non-raptors) to be established around the nest to
ensure that no nests of species protected by the FMBTA and California Fish and Game Code
#6 Register online to receive City of Burlingame e-mail updates at www.burllngama.org fil
a
a
42.
I
May 30,2A1V
1008-1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007-102F Rollins Road
Page I
witl be disturbed during construction activities. The buffer shall remain in place until a qualified
ornithologist hae dEtormined that the nest is no longer active.
44- Mil BIO'{.3: Renortinq. A finel Igport-ol ne.*ting birds and raptors, including survey
melhodology, survey date(s), map of identified active nestt (if any), and protection r*Irur*u i#required), shall be submitted lo the Planning Manager and be completed to the satisfaction of
lhe Community Development Director prior to the Etart of grading.
0ultural ilesources
45.
46.Mf$ CUL-1.2: Undiscov$f.?d-Cultural Resourc,eq" A testing prograrn to assess the potential
presence or absence of undiscovered sultural re$surces shall be implemented by a qualified
archaeologist afier all buildings and other materials obrcuring the ground surface haye heenremoved, but before any construction related grading or trenching, in order to search for
pos$ible buried archaeological resources.
h the event archaaological deposits are disoovered, work shall be halted within a sensitivity
zone to be determined by lhe archaEologist. The archaeologist shall prepare a plan f#
evaluation of the resource to the Califomia Register and submit the plan to the City's planning
Manager for review and approval prior to any conetruction related earthmoving within thi
identified zone of archaeological sensitivig. The plan shall also include appropriate
recommendations regardlng the significance of the find and the appropriate mitigaiion.' The
identified mitigalion ehall be lmplemented and 6an take the form of limited data retriival throughhand excavation coupled with continued archaeological monitoring inside of fie
archaeologically sensitive zone to enEure that significant data and materials are recorded
andlor removed for analysis. Monitoring also serves to identify and thus limit damage to human
remains and associated grave goods.
Mll,l CUL-I.3: Human R+m$ins. Pursuant to Sec'tion 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and
Section 5097.94 ol the Public Resources Code of the $tate of California, in the event of the
discovory of human remains during construction, thare s.hall be no further excavation or
disturbance of the site within a 100-foot radius of the rernains or any nearby area rea*onably
suspecled to overlie adjacent remains. The San Mateo County Csroner shall bo notified and
shall make a detennination as to whether tha remalns ere Native American. lf the Coroner
detenninee that the remain* are not su$ed to his authority, he ahall notify the Native American
Heritage Commlasion within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commisaion ahallattempt
B$ Rsgisbr on:ine to recoive City of Burtingame e-mail updates at ${ny.burlingama.org &*
47.
49.
May 30, 2017
1008-1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007-1025 Rollins Road
Page 10
to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. lf no satisfactory agreement can be
reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this State law, then the land owner
shall re-inter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the
property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.
48.MM CUL-1.4: Report of Archaeoloqical Resources. lf archaeological resources are identified, a
final report summarizing the discovery of cultural materials shall be submitted to the City's
Planning Manager prior to issuance of building permits. This report shall contain a description of
lhe mitigation program that was irnplemented and its results, including a description of the
monitoring and testing program, a list of the resources found and conclusion, and a description
of the disposition/curation of the resources.
Hazardous Materials
MM HAZ-I.{: Thirty-two above ground lifts were noted in the auto servicing areas of CalBay
Collision, Anchor Auto Body & Detailing, Hyundai of Burlingame, Chilton Auto Body, Topline
Automobile, and Cammisa Motor Gar Company. Seven below ground lifts were observed inside
the auto servicing area of CalBay Collision. Two above-ground auto lifts, two capped grouted
lifts and six former lifts were noted at Chilton auto body. The existing lifis shall be removed in
accordance with local regulations. $elective sampling shall also be conducted to confirm that
residual contamination, if present, doss not exceed residential ESLs and RSLs.
50.MM HAZ-1.2: A Health and Safety PIan (HSP) shall be developed to establish appropriate
protocols for working in contaminated materials. Workers conducting Site investigation and
earthwork activities in areas of contamination shall complete a 4&hour HAZ3/VOPER training
course (29 CFR 1910.120 l), including respirator and personal protective equipment training.
Each contractor will be responsible for the health and safoty of their employees as well as for
compliance with all applicable fiederal, state, and local laws and guidelines. This docurnent shall
be provided to the City and the oversight agency prior to issuance of demolition and grading
permits.
51 MM HAZ-1.3: A Ground Water Management Plan shall be prepared to evaluate water quality
and dischargeldisposal allernatives; the pumped water shall not be used for on-site dust control
or any other on-site use. lf long-term dewatering is required, the means and methods to extract,
treat and dispose of ground water also shall be presented.
52.M!, HAZ-1.4: Some components encountered as part of the building demolition waste stream
may contain hazardous materials. Universalwastes, lubrication fluids, CFCs, and HCFC's shall
be removed before structural demolition begins. Materials that may result in possible risk to
human health and the environment when improperly managed include lamps, thermostats, and
light switches containing mercury; batteries from exit signs, emergency lights, and smoke
alarms, lighting ballasts which contain PCBs; and lead pipes and roof vent flashings. Demolition
waste such as fluorescent lamps, PCB ballasts, lead acid batteries, mercury thermostats, and
lead flashings have special case-by-case requirements for generation, storage, transportation,
and disposal. Before disposing of any demolition waste, the Owner, Developer and Demolition
Contractor shall determine if the waste is hazardous and shall ensure proper disposal of waste
rnaterials.
&* Register online to receive City of Burtingame e-mail updates at www.burlingame.org 3$
1
11i
1a:::a
,i:i
I:i.i)i.a:l
i
.j
ai
il
'i
.i
May 30, 2017
1008-1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007-102S Roltins Road
Page 11
$3' MM HAZ"I'5: $ignificant quantities of asphalt concrete (AC) grindings, aggragate base (AB),
and Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) will be generated during damotition altivities. AC/Aiigrindings shall not be reussd beneath building ar6a$.
54. MM HAz-1.et. ?tng- demolition and construction activities, contaminated material may be
encountered..A $oil Management Plan (SMP), prepared by ENGEO, establishing management
practices lor handling contaminated soil, groundwater, or othsr materials for the site has been
approved by the San lilateo County Environmental Health Department. The $MP (refer to
Appendix H) includes the following protocols and safety measures:
r ENGEO will provide full-time observation services during demolition and grading
activities. Soils encountered across the entire property will be obsenfid k;
discoloration/staining or olfactory evidence of contaminant impacts, with particular
attention given to the location of identified soil impacts. ln the event unforeseen
environmental conditions, such as thoee listed above, are encountered during
dernolition and pregrading work, the site SMP shall be implemented.
r Once the buildings on-site have been demolished and the debris removed from the site,
the soil beneath the buildings in the area of the planned underground parking structure
will be charactericed for removalto the appropriate landflll. The findings from this study
will be used to begin to quantify the soil for the various disposa[ opticns prior ti
beginning the excavation" Refer to the $MP in Appendix H for a full methodology on eoil
characterization.
Primarily, visual and olfactory evidence rrvill be used to $creen for contaminatad soil;
ho$rever, a pholo-ionization detector (PlD) witl also be used to further screen soils for
potential contaminates, as well aa ambient air during excavation work. The specific
locations of air rnonitoring will be field-adjusted based on potential access and safety
limitations, blrt will generally include wisrin the excavation area, along with the perimeter
of the excavation" PID readings will generally be taken at leasl every hour ahd whonever
suspect material is encountered. Refer to Appendix H for a complete methodology of the
PID screenings.
Wth regard to ambient air screening, any PID reading for vslatile organics that is 10
ppm above background for more than threo minutes will result in a stop work order.
Background shall be determined at the beginning of the day prior to excavation
activities. Work shall not continue until PID readings have attenuated below the aqtion
level.
a
The PID will provide real-time data on the presence of potentially hazardous cornpounds
to provide for proper salnction cf Personnel Protection Equipmenl (PPE). The initial FpE
will be Level D (modifiad) which includes safety glasses, hard hat, steel-toed boots,
gloves, hearing protection, and high visibility vests. ln the unlikely event significant
unforeseen environrnental condltions are digcovered, work shall stop and $an Mateo
Coung Environmenta] Health will be contacted.
online to recoive City of Burlingame e-mail updates at www.burlingams.org
May 30, 2017
1008-1028 Carotan Avenue & rcA7-1025 Rollins Road
Page 12
A primary and backup PID unit will be maintained onsite for the duration of fieldwork"
Each unit will be fully charged and calibrated daily.
Work sctivities shall be conducted Monday through Friday between 7:00 AM and 6:00
PM. Excavation will be performed using a combination of scrapers, backhoes, track-
mounted excavators andlar loaders. The contractor will adhere to OSHA guidelines. lf
excavations reguire shoring, it will be provided by the contractor.
The development will inslude an engineered cut of up to six i6) to nine (9) feet below the
ground surface in the northem portion of the site for the construction of the underground
parking. Priorto beginning the excavation, the soilin the planned excavation area will be
characterized to determine the eppropriate disposaloptions and to allow for excavation
and off-haulwithout first atockpiling on site.
A PID wilt be used to scraen soils duilng the excavation, Also, if soils exhibiting
evidense of environmental impact {e.9., odor or staining) are identified at the proposed
rnargins or bottorn of the excavation, lhe excavation shall bo advanced to a greater
deplh and/or lateral dimension as appropriate until impacted soils exhibiting evidenoe of
irnpact have been removed.
55. MM HAZ-1.7: Upon completion of the soil excavation, confirmation sampling and backfill, a final
report documenting work for submittal to the County of $an Mateo Environmental Health
Department. The report will include details regarding soil excavation, sampling, and landfill
disposal documentation.
56. MM HAZ-1.8: A permit may be required for facility closure (i.e., demolition, removal, or
abandonment) of any facility or portion of a facility (e.9., lab) where hazardous materials are
used or stored. The Properf Owner and/or Developer shall contact the Fire Department and
$an Mateo County Environmental Health Department to determine facility closure requirements
prior to building demolition.
57 MM HAZ-{.9: Due to the age of the on-site strustures, building materials may contain asbestos.
Because dernolition of the buildings is planned, an asbestos survey is required by local
authoilties andior National Ernissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
guidelines. NESHAP guidelines require the remsval of potentially friable asbestos containing
bullding materials prior to building demolition or renovalion that may disturb these materials.
58 MltJl HAZ-{.10: The Consumer Product $afety Commission banned the use of lead as an
additive in paint in 1978- Based on the age of the buildings, lead-based paint may be present.
Because demolition is planned, the removal of lead-based paint is not required if it is bonded to
the building matertsls. However, if the lead-based paint is flaking, peeling, or blistering, it shall
be removed prior to demolition. ln either case, applicable OSHA regulations must be followed;
these include requirements for worker training, air monitoring and dust control, among others.
Any debris or soil containing lead muet be disposed appropriately"
a
'/#:Atr.egislar online to roseivs City of Burlingame e-mail updates at www.burlingame.org B*
May 30, 2017
100&-1028 Carolan Avenue & 1007-1025 Rotllns Road
Page 13
Geology
59. lUlM GCO-{.i: The project shall be designod and constructed in conformance with the
recommendation* in lhe design-level geotechnical report prepared for the project and peer
review {see Appendix l), which includes the removal and replacement of undocumented fillwith
engin*ered fill; measures addressing construrtion dewatering, hydrostatic uplift, and building
waterproofing; and seisrnic design standards-
All site irnprovements and construction work urill require separate application to the Buitding Department.
