Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2019.05.20City Council City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda - Final BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, May 20, 2019 CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Conference Room B Approval of the Closed Session Agendaa. Closed Session Community Forum: Members of the Public May Address the Council on any Item on the Closed Session Agenda at this Time b. Adjournment into Closed Sessionc. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9): Evans, et al. v. Bird Rides, Inc., et al., (City of Burlingame, co-defendant) (N.D. Cal. 3:19-cv-01207) d. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6) City Designated Representatives: Timothy L. Davis, HR Director Sonya M. Morrison, City Manager Lisa K. Goldman, City Attorney Kathleen Kane, Finance Director Carol Augustine Employee Organizations: AFSCME Administrative and Maintenance Units e. Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code Section 54956.8): Property: City Lot E (Park Rd. and Lorton Ave.) APN 029-204-230 Agency Negotiators: City Manager Lisa K. Goldman, City Attorney Kathleen Kane, and Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner Negotiating Parties: Burlingame Park Square, LLC Under Negotiation: Price and terms f. Note: Public comment is permitted on all action items as noted on the agenda below and in the non-agenda public comment provided for in item 7. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Mayor may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. All votes are unanimous unless separately noted for the record. 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/16/2019 May 20, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final 3. ROLL CALL 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION 5. UPCOMING EVENTS 6. PRESENTATIONS RethinkWaste Trash to Art Contest Winners Presentationa. National Public Works Week Presentationb. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Council agenda may do so during this public comment period. The Ralph M . Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR Consent calendar items are usually approved in a single motion, unless pulled for separate discussion . Any member of the public wishing to comment on an item listed here may do so by submitting a speaker slip for that item in advance of the Council’s consideration of the consent calendar. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for May 6, 2019a. Meeting MinutesAttachments: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for May 8, 2019b. Meeting MinutesAttachments: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Galeb Paving, Inc. for the Construction of Skyline Park, City Project No. 85460 c. Staff Report Resolution Skyline Park Designs Bid Summary Agreement with Galeb Paving Inc. Attachments: Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/16/2019 May 20, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to: Procure Landscape Structures Playground Equipment and Installation; Procure Robertson Industries, Inc. TotTurf Surfacing and Installation; and Execute an Agreement with Suarez and Mu ñoz Construction, Inc. for the Washington Park Playground, Sports Court, and Picnic Area, City Project Number 85670 d. Staff Report Resolution Agreement with Suarez and Munoz Inc. Playground Design Bid Summary Purchasing Agreement for Robertson Industries, Inc. Purchasing Agreement for Landscape Structures Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Murray Field Synthetic Turf Project, City Project No. 84130 e. Staff Report Resolution Final Progress Payment Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Term Sheet with the San Mateo Union High School District for the Burlingame Aquatic Center f. Staff Report Term Sheet March 18, 2019 Study Session Staff Report Attachments: Adoption of Resolutions Awarding a Construction Contract to G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc. for the 2019 Street Resurfacing Program, City Project No. 85120, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Cost Sharing Agreement with the City of Millbrae for Sequoia Avenue & Murchison Drive g. Staff Report Resolution for Construction Contract Resolution for Cost Sharing Agreement Construction Contract Cost Sharing Agreement Cost Sharing Estimate Project Location Map Attachments: Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/16/2019 May 20, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to Engineered Soil Repairs Inc., for the Mills Canyon Sewer Access Road Repair Project, City Project No. 85090, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Construction Contract h. Staff Report Resolution Construction Contract Bid Summary Project Location Map Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to PMK Contractors LLC for the Police Station Underground Storage Tank Removal, City Project No. 84640, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Construction Contract i. Staff Report Resolution Construction Contract Bid Summary Project Location Map Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Extending the Agreement with Maze & Associates Accountancy Corporation to Serve as the City of Burlingame ’s Independent External Financial Auditors for Three Additional Years j. Staff Report Resolution Attachments: Adoption of a Proclamation Recognizing June as Immigrant Heritage Monthk. Staff Report Proclamation Attachments: Adoption of an Ordinance Prohibiting Retaliation for Smoking Complaintsl. Staff Report Proposed Ordinance Attachments: 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment) Public Hearing to Renew the Levy and Collection of Assessments for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project for Fiscal Year 2019-20 a. Staff Report Resolution Engineer's Report FY 2019-20 Attachments: Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/16/2019 May 20, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Public Hearing to Introduce an Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Add Stop