This approval is valid for one year during which time a building permit must be issued. An exlension of up to
one year may be considered by the Planning Commission if application is made before the end of the first
year.
The decision of the Council is a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure $ection
1094.S. lf you wish to challenge the decision in a court of competent jurisdiction, you must do so within g0
days of the date of the decision unless a shorter time is required pursuant to state or federal law.
Sincerely
,W@
lMlliam Meeker
Com rnunity Development Director
c. Chief Deputy Valuation, Aseessor's Office
(0.587 Ac Mol Com Nwly 250 Ft Fr Most Wy Cor Of Lot 13 Blk 10 Burlingame Gardens Acreage
City Of Blgme;APN: 02&240-290)
(Parcel A .735 Ac Mol Parcel Map Vol 47155€6; APN: 02S.240-340)
(Parcel A 2.0U Ac Mol Psrcel Map Vol 47 15*56; APN: 02&2.40-360)
{2.02? Ac Mol On Sly Ln Of Rollins Road Adj Wy To Pm Vol 4715$.56, Acreage City Of
Burlingame; APN: 026-240-370)
File
## Rcgister online to reoeive City of Burlingame e-mail updates al ww\tr,burllngama.org XX
I
STAFF REPORT AGENDANO: 8f
MEETING DATE: April 2,2018
To:Honorable Mayor and City Counci!
Date: April2,2018
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works - (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Easton Addition and Ray Park
Subdivisions, and Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Project Phase 2,
City Project No. 84191
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the Easton
Addition and Ray Park Subdivisions, and Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Project Phase 2 by
EPS, lnc, dba Express Plumbing, City Project No. 84191, in the amount of $1,664,609.58.
BACKGROUND
On June 5,2017, the City Council awarded the Easton Addition and Ray Park Subdivisions, and
Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Project Phase 2 to EPS, lnc. dba Express Plumbing, in the
amount of $1,586,587.
Phase 2 of the Easton Addition and Ray Park Subdivisions, and Neighborhood Sewer
Rehabilitation Project is part of the overall sanitary sewer improvements in the Easton Addition
and Ray Park Subdivisions, as well as other high priority neighborhood projects. Phase 2
involved rehabilitating the sanitary sewer pipelines within the upper portion of Easton Addition No.
7 Subdivision, and at Mills Avenue as it approaches California Drive. The project replaced
approximately 3,450 linear feet of 6-inch to 12-inch diameter verified clay sanitary sewer pipelines
with new polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipelines, installed 30
new sewer manholes, and upgraded approximately 1,500 linear feet of sanitary sewer laterals
connecting to 60 residential properties.
DISCUSSION
The project construction has been satisfactorily completed in compliance with the plans and
specifications. The final construction cost is $1,664,610, which is $78,023 above the awarded
contract amount and within the authorized budget contingencies. The increase in construction
cost was due to unforeseen field conditions involving a conflict with the storm drain pipe system,
replacement of an existing storm drain pipeline and flap gate, and installation of 850 linear feet of
additional sewer main.
1
Acceptance of the Easton Addition and Ray Park Subdivisions, and Neighborhood
SewerRehabilitation Project Phase 2, City Proiect No.84191
April 2, 2018
FISCAL IMPACT
The following are the estimated final project expenditures
Construction
Construction Management and lnspection
Engineering and Administration
$1 ,664,610
$150,000
$120,000
Total $1,934,610
There are adequate funds available in the Capital lmprovements budget to cover the estimated
final costs.
Exhibits:
. Resolution
. Final Progress Payment
. Project Location Map
2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE GITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS - EASTON ADDITION, RAY PARK, AND
NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT BY
EPS, INC. DBA EXPRESS PLUMBING
CITY PROJECT NO. 84191
RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, which finds, orders
and determines as follows:
1. The Director of Public Works of said City has certified that the work done by EPS, lnc., dba
Express Plumbing, under the terms of its contract with the City dated June 5, 2017, has been
completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 84191.
3. Said work is accepted.
Mayor
l, lr/eaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of April, 2018,
and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
City Clerk
CONTRACTOR:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
EPS, lnc. dba Exp.ess Plumbing
307 N. Amphlett Blvd.
San Mateo, CA 94401
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PAYMENTNO. FINALPAYMENT
Easton Additlon, Ray Park, and Nelghborhood Sewo. Rohabllltatlon Prolect,
ctw PRoJEcT NO.84191
DATE : March'12,20i8
FOR THE MONTH OF : December 23, 2017 to February 26, 2018
PURCHASE ORDER # 14150
1 : Remove and Repla@ Sidewalk
2 : Remove and Replacs Curb and Gutter
3 : Remove and RoplaceADA Concrete Curb Ramp
4 : Remove and Repla@ Driveway
5 : Repair Sag Section
6 : Additional Asphalt Surfa@ Restoration
7 : Final AC Palching (al Existing Pothole and Geotechni€l Boring Locations)
8 : Pre@nstruction Potholing
9 : Replee Existing Suryey Monument
10 : lnstall Concrele Cap
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
40.00
100.00
6,500.00
40.00
450.00
400.00
20.00
1,'100.00
5,500.00
300.00
20.000.00
50,000.00
1 3,000.00
20,000.00
22,500.00
20,000.00
2,000.00
14,300.00
5,500.00
21.900.00
226.0 : $
'100.0 : $
0.0: $
250.0 : $
0-0: $
100.0 : S
200.0 : S
20.0 : $
0.0; $
58: $
9,040.00
10,000.00
40,000.00
4,000.00
22,000.00
720.00
'1,000.00
20,000.00
4,000.00
22,000.00
8,320.00
9,000.00
SF
LF
EA
SF
LF
TON
EA
EA
LF
500
500
2
500
50
50
100
't3
1
73
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
10,000.00 :10,000.00:
1 7,400.00 10,800.00
20,000.00
6.600.00
GENERAL COMMON ITEMS SUBTOTAL $ 189,200.00 $ 112,440.00 : $68,520.00 : $43,920.00
LOCATION A - MILLS AVENUE (SHEET C-2 to C-1 3)
A1 : NPDES Compliance (not to exceed '1 % of Mills Avenue bid)
A2 : Mobilization and Demobilization (not to exceed 3.5% ol lvlills Avenue bid)
A3 : Construction SuNey and Site lnvestigation (not to exceed 3.5% ol Mills Avenue bid)
A4 : Traffic Control
. Remove and Replace Existing 6"/8" VCP Sanitary Sewer with 8" SDR 26 PVC Sanitary Sewer (open
' Cut)
. Remove and Replace Existing 12" VCP Sanitary Sewer with 8' C900 PVC DR 14 Sanitary Sewer
' (Open Cut)
: Remove and Replace Existing '15'RCP Storm Drain with 16'C9O5 DR 18 Stom Drain (Open Cut)
: Post Television lnspection
: Connect to Existing Sanitary Sewer Manhole
: Remove Existing Sanitary Sewer Manhole
: New 48' Type 1 Sanitary Siler Manhole
Remove Exjsling Sanilary Siler Manhole and Replace with New 48'Type 1 Manhol€
New Pipe Stub (10 foot min.) and Reconnect Existing Pipes
Realign Existing Lateral and Connect into Pipe Slub
Replace Existing 4" Sewer Laleral (Pipe BuEl)
Replace Existing 4" Sewer Lateral (Open Cut)
Replace Existing 4" Sewer Cleanout
Connect to Existing Stom Drain Box Culvert
$
$
$
2,100.00
7,000.00
7,000.00
6,500.00
2,100.00
7,000.00
7,000.00
6,500.00
2,100.00
7,000.00
7,000.00
6,500.00
1S,500.00
5,400.00
3,800.00
2,100.00
7,000.00
7,000.00
6,500.00
19,500.00
5,400.00
3,800.00
LS
LS
LS
LS
LF
LF
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
$
$
$
$
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
$
$
$
$
A5
A6 :$32
36
:$
:$
:$
240.00 :
500.00 :
500.00
5.00
1,400.00
4,500.00
13,000.00
14,000.00
2,500.00
2,500.00
4,200.00
6,500.00
'1,800.00
3,800.00
76,080.00 :
16,000.00:
18,000.00
1.925.00
1.400.00
9,000.00
13,000.00
28,000.00
2,500.00
2.500.00
8,400.00
6,500.00
7.200.00
3,800.00
317.0 : $
32.0 : $
76,080.00 : $76,080.00 ; $
16,000.00 : $16,000.00 : $
A7
A8
A9
410
A11
412
A13
414
A'15
A16
417
A18
385
,'
,
1
2
,|
,|
2
1
4
1
36.0
400.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.O
'1.0
1.0
0.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
18.000.00
2,000,00
1,400.00
9,000.00
13,000.00
28,000.00
2,500.00
2,500.00
'18,000.00
2,000.00
1,400.00
9,000.00
13,000.00
28,000.00
2,500.00
2,500.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
LOCATION A SUBTOTAL 216,905.00 219,780.00 :219,780.00: $
82
B3
B4
B5
B6
87
B8
B9
810
811
812
813
B'14
815
B16
817
818
819
B20
B21
B22
to exceed of Easton Addition bid)
Mobilization and Demobilizalion (not to ex@ed 3.5% of Easton Addilion bid) $
Conslruclion Suruey and Site lnvestigation (not to ex@ed 3.5olo of Easton Addition bid) $
Traffic Contrcl $
Remove and Repla@ Existing 6' Saniiary Sewer with 6' HDPE Sanitary SMer (Pipe BuEt) $
Remove and Repla@ Exisling 6'01 8" Sanitary Siler with 8" HDPE Sanitary Sswer (Pipe Ream) or 8' $
Remove and Repla@ Existing 6' or 8' Sanitary Sewer wilh 8' SDR 26 PVC Sanilary Swer (Open Cut S
N4 6" SOR 26 PVC SS (Open Cul) $
New 8" SDR 26 PVC SS (Open Cut) $
Post Television lnspection $
Abandon Existing Sanitary Sewer $
Abandon Existing Lamphole $
Abandon Existing Sanilary Sewer Manhole $
Remove Existing Lamphole $
Not Used S
Rehabilitate Existing Sanitary Sewer Manhole and R€place Framo and Cover $
New 48'Type 1 Sanilary Sewer Manhole $
New 48" Type 1 Sanilary Sewer Drop Manhole $
New 36'Type 1 Sanitary Sewer Manhole $
New 36'Type 2 Sanitary Sewer Manhole $
New Sanitary Sewer Lamphole S
Remove and Repla@ Existing Lamphole : $
11,000.00
28,000.00
28,000.00
10,000.00
140.00
180.00
240.00
290.00
240.00
1.50
2.00
1,500.00
4,500.00
1,400.00
1,850.00
13,000.00
16,000.00
1 3,000.00
14,000.00
2.500.00
1,400.00
1 1,000.00
28,000.00
28,000.00
'10,000.00
1 1,340.00
270,540.00
50,400.00
28,420.00
83,520.00
3,360.00
'1,602.00
3.000.00
9.000.00
7,000.00
1.3:
1.3:
1.3:
1.3:
0.0 :
2,965.0 :
50.0 :
0.0 :
0.0 :
3,0t5.0:
801.0:
4.0 :
3.0 :
5.0 :
13,750.00
35,000.00
35,000.00
12,500.00
533,700.00
'11.000.00
28.000.00
28.000.00
10,000.00
403,020.00
12,000.00
1,602.00
1,500.00
13,500.00
7,000.00
2,750.00
7,000.00
7.000.00
2,500.00
130.680.00
LS
LS
LS
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
1
1
1
1
81
1,503
210
98
348
2,240
801
2
2
5
'12,000.00:-:
4,522.50
1,602.00
6,000.00
1 3,500.00
7,000.00
4,522.50
4,500.00
11,100.00 :
91,000.00 :
't'1,100.00:
78,000.00 :
1 1,1 00.00
65,000.00
32,000.00
't3,000.00
28,000.00
2.500.00
'1,400.00
6.0 :
7.O I
0.0 :
0.0 :
0.0 :
1.0 :
1.0 :
2,500.00
1,400.00
2,500.00 :
'l,400.00 :
1 3,000.00
CONTRACTOR:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
EPS, lnc. dba Express Plumbing
307 N. Amphlett Blvd.
San Mateo, CA 94401 Easton Addltlon, Ray Park, and Nolghborhood Sewer Rshabilitalion Prol€ct,
clw PRoJEcr No.94191
DATE : March 12,2018
FOR THE MONTH OF : Dscembgr23, 20'l7lo F€bruary26, 2018
PURCHASE ORDER # 14150
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PAYMENT NO. FINAL PAYMENT
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT
PRICE
BID I
QUANTITY :
UNIT
SIZE
BID
AMOUNT
: QUANTITY:
: TODATE :
AMOUNT
TO DATE
PREVIOUS
PAIO
AMOUNT
THIS PMT,
ITEM
#
s23
s24
825
826
s27
828
829
830
831
832
: Remove Existing Sanitary Sewer Manhole and Replace with New 48" Typs 1 lvlanhole
: Removs Existing Lamphole or Verti€l Cleanout and Replace with New 36" Type 1 SSMH
: Remove Existing Sanitary Siler Manhole and Repla@ with New 36'Type 1 Manhole
: New Pipe Slub (5 foot min.) and R@nned Exisling Pipes
: Connect to Existing Sanitary Sewer Manhole
: Re@nnect Existing Sanitary Sewer Lateral
: Replace Existing 4" Sewer Laloral - Easement Latorals (Open Cul)
: Replace and Extend Existing 4" Sewer Lateral - Streel Laterals (Open Cut)
: New or Replace Existing 4" Sewer Cleanout
: Relo€le Existing 1" Water Service
15,000.00
12,000.00
12,000.00
2,500.00
1,400.00
3,800.00
4,000.00
4,200.00
1,700.00
6,800.00
1
6
4
1
1
4
45
11
56
1
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
15,000.00
72,000.00
48,000.00
2,500.00
1,400.00
1 5,200.00
'180.000.00
46,200.00
95,200.00
6,800.00
15,000.00
72,000.00
24,000.00
2,500.00
1 1.200.00
30.400.00
224,000.00
50,400.00
1'15,600.00
15,000.00
60,000.00
24,000.00
2,500.00
1.400.00
22,800.00
'176,000.00
50,400.00
88,400.00
'12,000.00
9,800.00
7,600.00
48,000.00
27,200.OO
0.0
LOCATION B SUBTOTAL $ 1,180,482.00 $ 1,325,674.50 : S 1,049,122.00 : $276,552.50
CHANGE ORDERS
#:
CCO UNIT
PRICE
BID : OUANTITY:
: TO DATE :
AMOUNT
TO OATE
PREVIOUS
PAID
AMOUNT
THIS PMTDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT
CO1 : FLAP GATE AT MILLS AVENUE
co2 :
;$ 6,715.08: 1 : LS :$6,715.08 : $6,715.08
OEDUCTIONS:
D1 :$HR
TOTAL DEOUCTIONS $
DATE
PREPARED BY:SUBTOTAL
LESS FIVE (5%) PERCENT RETENTION
$ 1,664,609.5E : $
$ (83,230.48) ; $
1 ,337,422.OO
(66,871.1 0)
327,187.54
(16,359.38)
APPROVED BY
CITY ENGINEER:
SUBTOTAL WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS
AMOUNT DUE FROM CONTRACTOR
$
$
1,581,379.1 0 't,270,550.90 310,828.20
TOTAL THIS PERIO $ 1,58'1,379.10 : $ 1,270,550.90 : $310,828.20
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY
CONSULTANT:
Note:
: CCO ; UNIT I
: QUANTITY : SIZE i
:1 :$
:$
:$
;$
6 715 0RCHANGE OROERS TOTAL (67t6nq (
$:$:$
$:$:$
SAN FRAN BAY
MECT
LCICATU{
EASTON ADDITION, RAY PARK AND NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REHABILITATION, PHASE 2
CITY PROJECT NO. 84191
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: Bg
MEETING DATE: April 2,2018
To Honorable Mayor and City Counci!
Date: April2,2018
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works - (650) 558-7230
Subject:Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to T.P.A
Construction, lnc., for the Hillside and Skyview Reservoirs Exterior Coating
Project, City Project No. 82780, and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute the Contract
REGOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution awarding a construction
contract to T.P.A Construction, lnc., for the Hillside and Skyview Reservoirs Exterior Coating
Project in the amount of $157,080 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the contract.
BAC UND
The City has implemented a robust Capital lmprovement Program (ClP) to upgrade the City's
aging potable water system infrastructure. The Hillside reservoir, located at 2832 Hillside Drive,
was built in 1914, and the Skyview reservoir, located at 1321 Skyview Drive, was built in 1928.
Staff recently performed inspections of these facilities and observed minor cracks in the concrete.
As a result, staff determined that the reservoirs need coating to protect the concrete in order to
extend the life of the reservoirs, and also to prevent potential infiltration of surface runoff into the
reservoirs. The project consists of coating both reservoirs with a heavy duty elastomeric
waterproofing membrane, which will protect the reservoirs for well over 30 years.
DISCUSSION
The project was advertised for construction bids on February 20, 2018. The project bids were
opened on March 13,2018; the City received a total of six bids ranging from $157,080 to
$316,750. T.P.A Construction, lnc. is the lowest responsible bidder with its bid amount of
g157,080, which is approximalely 28.8o/o lower than the engineer's estimate of $220,825. Staff
has reviewed T.P.A Construction, lnc.'s proposal and finds that the contractor has met all the
project requirements, and has a past history of performing similar work successfully. As a result,
staff recommends that the City Council award the project to T.P.A Construction, lnc., in the
amount of $157,080 and authorize the City Manager to execute the construction contract.
The project construction is scheduled to begin in June 2018 and will be completed by September
2018, barring no delays. Staff will conduct public outreach to residents in the project areas and
will coordinate with the contractor to minimize construction impacts and inconveniences.
1
Award of Construction Contract to T.P.A Construction, lnc.,
for the Hillside and Skyview Reservoirs Exterior Coating Project, City Project No. 82780
April 2, 2018
FISCAL !MPACT
Estimated Proiect Expenditures:
The following are the estimated project construction expenditures:
Construction
Construction lnspection
Engineering Adm inistration
Construction Contingency (1 5%)
$157,090
$17,808
$16,417
$29,695
Total $220,000
Fundinq ilabilitv:
There are adequate funds available in the Water Capital lmprovement Program to complete the
project.
Exhibits:
o Resolution
. Bid summary
. ConstructionAgreement
o Project location map
2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CIry COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE HILLSIDE AND SKWIEW
RESERVOIRS EXTERIOR COATING PROJECT TO T.P.A CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT
CITY PROJECT NO. 82780
WHEREAS, on February 20,2018, the City issued a notice inviting bid proposals for the
Hillside and Skyview Reservoirs Exterior Coating Project, CITY PROJECT NO 82780; and
WHEREAS, on [\4arch 13,2018, all proposals were received and opened before the City
Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and
WHEREAS, T.P.A Construction, lnc., submitted the lowest responsible bid for the job in
the amount of $157,080.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and ORDERED, that the Plans and
Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted; and
BE lT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid of T.P.A. Construction, lnc. for said project in
the amount of $157,080 is accepted; and
BE lT FURTHER RESOLVED that a contract be entered into between the successful
bidder and the City of Burlingame for the performance of said work, and that the City Manager is
authorized on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute the contract and to approve the faithful
performance bond and the labor materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor.
Mayor
l, Meaghan Hassel Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd
day of April, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT
COUNCILME]T/BERS:
COUNCIL[/E]I/BERS:
COUNCIL]UE]I/BERS:
City Clerk
Bl0 oATE: FEBRUARY20, 2018
BIO SCHEOULE: Proj.ctSile I
AIOSCHEDULE: ProjectSite2
Total Base Bid $220,825.00
CIW OF BURLINGAME
AID SUMMARY
HILLSIOE SKYvIEW EXTERIOR COATING PROJECT
City Project No. 82780
$157,080.00 lrr,.Iur:] s ,o.,.oo.oo
I
$ 220,530.00 275I94.00 316,750.00$
BID OPENING: MARCH 13, 2018
Engiree/3 E tlmato Top Llm Engim.B, lnc GreenEch lndBtry Ashaon construction and
RestoEllon, lnc
Southwat Con3tructlon and
ProF?ty Mahagam.nt
RainbowWaterpr@fing
.nd Re.toratioh Co
1
2A
DESCR]PTION OF ITEM UNIT UNIT PRICE
3 7,000
TOTAL COST
7,000
UNIT PRICE
7 000
TOTAL COST
$ 7,m0.m
UNIT PRICE
$ 5,m
TOTAL COST
$ 5.000.00
UNiT
$ 8,400
TOTAL COST
$ 8,m.00
UNIT PRICE
$ 25,0m $ 25.000.m
UNIT PRICE
i 6,5m
TOTAL COST
$ 6,500.00
UNIT
I 20,480
TOTAL COST
3 20.480.@
$10 $ 31.500.00 $2_70 $ 8,505.00 $4.00 $ 12,600.00 $$$ 5.00 $ 15,750.00 s 2.66 $ 8,379.00 $ s.90 I 18,585.00
2B
3
LS $ 15,000
$10
$7
$ 15,000.00 $ 20,000
12.10
4.80s
$ 20,000.00
$ 38,115.00
i 80,000.00
$42,600
7.50
3.75
3
$
$ _3f!:*
I 23,625.m
I 6,875.00
$ 18,000
$
$
17.00
8.00
$ 18,000.00
3 53.550.00
t 100.m0.m
$ 39,630
t 12.00
5.00
$ 39,630.00
$ 37,m0.00
$ 62.5m.m
$ 28,000
I 8.80
$ 13.32
$ 28,000.00
$ 27,720.00
$ 166,500.00
$ 45,200
s 11.82
10.37
45,200.00
37,233.00
r29,607.00
$ 29,925.00
3 87.5m.00
12 500 SF
5 I 7,500 $7,500.00 $ 2,000 $ 2,000.m $ 1,500 $ 1,500.00 $ 8,700 $ 8,700.00 $ 5,000 $ 5.000.00 $ 1,300 s 1,300.00 s 6.000 I 6,000.00
Project Slte I Base Bid $178,425.OO $ '135,620.00 $ 132,200.00 $ 188,6s0.00 $185,680.00 $238,399.00 $ 257,105.00
$ 2,000 I 2,000.00 $ 5000 $ s,m0.00 $ 8,900 6 8 900.00 $ 5,5m $ 5,500.00 $ 2,000 $ 2,000.00 $ 3,500 s 3,500 001LS$ 2,om $2,000
$ 15,000 $ 15,000.00 $1,620 $ 1,620.00 s 45,800 $ 45 800.00 $ 12,550 $ 12,550.00 I s,150 $ s,150.00 $ 4,800 $ 4,800.00 $ 10,500 $ 10,500.002
3 10,200.00 s 12.00 $ 7,200.00 7.43$s 4,698.00$10 $ 5,700.00 $12.10 s 7,260.m 7.50$I 4,S0.00 $ 17.00 $ m.15 E 12.090.00
100
$
$
8.00
s,200
s
$
16,8m.00
s,200.00
5.00
$ 2,500
$ 10.500.00
$ 2,500.00
$
$
11.57
1,000 $
24,297 _OO
1,000.005O.radrydd Roa(actrng Eloch€l Qduils, Uoishl, ad
l^h^hnalrm Sv.r.m LS
3
s
7
5,000
t 14,7m.00
$ 5,000.00
I
$
4.80
500
$
$
10,080.00
500.00
$3.75
2,000
t 7,875.m
$ 2,m0.00
$14.55
$ 3,000
30,555.00
3,000.00
$21,460.00 $57,650.00$$ 34,850.00 $36,795.00 $59,645.00Project SIte 2 Base Bid 5 42,400.00
TPA constructlon
3
I
65,175,0(
AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
FOR THE HILLSIDE AND S RE ERV IR EXTERI R ATING PROJECT
CITY PROJECT NO. 82780
THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into in the City of
Burlingame, County of San Mateo, State of California on _, 2018 by and
between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter called "City",
and P.A nstruction ln a California Corporation, hereinafter called "Contractor."