Signs at Various Locations in the City b. Staff Report Ordinance BMC Update Attachments: Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Amendments to Title 25, Code Sections 25.32.030 (Burlingame Avenue Commercial District) and 25.70.090 (Off-Street Parking) to Allow Commercial Recreation as a Conditional Use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) District c. Staff Report Ordinance Zoning Code Sections 25.32.030 and 25.70.090 - Redline Attachments Attachments: 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) Consideration of a Façade Improvement Pilot Program for the Broadway Commercial District a. Staff Report Draft Facade Improvement Pilot Program Application September 21, 2018 EDS Meeting Minutes November 16, 2018 EDS Meeting Minutes December 21, 2018 EDS Meeting Minutes Attachments: 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements. Mayor Colson's Committee Reporta. Committee ReportAttachments: 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Page 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/16/2019 May 20, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at (650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next regular City Council Meeting Monday, June 3, 2019 VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT www.burlingame.org/video Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office counter at City Hall at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. Page 6 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/16/2019 Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/20/19 Burlingame City Council May 6, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting on May 6, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by Joe Mendoza. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION a. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6) CITY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES: TIMOTHY L. DAVIS, HR DIRECTOR SONYA M. MORRISON, CITY MANAGER LISA K. GOLDMAN, CITY ATTORNEY KATHLEEN KANE, FINANCE DIRECTOR CAROL AUGUSTINE EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS: AFSCME MAINTENANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS City Attorney Kane reported that direction was given but no reportable action was taken. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Colson reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/20/19 Burlingame City Council May 6, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 2 6. PRESENTATIONS a. PROCLAMATION HONORING BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOL AND SAN MATEO HIGH SCHOOL COMBINED CONCERT CHOIRS AND CHAMBER SINGERS Mayor Colson presented the Burlingame High School and San Mateo High School combined concert choirs and chamber singers with a proclamation. She explained that members of the combined concert choirs won gold in 2017 at the World-Strides Heritage Festival, and members of the chamber singers won gold in 2018 at the Anaheim Heritage Festival. Mayor Colson stated that as a result, the students performed at Carnegie Hall in New York City on March 31, 2019. The students accepted the proclamation and performed one of their pieces for the community. Congratulations to the students from Burlingame High School and San Mateo High School. b. PROCLAMATION HONORING BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOL IRON PANTHERS ROBOTICS TEAM Mayor Colson presented the Burlingame High School Iron Panthers Robotics Team with a proclamation for winning first place at the World Championships in Houston, Texas. The Robotics Team showed the Council their robot and demonstrated their robot’s capabilities. Congratulations to the Burlingame High School Iron Panthers Robotics Team. c. YOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE (YAC) PRESENTATION Recreation Coordinator Nicole Rath introduced the Youth Advisory Committee (“YAC”). YAC members include Aiden Mendoza, Anastasios Pantazis, Carina Husain, Chase Johnson, Diana Milne, Dylan Aguinaldo, Ethan Wan, Hope Trygstad, Jiana Ang, Lauren Shannon, Sophia Morales, Taylor Abbey, and Tiana Carroll. YAC representatives discussed their work at various events this past year including: the Pet Parade, YAC Social, Fall Festival, Tree Lighting, Holiday Gift Wrapping, Frozen Sing-Along, Senior Valentine’s Dance, and PARCA Event. YAC representatives explained that each year, they choose an issue to work on as their major initiative. This year, they chose anti-vaping and created a PSA on the subject for the community. Additionally, YAC representatives discussed their recent “Conservations with Council for teens.” This event allowed students in Burlingame to ask City Councilmembers questions and discuss their concerns. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/20/19 Burlingame City Council May 6, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 3 Vice Mayor Beach asked which of YAC’s undertakings was their favorite this past year. One YAC representative replied that it was the PARCA event as it allowed them to give back to the community. Mayor Colson and the Council thanked YAC for their hard work and dedication to the community. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Colson asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. No item was removed. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. Councilmember Brownrigg commented on the motion. He noted that item 8b concerned the purchase of hybrid cars for the police department. He thanked staff for being open to the purchase of hybrid vehicles for City use. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 15, 2019 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2019. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROCUREMENT OF FIVE PUBLIC SAFETY INTERCEPTOR VEHICLES DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 42-2019. c. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 15.15 TO THE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE MANAGEMENT OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBS) DURING BUILDING DEMOLITION PROJECTS DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Ordinance 1963. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO $64,000,000 OF SOLID WASTE ENTERPRISE BONDS TO REFINANCE OUTSTANDING BONDS OF THE SOUTH BAYSIDE WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY AND TO FINANCE CERTAIN Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/20/19 Burlingame City Council May 6, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 4 IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES OF THE SOUTH BAYSIDE WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution 43-2019. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTIONS INITIATING PROCEEDINGS TO RENEW THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019-20 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 44-2019, Resolution Number 45-2019, and Resolution Number 46-2019. f. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL TWO VACANCIES ON THE LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES City Manage r Goldman requested Council open the nomination period to fill two vacancies on the Library Board of Trustees. g. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT, PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31, 2019 Finance Director Augustine submitted to Council the Quarterly Investment Report, period ending March 31, 2019. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019-20 Finance Director Augustine stated that the proposed fees for the FY 2019-20 Master Fee Schedule were brought to Council for review at the April 1, 2019 meeting. She explained that Council’s requested changes were incorporated into the proposed Master Fee Schedule. Additionally, the Master Fee Schedule was updated to include downtown parking permits and CCFD’s new fees. She noted that if adopted, most of the fees become effective July 1, 2019. Mayor Colson stated that this is the first Master Fee Schedule that will include the City’s housing linkage fees. She asked that the name of the fees be amended from Commercial Linkage Fees to Commercial Affordable Housing Linkage Fees. She explained that it was important to include what the fees were being used for to better address community concern. Mayor Colson opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 47-2019; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/20/19 Burlingame City Council May 6, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 5 b. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019-20 Finance Director Augustine stated that at the April 1, 2019 Council meeting, the Council asked for more detail concerning Broadway BID’s proposed expenditures. She noted that Broadway BID issued her a report on their expenditures, but she had forgotten to attach it to the staff report. Therefore, the report was sent to the Council prior to the meeting, and the Council’s agenda was amended online to include the report. Mayor Colson opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Mayo r Colson thanked Broadway BID for the report on their proposed expenditures. Vice Mayor Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 48-2019; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. c. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING RETALIATION FOR SMOKING COMPLAINTS City Attorney Kane stated that the City’s current smoking regulations include a prohibition on discrimination or retaliation by employers for making complaints regarding illegal smoking. She explained that the proposed amendment would prohibit retaliation and discrimination broadly, including in the housing context as well as in other circumstances where a manager or other person or entity in authority may retaliate for smoking complaints. She stated that the amendment’s particular focus was tenants who feel vulnerable to retaliation for filing a smoking complaint. City Attorney Kane noted that the proposed amendment would not protect individuals that file a complaint in bad faith in order to harass another person. Councilmember Brownrigg asked City Attorney Kane to explain the particulars of how the amendment would work. He gave the example of a tenant receiving an eviction notice after filing a smoking complaint and asked what the tenant does pursuant to the proposed amendment. City Attorney Kane explained that there are two ways the ordinance would work. The first is that if a tenant is retaliated against for filing a complaint, it would be a violation of the ordinance, which could trigger fines. However, she noted that the more practical way that the ordinance will be used is that the tenant would utilize this ordinance in their eviction hearing to argue that the eviction is unlawful. City Attorney Kane explained that the amendment arose from the County’s Civil Grand Jury reviewing tenant protections for smoking complaint cases. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the proposed amendment could be used to protect tenants that raise concerns about smoke alarms or other safety issues. City Attorney Kane replied in the negative. She explained that the proposed amendment only addresses smoking complaints. She noted that there are protections under County and State law that address Councilmember Brownrigg’s hypothetical. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/20/19 Burlingame City Council May 6, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 6 Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he has been informed that some of the City’s tenants aren’t able to raise safety issues because of fear of retaliation. He suggested that the Council broaden the proposed protections to include safety issues. City Attorney Kane stated that Councilmember Brownrigg’s suggestion could be brought back for discussion. She noted that the Council needs to weigh whether these protections are better served by State and County agencies, or if they would benefit from City involvement. Councilmember Keighran asked if the City requires annual fire inspections of apartments. CCFD Fire Chief Kammeyer replied in the affirmative. He explained that CCFD inspects common spaces in multi-unit buildings but doesn’t go into individual units. Councilmember Keighran discussed the scenario where the landlord is following up on a complaint and the tenant is unwilling to cooperate. She asked what protections the landlord has when the tenant retaliates because a complaint is not resolved in an expedient way. City Attorney Kane discussed the difficulties of enforcing the ban on smoking in multi-family units. She stated that Councilmember Keighran’s concerns were not addressed in the amendment, but that it could be brought back for discussion. City Attorney Kane stated that the proposed amendment doesn’t guarantee that the complaint is valid but instead guarantees that the individual won’t be retaliated against for making the complaint. She noted that the amendment also protects individuals that file complaints about smoking in commercial spaces. Councilmember Keighran asked if staff was aware of tenants facing retaliation for smoking complaints in Burlingame. City Attorney Kane replied in the negative. She noted that there have been issues of landlords retaliating against tenants for other complaints they filed, such as lack of heat in their units. Mayor Colson asked if e-cigs are covered in the amendment. City Attorney Kane stated that the amendment protects good-faith-based complaints. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the need for tenants to be able to file complaints anonymously for their protection. City Attorney Kane stated that names and personal information are kept confidential in code enforcement complaints. Mayor Colson asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer read the title. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Colson opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Vice Mayor Beach made a motion to bring back the proposed ordinance for adoption; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/20/19 Burlingame City Council May 6, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 7 10. STAFF REPORTS a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF THE CITY ATTORNEY’S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE A SALARY INCREASE, AND APPROVING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PAY RATES AND RANGES (SALARY SCHEDULE) HR Morrison explained that on April 15, 2019, the City Council conducted the City Attorney’s annual performance evaluation. She stated that based on the Council’s suggestion, she has drafted a resolution to approve a 3% increase to the City Attorney’s salary. She noted that the salary increase is equal to the increase that the other department heads received this year. Additionally, the City Attorney receives the same benefits as the other department heads. Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 49-2019; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. The Council discussed the hard work of City Attorney Kane and thanked her for her continued service. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION GOVERNING APPEAL PROCEDURES FOR MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND PRACTITIONERS City Attorney Kane explained that under the existing massage ordinance, registration with the City can be denied or refused renewal as a result of different infractions such as employment of practitioners who are not certified. She explained that when the City denies or refuses renewal of an establishment or practitioner’s registration, the individual can appeal the decision to the Council. She explained that the proposed resolution provides guidance on how these appeal hearings should be held. City Attorney Kane explained that the goal of the resolution is to provide for due process, adequate notice, and the opportunity to be heard, while preserving the informal nature of proceedings before the Council. She stated that pursuant to the resolution, the applicant and the police department/code enforcement office would be able to provide information for the Council’s review. After that, the Council would be able to ask questions and make a decision. City Attorney Kane noted that because her office oversees code enforcement, she would not be advising the Council as to the procedure during the hearings. She explained that she was conflicted out as she may have been aware or involved in denial or refusal to renew the registration. She stated that as a result, the Council would be provided with outside counsel to advise them on procedural questions. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the Council would receive guidance on the applicable standards for massage registration. City Attorney Kane explained that it is the obligation of the staff that was involved in Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/20/19 Burlingame City Council May 6, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 8 the enforcement to explain to Council what the law is and why the applicant’s registration was denied. She stated that Council will be asked to decide whether staff adequately established that a violation occurred. Councilmember Brownrigg asked how many denials or refusals to renew occur in a year. City Attorney Kane stated that it is infrequent. Mayor Colson stated that the resolution states that “the decision of the Council shall be final.” She noted that this was the same as Beautification and Planning Commission appeals. She asked if the applicant could appeal the Council’s decision to the courts. City Attorney Kane stated that the Council will make the final decision in the City. However, she noted that there is a writ mechanism that would allow the individual to challenge the Council’s decision. Vice Mayor Beach asked if the City needed to broaden the proposed appeal procedures in order to account for other decisions the Council may be asked to review. City Attorney Kane replied in the negative and explained that the City had procedures in place for Beautification and Planning Commission appeals. Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Vice Mayor Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 50-2019; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCMENTS a. MAYOR COLSON’S COMMITTEE REPORT b. VICE MAYOR BEACH’S COMMITTEE REPORT 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Mayor Colson asked to agendize a discussion on regulating the sale of flavored tobacco and e-cigs. The Council agreed to agendize this item. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/20/19 Burlingame City Council May 6, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 9 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Colson adjourned meeting at 8:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19 May 8, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Budget Study Session on May 8, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers at 6:30 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by HR Director Sonya Morrison. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. 5. STAFF REPORTS a. STUDY SESSION: FISCAL YEAR 2019-20 BUDGET Finance Director Augustine began by reviewing the FY 2019-2020 budget highlights. She noted that the proposed budget aligns with the Council and community priorities of sustainability, transportation, housing, and infrastructure. Additionally, the proposed budget confirms the City’s long-term focus on identifying and funding accrued liabilities. Finance Director Augustine discussed the General Fund challenges: 1. Provide day-to-day operations and capital needs required to sustain high quality services 2. Advance longer-term priority initiatives, policies, and strategies 3. Fund long-term, legally-obligated liabilities 4. Provide for infrastructure needs Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19 May 8, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 2 Finance Director Augustine reviewed key takeaways of the FY 2019-20 proposed budget including: 1. Assumes continued, but slower economic growth 2. Sets aside nearly $2.6 million for Section 115 Pension Trust Fund 3. Consistent with prior years, anticipates $3 million funding of the Capital Investment Reserve 4. General Fund revenues up slightly (though up 4.9% from FY 2018-19 adopted budget) 5. Total General Fund balance to increase $3.7 million, of which $2.2 million is restricted for contribution to the Section 115 Pension Trust Fund Finance Director Augustine discussed a chart that depicted General Fund revenues. She noted that revenues are predicted to remain consistent with the current fiscal year. She explained that FY 2018-19 revenues were bumped up 4% at mid-year. The predicted revenues for the coming fiscal year are $78.6 million, which is $3.6 million higher than last year’s adopted budget but slightly less than the $79.1 million that was anticipated in the five year forecast at mid-year. Finance Director Augustine reviewed the big three revenue sources for the City that account for 85% of the General Fund revenues: transient occupancy taxes (“TOT”), property taxes, and sales tax. Finance Director Augustine stated that TOT revenues continue to be healthy, with average daily room rates holding steady. She noted that the average room rate in the United States is $130, while it is $205 in Burlingame. She stated that this is up $10 from last year. She added that occupancy rates are holding steady at 87%. She explained that the current year’s TOT projected revenues are up 3.1% since the prior year and that the assumed growth for FY 2019-20 is .7%. Finance Director Augustine stated that property taxes are expected to grow at a rate similar to the current year (6.25%). She noted that this is a slight decrease from the five-year forecast for FY 2019-20. However, she noted that the Assessor’s role continues to evolve and since the writing of the report it looks like property taxes may have slightly increased. She stated that there is a slight decrease in the ERAF due to a one-time bump up in the current fiscal year. She stated that for FY 2018-2019, the City’s ERAF withholdings were $2.8 million, and the City’s excess ERAF amounted to $2.25 million. This included the one-time increase bump up of $265,000. She noted that the current economy is supporting higher property tax revenues, and as a result, staff predicts that the City’s excess ERAF distribution will be maintained. Finance Director Augustine stated that there were three factors that led to an increase in the current fiscal year’s sales tax revenues. The first factor was that autos and transportation sales increased 13% in the final quarter of 2018. She stated that this was due to the resolution of manufacturing issues that allowed for the delivery of backorders. She noted that this was a one-time bump up. The second factor was that CDTFA launched new software that confused people and caused late reportings. As a result of the late reportings, the agency had to anticipate payments and has since had to make adjustments based on actual payments. The third factor was that with the help of a consultant, the City was able to obtain a one-time use tax in the building-related sector associated with the Burlingame Point project. Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19 May 8, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 3 Finance Director Augustine stated that the largest source of sales tax revenue for the City is auto and transportation, followed by the State and County pool. Finance Director Augustine stated that the staff report included a thorough discussion of the Wayfair case and its impact. She explained that there are now concrete regulations from the State as to what retailers will be required to remit in regards to sales tax from online sales. She stated that staff will wait to see how this plays out and that it isn’t included in the FY 2019-20 forecast as predictions widely vary. Finance Director Augustine reviewed expenditure highlights for the FY 2019-20 proposed budget including: 1. General Fund expenditures are up 2.7% compared to current year adjusted budget 2. Increases in overall personnel expenditures (3.2%) due to