WITN ESSETH:
WHEREAS, City has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of
the public work and improvements herein provided for and to authorize execution of this
Contract; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State law and City requirements, a notice was duly
published for bids for the contract for the improvement hereinafter described; and
WHEREAS, on _, after notice duly given, the City Council of
Burlingame awarded the contract for the construction of the improvements hereinafter
described to Contractor, which the Council found to be the lowest responsive,
responsible bidder for these improvements; and
WHEREAS, City and Contractor desire to enter into this Agreement for the
construction of said improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, lT lS AGREED by the parties hereto as follows:
1. Scope of work.
Contractor shall perform the work described in those Contract Documents
entitled: HILLSIDE AND SKWIEW RESERV OIR EXTERIOR COATING P ROJECT
CITY PROJECT NO. 82780
2. The Contract Documen ts
The complete contract between City and Contractor consists of the following
documents: this Agreement; Notice lnviting Sealed Bids, attached hereto as Exhibit A;
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 "Hillside and Skyview Reservoir Exterior Coating Project, City Project
AGREEMENT. 1
No. 82780" 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 hundred and fifty seven thousand, eighty
dollars ($157,080.00), called the "Contract Price". This price is determined by the lump
sum and unit prices contained in Contractor's Bid. ln 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) Contracto/s violation in any substantial way of any
provision of the Contract Documents. ln the case of any one or more of these events,
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
AGREEI\,IENT - 2
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. ln 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. ProvisionsCumulative.
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 9401 0
Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows:
Pavel TYukaYev
T.P.A Construction, lnc
2406 Clubhouse Drive
Rocklin, CA 95765
AGREEIVIENT.3
7. lnterpretation
As used herein, any gender includes the other gender and the singular includes
the plural and vice versa.
B. Waiver or Am endment
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. Controllinq Law.
This Agreement is to be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws
of the State of California.
10. Successors a nd Assiqnees.
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.
I '1 . Severa bilitv.
lf 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. lndemnification.
Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City, its directors, officers,
employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability,
claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or
relating to the actual or alleged negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of
Contractor, its employees, subcontractors, or agents, or on account of the performance
or character of the services, except for any such claim arising out of the sole negligence
or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. lt 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
AGREEI\,IENT.4
endorsements requirsd under this Agreement does not relieve Contractor from liability
under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold
harmless clause shall appty whether or not.such insurance policies shall have been
determined to be applicable to any of such damagos or claims for darnages.
lN WITNESS WHEREOF, two identical counterparts of this Agreement,
consisting of five pages, including this page, each of which counterpafts shall for all
purposes be deemed an original of this Agreement, have been duly executed by the
parties hereinabove named on the day and yaar first hereinabove written.
CITY OF BURLINGAME,
a Municipal Corporation
''CONTRACTOR"
By
Lisa K. Goldman, CitY Manager
Print amg.
Approved as to form Company Name:
'f, PA Cr:*t*ruubion,,'Enc.
Kathleen Kane, City Attomey
ATTEST,
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
AGREEMENT - 5
*fl'ffi
N
Ho
brUF1U
PHLO
Eo
euatllE
E6
EF
Hu
HbHb-
=HH
-\
,.
(o
N
Fi
lii
E!
t:
Ei
LT
Er
G
==o
F
(Jo
a
o
F
E
2
gt
=(,z
J
G
D6
Eo
Eo
F
Ea
Eq
Z2
sE9C;
CEoac>UEioU
\'''"1\
"\
\a\
.L
'.,1
i\
-I
STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: th
MEETING DATE: April 2,2018
To:Honorable Mayor and City Gouncil
Date: April2,2018
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works - (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the FY 2018-19 Street Resurfacing
Project to Comply with SB 1
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the FY 2018-19 Street
Resurfacing Project to comply with SB 1.
BACKGROUND
On April 28, 2017, the Governor signed SB 1, which is known as the Road Repair and
Accountability Act of 2017. The Senate Bill was created to address basic road maintenance,
rehabilitation, and critical safety needs on both the state highway and local road systems. The
State Controller has created the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), which is
funded by per gallon fuel excise taxes, diesel fuel sales taxes, and vehicle registration fees and
provides for inflationary adjustments to gas tax rates in future years. The City of Burlingame has
been allocated $34,273 in Loan Repayment and $500,639 in RMRA, for a total of $534,912 of
additional gas tax funds in FY 2018-19.
DISCUSSION
The reason for recommending adoption of the attached resolution is to satisfy the requirements of
SB 1 relative to holding local governments accountable for the efficient investment of public funds
to maintain public streets and roads, and especially the following addition to the Streets &
Highways Code 2034;
(a) (1) Prior to receiving an apportionment of funds under the program pursuant to
paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 2032 from the Controller in a fiscal year,
an eligible city or county shall submit to the commission a list of projects proposed to
be funded with these funds pursuant to an adopted city or county budget. All projects
proposed to receive funding shall be included in a city or county budget that is
adopted by the applicable city council or county board of supervisors at a regular
public meeting. The list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds shall
include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule
for the project's completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement. The
project list shall not limit the flexibility of an eligible city or county to fund projects in
1
Adoption of a Resolution Approving FY 2018-19 Street Resurtacing Projects
to be funded by SB 1
April2,2018
accordance with local needs and priorities so long as the projects are consistent with
subdivision (b) of Section 2030.
The FY 2018-19 Street Resurfacing Project scope consists of performing asphalt concrete "dig-
out" repairs, surface milling, asphalt concrete overlay, traffic markings, traffic striping, concrete
improvements, and other related work on the following streets:
. 1600 Block of Albemarle Way;
. 1300 Block of Alvarado Avenue;
. 1300 Block of Benito Avenue;
. 1300 Block of Castillo Avenue;
o 100 and 200 Block of Channing Road;
o 100 and 200 Block of Clarendon Road;
. 1300 Block of Columbus Avenue;
. Corbitt Drive;
o 2200 and 2300 Block of Davis Drive;
. 1300 Block of De Soto Avenue;
o Hillside Circle;
. Maple Avenue;
. 1300 Block of Montero Avenue;
o 1000 Block of Murchison Drive;
. Park Avenue;
. 1800 Block of Sequoia Avenue; and
. Winchester Place.
The criteria developed by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) require that the next
round of projects to be funded with RMRA dollars be submitted no later than May 1 ,2018. The
attached Resolution satisfies the requirements of SB 1 to receive the funds.
FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated cost of the FY 2018-19 Street Resurfacing Project is approximately $2,100,000.
The City will receive $534,912 in additional gas tax funds from SB 1, and the remaining
$1,565,088 is funded by a combination of existing stream of Gas Tax, Measures A, I and M.
Exhibits:
o Resolution
. Project Location Map
2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIry OF BURLINGAME
APPROVING THE FY 2018-19 STREET RESURFACING PROJECT TO COMPLY
WITH SENATE BILL (SB) 1
The City Council of the City of Burlingame, California resolves as follows:
WHEREAS, SB '1 (2017-2018, Beall), signed by the Governor in April 2017, established a
Road lrrlaintenance and Rehabilitation Account to address deferred maintenance on the state
highway system and on the local street and road system; and
WHEREAS, SB 1 established requirements for holding local governments accountable
for the efficient use of public funds to maintain public streets and roads; and
WHEREAS, SB'1 requires that eligible cities submit a list of projects proposed to be
funded with these funds pursuant to an adopted city budget to the California Transportation
Commission per criteria and per a scheduled established by the commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME:
1 . The FY 2018-19 Street Resurfacing Project is adopted into the City's FY 2018-19 Capital
lmprovement program.
2. The particulars of the project are as follows:
a. Anticipated Funding sources: FY 2018-'19 RIvIRA funds ($500,639), Loan
repayment funds ($34,273) for a total of $534,192 from SB 1, and the remaining
$1,565,088 is provided by a combinatlon of existing stream of State Gas Tax,
Measure A, lvleasure M and lvleasure l.
b. Project description: The work consists of street base failure repair and
resurfacing on various streets within the city limits. Construction activities will
include asphalt concrete "dig-out" repairs, surface milling, asphalt concrete
overlay, traffic markings, traffic striping, concrete improvements and other related
work.
c. Project locations: The project streets include Albemarle Way, Alvarado Avenue,
Benito Avenue, Castillo Avenue, Channing Road, Clarendon Road, Columbus
Avenue, Corbitt Drive, Davis Drive, De Soto Avenue, Hillside Circle, tvlaple
Avenue, Montero Avenue, Ivlurchison Drive, Park Avenue, Sequoia Avenue, and
Winchester Place.
d. Project Schedule: Release notice inviting bids to contractors in spring of 2019
and construction completion by winter of 2019.
e. Estimated Useful Life: The City's Pavement Management System calculates a
new useful li'fe of 24 years for these repaired roadways.
Michael Brownrigg, Mayor
l, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of April,
2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILT\4EMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
%
06
\
%
lo?
@:.(o
U)-lnom=TII<
IJ)oPiL lllnfia?OC;-rnd<{-l>Aoa'rYcrt"-s aroU.,l O-U
to
G)n
u
z3
Fio
z
oE
FF
o
th
z
El
zoa
o
E'
,:
.E
:Joqrrlc)--t
(t)t4rnr
--.tU)
\
oit
%
z
:t?
T;
%n"
STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8i
MEETING DATE: April 2,2018
To:Honorable Mayor and Gity Council
Date: April2,2018
From:Nil Blackburn, Assistant to the City Manager - (650) 558-7229
Lisa Goldman, Gity Manager - (650) 558-7243
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution of Support for Proposition 68, the California
Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for
All Act ot 2018
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution of support for Proposition 68,
the California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 (also known as the California Clean Water and Safe Parks Act).
BACKGROUND
In 2017, the Legislature adopted and the Governor signed SB 5, the California Drought, Water,
Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018. The League of
California Cities has requested that its members support the bill, now designated Proposition 68
and appearing on the June 2018 ballot.
DISCUSSION
lf approved by the voters, Proposition 68 would authorize the issuance of $4 billion in bonds to
finance state and local parks, environmental protection and restoration projects, water
infrastructure projects, and flood protection projects. More specifically, the measure would invest
in the following initiatives: $1.23 billion for improving state, county, city and local park safety and
facilities; $770 million for ensuring clean drinking water, drought preparedness, and groundwater
sustainability; $OgZ million for conserving and protecting naturalareas and habitat restoration; $550
million for storm water, mudslide, and other storm-related protections; $397 million for protecting
California's lakes, rivers and streams; $235 million for protecting coasts, beaches, bays, and
oceans, including $20 million for San Francisco Bay restoration and $40 million to assist coastal
communities in adapting to climate change; $140 million for improving resilience to climate change
through innovative farm practices, forest restoration, fire protection, and conversion of fossil fuel
power plants to green space; and, $113 million for promoting recreation and tourism and supporting
conservation jobs.
FISCAL !MPACT
No impact.
1
Adoption of a Resolution of Support for Proposition 68 April2,2018
Exhibit:
. Resolution
2
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME SUPPORTING
PROPOSITION 68, THE CALIFORNIA DROUGHT, WATER, PARKS, CLIMATE, GOASTAL
PROTECTION, AND OUTOOOR ACCESS FOR ALL ACT OF 2018
WHEREAS, last year, the Legislature adopted and the Governor signed SB 5, a $4 billion
general obligation bond to be placed on the June 2018 ballot entitled the California Drought,
Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018; and
WHEREAS, the measure, now known as Proposition 68, represents the first legislatively
authorized debt instrument for parks, resources, and environmental improvements since 2002;
and
WHEREAS, Proposition 68 contains $200 million in funding for per capita grants to assist
all of California's communities in underwriting priority park-related improvements; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 68 also includes $770 million in funding for clean drinking water,
drought preparedness, groundwater cleanup, regional water sustainability planning, water
recycling, and conservation initiatives; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 68 invests $697 million in conserving and protecting natural areas
including rivers, lakes, stream and open green spaces; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 68 expends $200 million on California's State Park system,
addressing a greater than $1 billion backlog in deferred maintenance, which will translate into
greater tourism and visitorship opportunities in adjacent communities; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 68 invests heavily in combatting global warming through
investments in urban greening projects, promoting healthy forests and carbon farming
applications; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 68 underwrites investments in improving local water systems and
commits to a robust investment in groundwater improvements and sustainability to diversify water
sources and recharge groundwater tables.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE THAT:
The City of Burlingame supports Proposition 68, the California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate,
Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for all Action of 2018, and the City can be listed as a
member of the Californians for Clean Water and Safe Parks coalition.
Michael Brownrigg, Ivlayor
l, lvleaghan 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 2nd
day of April, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
Meghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8j
MEETING DATE: April 2,2018
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: Aprll2,2018
From:Nif Blackburn, Assistant to the City Manager - (650) 558-7229
Lisa Goldman, Gity Manager - (650) 558-7243
Subject:Adoption of a Resolution of Support for Proposition 69, the June 2018
Constitutional Amendment Protecting Transportation Funds From Being
Diverted and Opposition to the November 2018 Batlot Measure to Repeal
Senate Bill 1
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution of support for Proposition 69,
and opposition to the November 2018 ballot measure to repeal Senate Bill 1.
BACKGROUND
ln April 2017 , California passed Senate Bill 1 , the Road Repair and Accountability Act o'f 2017 (SB
1). SB 1 raises $5 billion annually over the next decade to make road safety improvements, fix
potholes, and repair local streets, highways, bridges, and overpasses, with the revenues split
equally between state and local government projects. Proposition 69 is a June 2018 ballot measure
that would extend constitutional protections to the new revenues generated by SB 1 that aren't
currently protected and would prohibit the Legislature from borrowing or diverting these revenues
for nontransportation purposes. The League of California Cities has requested that its members
support Proposition 69 and simultaneously oppose a November 2018 ballot measure to repeal SB
1.
DISCUSSION
SB 1 provides more than $5 billion annually to make road safety and transportation improvements
throughout California. SB 1 will allocate over $365 million in critically-needed funding throughout
San Mateo County over the next 10 years. Of this, $8.49 million is expected to be invested in
Burlingame over 10 years, beginning with funding for the current 2O1B street repairs and
resurfacing project.
lf approved by the voters, Proposition 69 will extend constitutional protections to revenues
generated by SB 1 and ensure that these funds can only be used for transportation projects by
prohibiting the Legislature from borrowing or diverting these revenues for non-transportation
purposes.
1
Adoption of a Resolution to Support Proposition 69 and Oppose Repeal of SB 1 April2,2018
Separately, there is a proposed ballot measure being circulated for signatures that would repeal
SB 1, making it more difficult to raise state and local transportation funds in the future.
FISCAL !MPACT
There is no fiscal impact from the adoption of this resolution.
Exhibits:
. Resolution
. Chart of San lt/ateo County SB 1 Funding
2
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIry OF BURLINGAME SUPPORTING
PROPOSITION 69 AND OPPOSING REPEAL OF SB 1
WHEREAS, California's cities, counties, and transportation agencies face a statewide
backlog of over $130 billion in needed funds to make transportation infrastructure
improvements; and
WHEREAS, in April 20'17, California passed "The Road Repair and Accountability Act"
(SB 1) to raise $5 billion annually in long{erm, dedicated transportation funding to make road
safety improvements, fix potholes, and repair local streets, highways, bridges, and overpasses,
with the revenues split equally betvveen state and local government projects; and
WHEREAS, SB'1 will allocate over $365 million in critically-needed funding throughout
San Mateo County over ten years, including $8.49 million in Burlingame, for such projects as
the City's annual street repairs and resurfacing program; and
WHEREAS, SB 1 contains strong accountability provisions to streamline projects by
cutting red tape to ensure transportation funds are spent efficiently and effectively, while also
establishing the independent office of Transportation lnspector General to perform audits,
improve efficiency, and increase transparency; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 69 on the June 2018 ballot would add additional accountability
for taxpayers by preventing the State Legislature from diverting or raiding any new
transportation revenues for non{ransportation improvement purposes; and
WHEREAS, there is also a proposed November 2018 ballot measure (Attorney General
#17-0033) currently being circutated for signatures that would repeal the new transportation
revenues provided by SB 1 and make it more difficult to increase funding for state and local
transportation improvements in the future; and
WHEREAS, this proposed November proposition would raid funds annually dedicated to
the City of Burlingame and halt future transportation improvement projects in the community;
and
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities has asked all member cities to formally
support Proposition 69 on the June 2018 statewide general election ballot and oppose repeal of
SB 1 slated for the November 2018 ballot.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
RESOLVES THAT:
a
a
a
The City supports Proposition 69, the June 2018 constitutional amendment to prevent new
transportation funds from being diverted for non-transportation purposes;
The City opposes the proposed November ballot proposition (Attorney General #17-0033)
that would repeal the new transportation funds and make it more difficult to raise state and
location transportation funds in the future; and
The City supports and can be listed as a member of the Coalition to Protect Local
Transportation lmprovements, a diverse coalition of local government, business, labor,
transportation and other organization throughout the state, in support of Proposition 69 and
opposing the repeal of SB 1.
Michael Brownrigg, Mayor
l, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd
day of April, 2018 and was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
Meghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
SBl Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017
New Local Streets & Roads Funding
TenYr Total
ATHERTON 2 O43,OOO
BELMONT 7,951,000
BRISBANE 1,342 000
DALY CITY
EAST PALO ALTO
31 177 000
726
000
579 000
339 000
U
o
3
J
PACIFICA 10,800,000
PORTOLA VALLEY
REDW D
SAN BRUN
357 000
000
61 000
n n
n an eo
27 Oclober 2017 C al i f o rni aC it g F i nanc e. co wr
Page 42 of 59
AGENDA ITEM NO: 9a
STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 2, 2018
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April2,2018
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 2018-19 By
2.0% Based on the CPI for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA Area
as Published March 14,2018
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 Settinq the fee.
(a) Commencing with fiscal year 2010-11, the city council, following a public hearing,
shall determine the storm drainage fee. ln 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 approva! bv a maioritv
vote of the property subiect to the storm drainaqe fee. the maximum Der souare
foot rate for impe area. commencinq fiscal vear 2010-2011,be increased bv an
amount equat to the change in the Consumer Price lndex for all Urban Consumers for the
area includinq San Mateo Countv (the "CPl"). includinq atl items as published bv the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics as of March 1 of each vear. not to exceed a maximum
increase of two (2) percent per vear.
(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) ln 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
1
Storm Drainage Fee Adjustment
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 S 2, (2009))
DISCUSSION
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.bls.qov) 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 14, 2018 was the CPI report for February 2018, which indicated a CPI increase of 3.6%.
The ordinance caps the annual increase al2.0o/o.
Last year's adjustment (for FY 2017-18) of 2.0o/o was based on the February 2017 CPI of 3.4o/o.
FISCAL IMPACT
The increase of 2.0% in the storm drainage fee raises the rate charged per square foot of
impervious area from 4.888 cents to 4.986 cents effective July 1,2018. The increase is
estimated to produce an additional $56,500, for estimated revenue of $2,881,000 in fiscal year
2018-19. The additional revenue will be included in the City budget for fiscal year 2018-19.
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
ADJUSTMENTS TO STORM DRAINAGE FEE
Fiscal
Year cPr
lncrease
Arnount
Rate Per
Square Ft.
FY 09-10
FY 10-11
FY 11-12
FY 12-13
FY 13-14
FY 14-15
FY't5-16
FY 16-17
FY 17-18
FY 18-19
NUA
2.00/o
1.5o/o
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.lYo
2.jYo
2.0%
2.jYo
tvA
$ 0.00084
$ 0.00064
$ 0.00087
$ 0.00089
$ 0.00090
$ 0.00092
$ 0.00094
$ 0.00096
$ 0.00098
0.04192
0.04276
0.04340
0.04427
0.04516
0.04606
0.04698
0.04792
0.04888
0.04986
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Exhibits
. Resolution
. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Western lnformation Office, and
Consumer Price lndex for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, All Urban Consumer,
February 2018 (dated March 14, 2018).
2
April2,2018
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME LEVYING A STORM DRAINAGE
FEE ON ALL PARCELS IN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018-
19 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 2018-19 TAX BILLS
RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME that:
WHEREAS, pursuant to, and in accordance with the provisions of, Article XlllD 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, lT lS DETERMINED and ORDERED that:
1. Pursuant to Chapter 4.30 of the Burlingame lr/unicipal Code, the City Council
determines that the storm drainage fee for all parcels in the City of Burlingame for fiscal
year 2018-19 shall be the same rate as fiscal year 2017-18, or $0.04888 plus an
increase of 2.00% for the annual CPI adjustment,for a total rate of $0.04986
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 2018-'19, 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.
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
Michael Brownrigg, Mayor
l, 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 2nd day of April, 2018, by the following vote:
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
2
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
NEWS RELEASE
LngOn STnTISTICSBunEAU *
HBLSDEP
OF
ARu. s
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
TMENT OFLABOR
For Release: Tuesday, March 13,2018 18-390-SAN
WESTERN INFORMATION OFFICE: San Francisco, Calif.
Technical information: (415) 625-2270 BLSinfoSF@bls.gov www.bls.gov/regions/west
Media contact: (415) 625-2270
Consumer Price Index, San Francisco Area - February 2018
Area prices up 1.4 percent over the past two months, up 3.6 percent from a year ago
Prices in the San Francisco area, as measured by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-
U), increased I .4 percent for the two months ending in February 2018, 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 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 increased 3.6 percent. (See chart I and table A.) Energy prices moved
up l2.Zpercent, largely the result of an increase in the price of gasoline. The index for all items less food
and energy rose 3.3 percent over the year. (See table l.)
Chart 1. Over-the-year percent change in CPI-U, San Franeisco, February 2015-February 2018
Fercent ehange
5.0
4.0
Feb
'15
Apr Jun Arg Oct Dec FS
'16
Apr Jun lug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Arg Oct
'17
Dec Feb
'18
Source: U.5. Bureau of LEborStatistica.
Food
Food prices advanced 1.7 percent for the two months ending in February. (See table I .) Prices for food at
home moved up 1.8 percent, and prices for food away from home rose 1.7 percent for the same period.
Over the year, food prices advanced 2.2 percent. Prices for food away from home increased 3.4 percent
since a year ago, and prices for food at home advanced l.l percent.
All items
*** Allitemslesfiodard
a*o*on-< q***4
git*,
t* ***
\,;v
Energy
The energy index increased 4.8 percent for the two months ending in February. The increase was mainly due
to higher prices for gasoline (7.2 percent). Prices for natural gas service moved up 3.8 percent, and prices
for electricity rose 0.4 percent for the same period.
Energy prices jumped l2.2percent over the year, largely due to higher prices for gasoline (17.1 percent).
Prices paid for electricity increased 8.3 percent, and prices for natural gas service advanced 0.7 percent
during the past year.
All items less food and energy
The index for all items less food and energy rose 1 .2 percent in the latest two-month period. Higher prices
were noted for apparel (4.3 percent) and shelter (0.7 percent).
Over the year, the index for all items less food and energy increased 3.3 percent. Components contributing
to the increase included other goods and services (7.5 percent) and shelter (4.0 percent). Partly offsetting the
increases were price declines in apparel (-2.9 percent) and household furnishings and operations (-0.7
percent).
Table A. San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose CPI-U bi-monthly and annual percent changes (not seasonally
adjusted)
Month Annual
3.6
April
October
December
The April 2018 Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward is scheduled to be
released on May 10,2018.
Consumer Price Index Geographic Revision for 2018
In January 2018, BLS introduced a new geographic area sample for the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
As part of the new sample, the index for this area was renamed. Additional information on the
geographic revision is available at: wwwbls.gov/cpi/georevision20 1 8.htm.
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 forAll Urban Consumers (CPI-U) which covers approximately 94 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
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Bi-
monthly Annual Bi-
monthly Annual Bi-
monthly Annual Bi-
monthly Annual Bi-
monthly Annual Bi-
monthly
1.3
0.8
0.5
0.1
0.2
-0.4
2.4
2.4
z.o
2.0
1.6
z.o
1.2
1.2
0.7
0.0
0.5
-0.9
2.4
2.8
3.0
3.0
3.2
2.7
1.0
1.1
0.6
0.3
0.4
-0.3
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.6
2.6
3.2
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.9
-0.3
3.0
2.7
2.7
3.1
J.b
3.s
0.8
1.1
0.3
0.2
0.6
-0.1
3.4
3.8
3.5
3.0
2.7
2.9
1.4
2
20't8
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 collectedinT5 urban areas across the country from about 5,000 housing units and
approximately 22,000 retail establishments--department stores, supermarkets, hospitals, filling stations, and
other types of stores and service establishments. Al1 taxes directly associated with the purchase and use of
items are included in the index.
The index measures price changes from a designated reference date (1982-84) that equals 100.0. An
increase of 16.5 percent, for example, is shown as 116.5. This change can also be expressed in dollars as
follows: the price of a base period "market basket" of goods and services in the CPI has risen from $10 in
1982-84 to $11.65. For further details see the CPI home page on the Internet at www.bls.gov/cpi and the
BLS Handbook of Methods, Chapter 17,The Consumer Price Index, available on the Internet at
www.bls. gov/opub/hom/homch I 7_a.htm.
In calculating the index, price changes for the various items in each location are averaged together with
weights that represent their importance in the spending of the appropriate population group. Local data arc
then combined to obtain a U.S. city average. Because the sample size of a local area is smaller, the local
area index is subject to substantially more sampling and other measurement error than the national index. In
addition, local indexes are not adjusted for seasonal influences. As a result, local area indexes show greater
volatility than the national index, although their longterm trends are quite similar. NOTE: Area indexes do
not measure differences in the level of prices between cities; they only measure the average change in
prices for each area since the base period.
The San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA. metropolitan area covered in this release is comprised of
Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo Counties in the State of California.
Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice
phone: (202) 691-5200; Federal Relay Service: (800) 877-8339.
J
Table 1. Consumer Price lndex for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): lndexes and percent changes for selected
periods San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA (1982-84=100 unless otherwise noted)
Percent from-
Item and Group
Jan.
2018
Expenditure category
All items
All items (1967=100)
Food and beverages
Food
Food at home
Cereals and bakery products
Meats, poultry, fish, and e99s...............
Dairy and related products ...................
Fruits and vegetables
Nonalcoholic beverages and beverage
materials(1)
Other food at home
Food away from home.......
Food away from home.......
Alcoholic beverages
Housing..
Shelter
1.1
Rent of primary residence(2)................
Owners' equiv. rent of residences(2)(3)
Owners'equiv.
residence(1)(2)
rent of primary
Fuels and utilities.
Household energy .............
Energy services(2)
Electricity(2)
Utility (piped) gas service(2)..........
Household furnishings and operations.....
Apparel
Transportation
Private transportation
New and used motor vehicles(4)..............
New vehicles('l )
Used cars and trucks(1)
Motor fuel
Gasoline (all types)...
Gasoline, unleaded regula(4).......
Gasoline, unleaded midgrade(4)
(5)
Gasoline, unleaded premium(4)....
Motor vehicle insurance( 1 )
Recreation(6)..
Education and communication(6).................
Tuition, other school fees, and child
care(1 ).............
Other goods and services
Commodity and service group
All items....
Commodities
Commodities less food & beverages.......
Nondurables less food & beverages...
Durables
0.4
0.'l
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.0
2.4
3.8
3.8
3.8
4.2
3.8
lndexes
Dec.
2017
Jan.
20't8
Feb.
2018
Feb.
2017
Dec.
2017
277.414
852.847
269.334
268.585
247.770
253.562
247.652
262.942
326.032
192.294
217.927
293.807
293.807
283.547
329.209
376.805
428.426
407.',t06
407.106
383.189
335.450
336.303
360.984
271.067
1 33.1 98
108.950
192.875
186.031
94.942
160.147
247.409
232.445
231.382
231 .610
216.030
218.605
469.808
493.05s
115.919
141.735
1,625.989
463.343
277.4't4
'183.580
137.404
179.301
96.880
249.327
377.833
430.328
408.222
408.222
337.692
338.508
362.520
274.779
239.938
238.923
239.122
222.1s9
226.106
281.308
864.818
273.794
273.196
252.155
257.289
248.194
266.693
332.725
206.068
220.581
298.714
298.714
286.864
331.779
379.330
430.929
408.860
408.860
389.461
339.487
340.466
362.520
281 .249
135.132
113.616
200.283
192.922
96.1 58
160.274
250.728
248.958
247.991
248.183
231.380
234.614
497.755
500.434
115.910
142.944
1,650.322
473.197
281.308
187.162
140.463
186.016
96.637
7.5
3.6
2.4
2.2
1.1
3.4
3.4
5.0
3.7
4.0
4.4
3.7
3.7
5.7
5.7
5.8
8.3
0.7
-0.7
-2.9
6.5
7.8
17.1
17.1
17.3
17.3
1 6.1
3.0
2.4
1.7
3.6
2.5
2.6
5.7
-2.4
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.5
0.2
1.4
2.1
7.2
1.2
1.7
1.7
1.2
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.4
'1.6
1.2
1.2
0.4
3.8
'1.5
4.3
3.8
3.7
1.3
0.1
1.3
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.3
5.9
1.5
0.0
0.9
1.5
2.1
1.4
'1.4
2.O
2.2
3.7
-0.3
4
Note: See footnotes at end of table.
nnarlinal nara
Table 1. Consumer Price lndex for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): lndexes and percent changes for selected
periods San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA (1982-84=100 unless othenarise noted) - Continued
Item and Group
Percent from-
Jan.
2018
Special aggregate indexes
All items less medical care.................
All items less shelter.
Commodities less food
Nondurables
Nondurables less food.
Services less rent of shelte(3).....
Services less medical care services...
Energy.............
All items less energy
All items less food and
Footnotes
(1 ) lndexes on a December 1 977='1 00 base.
(2) This index series was calculated using a Laspeyres estimator. All other item stratum index series were calculated using a geometric means
estimator.
(3) lndex is on a December 1982=100 base.
(4) Special index based on a substantially smaller sample.
(5) lndexes on a December 1993=100 base.
(6) lndexes on a December 1997=100 base.
- Data not available
NOTE: lndex applies to a month as a whole, not to any specific date.
2.5
lndexes
Dec.
2017
Jan.
2018
Feb.
2018
Feb.
2017
Dec.
2017
355.532
268.606
236.108
143.497
225.547
187.088
343.863
347.179
273.718
280.952
283.677
279.790
359.709
272.3s8
240.742
146.549
231.165
193.403
350.606
351.196
286.809
2U.453
287.009
3.6
3.2
2,8
3.8
5.6
4.0
4.1
12.2
3.2
3.3
4.0
1.4
2.0
2.1
2.5
3.4
2.0
1.2
4.8
1.2
1.2
1.2
E
STAFF REPORT AGENDANO: 10a
MEETING DATE: April 2,2018
To:Honorable Mayor and Gity Council
Date: April2,2018
From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director - (650) 558-7307
Subject: Report from the State Lands Commission Community Meeting
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report out from the State Lands Commission
(SLC) community meeting held on March 22,2018.
BACKGROUND
The State Lands Commission (SLC) owns two parcels of land on the Bayfront, located a|420 and
450 Airport Boulevard. The parcels are available for a long-term lease. The project site and
surrounding land was reclaimed from the San Francisco Bay in the 1960s by constructing
perimeter barriers of concrete rubble. The perimeter of the area was created by using pieces of
the old San Mateo bridge structure, and additional fill and rubble were placed behind the pieces
of the San Mateo bridge structure. The site is primarily vacant, with weedy vegetation covering
most of the area. There is an informal, unpaved access pathway along the San Francisco Bay
edge. The remainder of the site is surrounded by a chain link fence.
DISCUSSION
For several years, the City has been working to ensure a higher and better use for the 8.81- acre
site. The City initially envisioned offering the public an amenity that provides a large space for
active and passive leisure and recreational uses. While the City's application was under review
by the SLC, the agency received an application from H&Q Asia Pacific (H&OAP) for a hotel on
the property. The proposal included a boutique hotel and a significant amount of parkland on the
remainder of the property. For a variety of reasons, the City agreed to place its project on hold
and work with H&QAP on a mutually acceptable hybrid hotel/park project.
While H&QAP was working through the application process, the SLC received two separate
unsolicited short-term lease applications, one from a hotel developer, and one from the SPHERE
lnstitute, whose building neighbors the property. Subsequently, the SLC staff requested that all
applicants withdraw their proposals, thus allowing time for the SLC to gather public input about
the potential uses for the property and present the results of the public input to the
Commissioners at a future meeting. At that future meeting, SLC staff will also request direction
from the Commissioners regarding the types of applications that could be accepted for the
1
Report from the State Lands Commission Community Meeting April 2, 2018
subject property going fonrrard. The SLC staff anticipates that the results will be reported to the
Commissioners in June of 2018.
The public outreach meeting was held at the Burlingame Recreation Center on March 22. ln
attendance from SLC were Public Land Manager Nicholas Lavoie, Public Land Management
Specialist Al Franzoia, SLC Attorney Lucinda Calvo, and Public Land Management Specialist
George Asimakopoulos. ln attendance from the City were Councilmember Emily Beach, City
Manager Lisa Goldman, Parks and Recreation Director Margaret Glomstad, and Community
Development Director William Meeker. A number of City Commissioners also attended.
After introductions, SLC and City staff presented a PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit A) that
described permitted uses under the State Land Trust Doctrine and City policies. After a question
and answer period, the attendees broke into smaller groups to gather ideas regarding preferred
uses on the State Lands parcels. Each group had a facilitator who took notes that were
submitted to SLC staff at the end of the meeting. The groups did not report out the results of their
discussions to the rest of the attendees. Staff estimates that more than 100 people, including
both Burlingame residents and non-residents, attended the meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
Exhibit:
. March 22,2018 SLC Community Meeting PowerPoint
2
3l2e/2oL8
410 AIRPORT BOULEVARD
BURLINGAME, MATEO COUNTY
Burlingame, CA I March 22,2018
CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION
Public Trust Needs Assessment
I onenda
. Welcome
.lntroductions
. Presentation by the State Lands Commission
Staff and City of Burlingame Staff
. Questions and Answers
. Breakout Session
. Conclusion and Next Steps
/
d
L
i-\.,
^D
-rrrlF,
3l2e/2078
t Public Trust Needs Assessment
A Necessary Planning Tool to Determine Future Use
. Receive public comments from the community
about state sovereign land in the City of
Burlingame and its use.
. Use must be consistent with the Public Trust
Doctrine and in alignment with City of
Burlingame land use policies./
r Anza Airport Park - 1956 - Current
/
Vi(inity of Aua Airport Park
9/4t1956
2
-
krrEHH(-h ' 'r '!
q
Bry@dtub.*r blx,-l-aokE 3ot u- (.d
rl
miltTAi.ri Arrpod P.rt
6lalt911
3l2sl2Ot8
r
/
f tne Public Trust Doctrine
. Protects tide and submerged Iands and
navigable watenruays for the benefit of the
people of California
. The State's title to these lands is held in trust for
the people to enjoy navigation, carry on
commerce, and have liberty of fishing free from
interference from private parties . (lllinois Central
R.R. Co. v. lllinois (1892) 146U.S.387, 452.)
/
3
Blvd, Anza Airport Park
Conditions
I
a u a0? &ttre&
*rl. l:J,&
t lL
410 Airport Boulevard
. ^^.^
3l2s/2078
f rne Public Trust Doctrine
. Essential Public Trust purposes have always
been, and remain, water related, and the State's
obligation is to manage its Public Trust lands to
facilitate trust purposes on behalf of the people.
. Filled Public Trust lands, while no longer
undenrvater, retain their legal character as tide or
submerged lands and are protected by the
Public Trust Doctrine.
/
Commercial Uses that Directly Promote,
Support, or Accommodate Public Trust
uses and public access:
. Warehouses (Oakland v. Williams (1929) 206 Cal. 315). Container cargo storage
. Convention and Trade Facilities (Haggerty v. Oakland (1958)
161 Cal.App.2d 407)
. Boating facilities
. Ferries
4
-
3lzel20L8
Visitor-Serving Uses that Directly
Promote, Support, or Accommodate
Public Trust uses and public access:
. Hotels
. Restaurants
. Parking lots (Arlartin v. Smith (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 571)
. These are allowed uses because as places of public
accommodation, they facilitate broad public access to
Public Trust lands, and therefore, enhance the public's
enjoyment of these lands set apart for their ben
Uses lnconsistent with the Public Trust
. Uses that are generally not permitted on Public
Trust lands are those that:
. Are not water-dependent or water-related
. Do not facilitate the statewide public's need
for essential maritime services or the public's
enjoyment of the state's watenruays
. Can be located on non-waterfront prope
5
3l2el2oL8
I>
,"es Inconsistent with the Public Trust
. These would include commercial facilities that
could easily be sited on uplands.
. lt also includes strictly local or neighborhood-
serving uses that confer no significant statewide
benefit to all Californians.
/
I U"es lnconsistent with the Public Trust
. Examples include public hospitals, public
libraries, public schools, public municipal parks,
supermarkets, local government buildings, office
buildings, residential, general commercial, and
non-visitor serving retail that serve general
rather than specifically trust-related functions.
/
6
EI
3/2s/2078
I euUlic Municipal Parks
Local, public municipal parks designed for
primarily local use are inconsistent with the
Public Trust. To be sited on sovereign Public
Trust lands, such facilities must be incidental to
water-related uses and should be designed to
facilitate use by the statewide public rather than
primarily local use.
a
/
) Open Space and Public ParkI
Open Space and public parks may be permissible
under the Public Trust if designed to benefit the
statewide public and enhance its enjoyment of the
shoreline. This can include open space for habitat
preservation and/or public access. Public parks can
include facilities designed to maximize water-related
connectivity and use, and should encourage use by
the statewide public rather than focusing /on local use.
7
3l2e/2078
r CITY PERMITTED USES (i.e. uses allowed
without Planning Commission approval, though Design
Review may stil! be required):
. Restaurants
. lVotels and hotels
. Offices
. Accessory retail sales and personal service uses
. Publicly owned recreation facilities./
CITY CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES
(i.e. uses requiring Planning Commission approval,
Design Review may also be required):
. Extended stay hotels
. Commercial recreation facilities; these facilities may include the sale
of merchandise and ltems which are related to the principal use
. Trade, professional and art schools
. Drive-in services or take-out services associated with permitted and
conditional uses
. Commercial parking lots, but only as an interim use as described in
the Bayfront Specific Plan
"16
8
---.
3l2e/2078
Tonight's Process
. Questions & Answers
. Break Out Groups
. Report Out Groups
410 Airport Boulevard
9
a u ott trt,
-E
toL lr,m
tn.!.ry tur.r: a.d,
{
Blvd, Anza Airport Park
Conditions
3/29/20L8
It *"xt steps
' Analyze needs meeting Public Trust values and
uses in alignment with the City of Burlingame
Land Use plans, the State's Best lnterests, sea-
level rise projections, and environmental justice
policies
. Present assessment to the Commission
/
www.slc.ca.gov
916.574.1900
U @cnStatelands
I
Al Franzoia
Land [\Ianagement Division
Al. Franzoia@slc. ca. qov
10
THANK YOU & QUESTIONS
;i!"a;
AGENDANO: 11a
Memorandum
To:City Council
Date: April2,2018
From: Mayor Michael Brownrigg
Subject: CommitteeReport
New Recvclins Challenses at SBWMA
This may be more than you want to know, but due to much stricter standards in China for
recycling materials, huge amounts of our paper and plastic is being turned away (see
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news /articles/20L8-03-27/china-doesnt-want-
your-trash ). The SBWMA is still coming to grips with the new regime and looking for
alternatives, but this will have a certain impact on the SBWMA profit/loss statement.
Recycling revenues were forecast to contribute about $10 million in revenue this year, which
offsets around L0% of the SBWMA costs. If we cannot find alternatives, that has a double
whammy on expenses, by eating into revenue and by adding additional land fill costs.
Unfortunately, if we cannot find a solution in the medium term the higher costs will
inevitably have to pass back to our ratepayers. We all hope to avoid that - and by the way,
find valuable re-uses for these materials and not just bury them.
Burlinsame Art
The process continues to identiff an artist, with the Working Group having approved an RFP
and solicit first statements of interest. We continue to seek philanthropic funding for the
ultimate project. On the installation of the Anson Burlingame Bust in the library, I will be
sending out dates to you so that we can choose the final date. I was struck by General
Hodges' speech at the 101$ Airborne gala dinner, in which he said "cohesion" and "nobility of
character" were the hallmarks of America and what made us great as a nation and respected
around the world - and he argued both were under strain today. As he spoke, I thought to
myself how perfectly Anson Burlingame personified both those characteristics.
March For Our Lives
Along with several colleagues, I attended the March 24 March for our Lives and ensuing
peaceful march through downtown Burlingame. It was a fantastic crowd, several hundred
strong, with kids and youth and parents and seniors. There were short powerful speeches
from moms and students, among others. It was all organized by one mom - Katherine
Gerster -- with help from a few others and the power of Facebook. Good for her!
1
B rown ri g g Com m ittee Re port April2,2018
Lvon Hoas Event
I have mentioned to several (all?) of you my concept of doing a deep dive on traffic and
parking options for the Lyon Hoag area of Burlingame, given their growing concerns as
expressed to each of us. I just wanted to keep you in the Ioop that Lisa, Syed and I have met
and discussed parameters of the event, and I have also reviewed the concept with the TSP
Chair, what would be useful, how we might frame it and deliver good information to our
residents. We do not yet have a date but probably 2 hours on a Saturday morning seems like
a good bet. The early concept is to give residents a clear idea about residential parking
programs, what flavors exists, and how to implement them; what traffic calming measures
can be adopted and which streets are problematic (as identified by participants); and a brief
look also at Peninsula/l0l and potential mitigation measures in case that moves forward.
Please let us know if you have additional thoughts or inputs. More information to come.
2
AGENDANO: 11b
Memorandum
To: City Counci!
Date: April2,2018
From: Vice Mayor Donna Colson
Subject: CommitteeReport
Guess Who is Coming to the Library - March 18. 2018
Attended the VIP reception and then lecture from Ira Glass at the Library. Wonderful event
with a great crowd.
PCE BOD Meetine - March 22.2018
Item 1 - Chair Report - feff Aalfs - Conference in Yosemite - Topics
1. Energy Disruption
2. Energy Equity
3. 500/o of State energy is now provided by solar
4. 250,000 EV Chargers needed by 2025 and we are now at 15,000 today so there will
be a lot of work to do in this area.
Item 2 - CEO Report - Hired new Local Energy Programs Director and working to hire new
interim CFO and then new CFO permanent.
. Rates Changed for PG&E - we followed within 15 days - increase was about 7%o
across the board.
. Eco-100 is now Green-E certified and counts towards LEED points.
. Current Net position is $58.7 million (up $1.7 million last month)
. SAMTRANS getting 10 new EV buses from ProTerra
. t2 new CCAs are expected to launch and 2 are expanding
. March 29 Sustainable San Mateo County Awards - CSM 2018 Sustainability Award
Item 3 - Citizens Advisory Committee
Some openings with an emphasis on the North County areas and people with
experience in low income programs.
Item 4 - Marketing and Outreach
. Increasing opt-outs in EPA and Pacifica [also Daly City and SSF)
. Burlingame is 7.84o/o Opt Out
a
1
Colson Commiftee Repoft April2,2018
Item5-LegalUpdate
. Preparing for Earth Day (Earth Month) in April - one of the
. Next Week - Training for Outreach Tuesday March 27 6:30 - 9:00 PM at the PCE
offices in Woodside
. Filed several comments on PUC regulatory environment
. New regulations around formation - longer lead time
. SB 1136 Wiener bill - Slow down in procurement and that means loss jobs, so trying
to address this. SB L9LZ - Small |PA in SoCal failed and they were CALPERS members - so )PA
members must be able to pick up those liabilities and Sempra added on that should
be all debts.
Presentation on Cost Allocation Mechanism (CAM) and Resource Adequacy (RA) -
Interesting mismatch of generation and demand especially as we move to solar. Production
is not used because no storage for solar. Example is that people are charging cars at night
and that creates evening and night demand when we are not producing. Complex eco-
system. Tensions between individual choices (like EVs) and the ability to deliver the
electricity. Idea that we can have local control and more insight into demand and how best to
deliver to our clients.
Frameworks 1 - Countywide Session - March 22. 2018
Focus on how to have a conversation around housing in a way that does not create crisis
rather it articulates a solvable problem.
|oined the Open House with Senator Hill and Assemblyman Mullin
Frameworks 2 - Pilot Cities Workshop - March 23,2018
Framing language and the choices you make as a communicator are important to how the
reader or listener interprets the information.
L. Do NOT use so much data that you create DEATH BY DATA. Example - Achievement
Gap - bad use, read it and then people say "communities of color do not actual value
education" as an example and by itself, does not create new understanding. Data is
important, but cannot stand alone or be entire story - usually not good to start with a
stat.
2. Crisis Framing - Better to frame it as a very big problem, but look at all of the
innovative things we are doing to address this problem, inspire sense of efficacy. Be
sure to always define - "housing" as is more than just affordable housing, but also
rentals, homeownership, etc. People do feel that there is a role for government to help
solve this problem, but they also fall back on the idea that government never could
solve this problem. This is remarkable, because usually government is never
mentioned.
3. A frame that works shifts thinking in several ways - knowledge, attitude and policy
support - these are the things that we want to see moved. Provide detail so people can
2
Colson Commitlee Repoft April 2, 2018
understand the solutions that you are working toward. What is working here is
fairness across all places, interdependence and connectedness to our
community. Metaphor that works is the puzzle and painting a positive picture and all
of these partnerships that must come together and put yourself squarely in the
middle as a problem solver. Gets more protagonists into the story - more positive
view with solvable solutions.
Council of Cities Dinner in South San Francisco - March 23. 2018
Assemblyman Phil Ting - Update on his work around electric vehicles and energy efficiency
Saturday March 24,?OLB
foined in on the Burlingame March - Fabulous Event
|udge at the Kidtreprenuer Event at Washington Park - 0ver 50 kids from San Anselmo to
Brentwood, Half Moon Bay and Gilroy as well as Burlingame and Hillsborough participated
in the event with their ideas and their products.
Parks and Recreation Foundation Meeting - March 26.2018
General updates and discussion about projects to support in2078/2019
History of the Kohl Mansion by Bridget Bell
Documentary movie made by family friend Bridget Bell on the history of Kohl.
Meeting - Kate Comfort HIP Housing - March 27.2018
L. Home sharing - Fair Housing Choice...Levels at which other cities give - San Carlos -
$20,000 and Menlo Park $20,000, Redwood City gives $L5,000. Hillsborough $2,500.
How do we get HSA to count as RHNA. Count at least seniors and the city is
supporting and the units get housing toward RHNA. First Round of Interest - Hannah
Beth jackson out of Santa Barbara. National Conference at the Hyatt - Home Sharing
and FHLB to link housing to health. October 18 and 19 conference.
2. Inclusionary Housing - If doing residential, good at the start, but now HIP is offering
the compliance program and will maintain the waitlist. Per door fee and we can keep
these units in compliance. Needs to get into regulatory agreements and developers
need to show their plan as to how we are going to compliance. Hello Housing through
Mid-Pen will want to manage that large project.
3. Teacher Housing - Partner with schools and teachers to rent ADUs in people's houses.
Property tax rebate after the funding comes from the state to the county - if you keep
that rent at1./3 of the income rent. County Counsel working on this - ERAF would be
possible, money that goes to the city. Would City be willing to "rebate" and do this?
4. Most exciting one - B units in Burlingame - Aaron Admin Staff - Assistant City
Manager. Need some language in pace and we can commit. Cross the fees and link the
entitlement. Have asked Kevin Gardiner to check in with Kate Comfort on this.
3
Colson Committee Report April2,2018
Other Meetings
March 29 - Meeting to help the Chamber with expanding membership
March 29 - Sustainability Awards Session at CSM - With CEC and PCE
4
AGENDA NO: 11c
Memorandum
To:City Counci!
Date: April2,2018
From: Councilmember Ann Keighran
Subject: CommitteeReport
Home for All: March 31. 2018
Focused on Outreach and Education Goals for 20LB-2019 which will be sent to the steering
committee.
Goals
L. Expand capacity for outreach/education through email and social media
a. Title companies, building and planning, city newsletters, water bills, libraries,
and affordable housing interest lists
b. Identify and partner with community organizations who regularly
communicate with their audiences and provide copy for insertion in their
newsletters
2. Continue to develop and support opportunities for local community engagement-
understanding that people identify with their own city
3. Develop marketing material for broad distribution with an emphasis on what Home
for All is doing for the community and individuals
4. Put together information about how community members can get involved in their
own communities.
5. Build a network of Home for All champions who are prepared to represent the
initiative in a variety of community settings
6. Continue to develop and improve the Home for All website making sure it is always
current and adding links to cities so individuals can access local information about
what their cities are doing through the site.
We are also working on putting together an overall narrative that people can use
when they are out in the community that includes the challenges we face as a region
regarding housing, why it matters to address the housing shortage issue and actions
we can take to help crate and preserve more homes.
1
Keighran Committee Report April 2, 2018
Home for AII: March 22. 2018
There was a presentation given by the Frameworks institute that focused on why some
messaging about housing backfires while other messaging is successful. This meeting
focused on the importance of messaging in the correct format and what to emphasize and
explain. It's important to choose talking points that contain positive language cues and it is
important to offer solutions that the community benefits from rather than what the
community may lose. There is an article worth reading by the Framework Institute. "You
Don't Have to Live Here" Why housing messages are backfiring and 10 things we can do
about it. It was published October 20L6.
2
Memorandum
To City Gouncil
Date: April2,2018
From: Councilmember Emily Beach
Subject: CommitteeReport
AGENDA NO: 11d
March 20: Met with Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
March 22: Attended Senator Hill / Assemblymember Mullin's open house
State Lands Commission Community Needs Assessment Meeting. Burlingame
Recreation Center - March 22.2018
. Approximately 60 people attended
o State Lands gave short presentation and group Q&A. Will post their power
point presentation on their website, and will forward to City
. Attendees joined break-out groups (5-6) with note taker to report
community's vision for parcel
o Meeting did not include a report-out of comments
o Staff suggested State Lands Community Needs assessment should be complete
byAugust 20tB
o Worked with City Manager on messaging prior to meeting; I communicated
the following points:
o Burlingame has been actively engaged and thinking about this land
parcel since August of 2072, nearly 6 years
o although B acres is relatively small parcel for State Lands Commission,
this represents a significant opportunity for our region and extended
community: the last undeveloped parcel in Burlingame
o whichever partner is chosen must have the financial ability and
commitment to complete the project, AND maintain it well into the
future
o decision/action by State Lands Commission needed as soon as possible
in 2018; status quo is unacceptable, dangerous
o In the spirit of partnership, City of Burlingame respectfully requests a
seat at the table during the decision-making process
1
Beach Committee Report April 2, 2018
Our City's vision:
o an engaging recreational space that is a regional amenity for visitors
and residents alike
o actively used, maintained, and managed - -so that it doesn't deteriorate
into current state of affairs
o connected Bay Trail: safety, regional transportation, and recreational
benefits
Attended Burlineame's March for our Lives event - March 24. 2018
o estimated 400-500 people including children and teens. Inspiring event.
101st Airborne Division Homecoming Weekend - March 23-25. 2018
o Welcomed Burlingame's adopted troops from Bravo Company on Friday afternoon
o Attended parade Saturday morning
. Attended gala event Saturday night; Burlingame (and all 9 sponsor cities) received a
framed 101$ Airborne Flag / Plaque in appreciation. Thanks to our Council for
supporting the event.
o Attended memorial ceremony on Sunday morning at Golden Gate Cemetery to honor
fallen heroes and 16 Medal of Honor winners (1- of whom from the L0Ls Airborne
Division) laid to rest in San Bruno.
League of California Cities conference call on Scott Weiner's SB 827 proposed
leeislation- March 26. 2018
League housing staff helped our Peninsula Division officers better understand the proposed
legislation. As bill currently reads, it removes local land use authority related to density,
height, parking, and limits design review. The bill mandates minimum height from 45, and
up to 105'if the State Density Bonus is applied in the following locations:
o within 1/+mile of a bus stop with 15 min interval service/headway OR
o within 1/z mile of major fixed transit (rail, ferry)
AIso discussed AB 2923 with expands BART's land use authority within Yz mile of their
stations, but may not affect San Mateo County b /c we do not have an elected BART
representative. Our staff should confirm this. Still important to watch this legislation and
impact on local control.
Grand Boulevard Initiative (GBI) Task Force - March 28. 2018
Included presentations about land use changes and community vision around El Camino
Real by City of Belmont, Redwood City. Also received presentations about collaborating with
Caltrans, and future GBI TDM Toolkit.
City of Belmont shared highlights from their Belmont Village Specific Plan, ECR Corridor and
surrounding the Caltrain line:
2
Beach Committee Report April2,2018
New Parking Requirements
o Yz space for a studio apartment
o 1 space for L BR
. 1.5 for 2 BR
. 2 spaces for 3 BR or larger
Retail/Office
o Reduced parking requirements per L,000 square feet
o first 25,000 square feet discounted
Changed Floor Area Ratios (FAR) previously.5, now will be 1..5-2.5 with community benefit
incentives; allowing 3-5 stories.
Insight: when envisioning changes on El Camino Real, important to include Caltrans,
SamTrans, and public safety experts (Fire/Police) early in design stages.
Redwood City presented their El Camino Real corridor plan. Important lesson-learned in
their mixed use live/work zoning area, planning to amend since has not been as successful
as they initially hoped. To activate more interest in live/work development, they will
consider making the zoning more flexible to reduce development barriers, allow more
flexible uses, incentivize live/work but not mandate it, reduce parking requirements,
consider allowing stand-alone residential, relax requirement for business licenses.
Grand Boulevard Initiative currently developing TDM Toolkit for Grand Boulevard - coming
late fall 20L8.
3