salary and benefit cost increases (minimum staffing changes) 3. Minimal non-personnel increases Finance Director Augustine stated that proposed expenditures are $60.25 million, which is 1.5% less than what was predicted in the five-year forecast. Finance Director Augustine reviewed a chart of the proposed appropriations by program for the coming fiscal year. She noted that the largest increase is in General Government, which includes the addition of an Assistant City Attorney. Other reasons for the increase include: 1. $150,000 to fund the November 2019 election 2. $60,000 to fund a temporary position to assist with the implementation of the Finance Department’s ERP 3. $40,000 to fund the Regional Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency Agency Finance Director Augustine stated that there were some notable decreases including Police overtime and the personnel savings in the Planning division. Finance Director Augustine stated that the biggest increase in General Fund expenditures was benefits. Finance Director Augustine reviewed the General Fund summary. She stated that proposed expenditures are $60.2 million, with projected revenues at $78.6 million. The proposed debt service is $3.1 million, which includes debt service on the anticipated bond for the new Community Center. Councilmember Keighran stated that if SB 50 passes, it could have a huge financial impact on the Planning division. She discussed the fact that the City would need to hire additional staff and asked that this be kept in mind when reviewing the budget. City Manager Goldman stated in talking with CDD Gardiner, the plan is to contract work out as there is no room for additional bodies in Planning. She noted that there are some big projects on the horizon, and therefore even if SB 50 doesn’t pass, the City will need to bring on additional help. Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19 May 8, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 4 Mayor Colson stated that even more problematic is SB 330, which requires that projects be reviewed in a year. Councilmember Ortiz asked if the budget accounts for the potential need of contracting services. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Ortiz asked if the projection is based on the current number of projects. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative, stating that the current workload is exceptionally high. Finance Director Augustine stated that there is a $3.6 million projected increase in the General Fund balance for FY 2019-20. She noted that the Economic Stability Reserve will need to be increased by $20,000 due to the anticipated small increase in revenues. She explained that the Economic Stability Reserve funding is based on a percentage of revenues. Finance Director Augustine stated that the projected unassigned fund balance for FY 2019-20 is $13.1 million. She noted that the City’s policy has been to keep the unassigned fund balance at $9 million, and therefore she would be asking Council for their recommendations on the remaining $4.1 million. Finance Director Augustine discussed the Capital Improvement Program. She stated that the proposed General Fund CIP budget is $7.9 million. Finance Director Augustine reviewed the City’s legally-obligated debt service. She stated that in FY 2017- 18, the net General Fund debt service was approximately $3.3 million. For FY 2019-20, the City’s net General Fund debt service decreased to $1.1 million. She explained that FY 2017-18 marked the end of the largest piece of the Pension Obligation Bond debt service. This decrease has helped fuel the funding of the Section 115 Fund. Finance Director Augustine reviewed a chart that outlined the break down of funding for the Section 115 Fund for the coming year. She noted that contributions to the Section 115 Fund are from every fund that includes personnel costs. Finance Director Augustine stated that the total proposed budget for FY 2019-20 is $121,112,311. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the growth of the City’s budget. He noted that the only real source of revenue that grows in a meaningful way for the City is in the General Fund. He explained that revenues from Sewer Enterprise, Building Enterprise, and the other funds don’t grow at the same pace. He stated that this creates a depressing effect on the overall expenditures of the City. Therefore, it is important that the City puts funds into reserves. Finance Director Augustine reviewed the City’s annual funding for community groups. She stated that the proposed budget for FY 2019-20 is $50,000. Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19 May 8, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 5 Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he wanted to increase the budget for community groups to $55,000. He added that he would like to see the City move towards setting aside 1/10th of 1% of the General Fund for community groups. For the current fiscal year, this would equate to approximately $78,000. Councilmember Ortiz agreed that the budget for community groups should be increased. He discussed how the City’s funding helps to assist those affected by the housing crisis. Finance Director Augustine discussed the City’s unfunded needs. She explained that in FY 2013-14, the City formally identified and prioritized necessary infrastructure projects. As a result, in FY 2017-18 a Capital Investment Reserve policy was finalized to ensure that funds were set aside for these projects. She noted that at the 2019 Goal Setting Session, the Council identified more than 17 unfunded infrastructure projects totaling $700 million. Finance Director Augustine discussed the Capital Investment Reserve. She noted that the beginning balance of the reserve in FY 2014-15 was $3 million, and by the end of FY 2019-20 is projected to be $31.8 million. Finance Director Augustine explained that at the 2019 Goal Setting Session, the City Council identified the following list as the City’s top infrastructure needs: 1. Broadway Grade Separation 2. City Hall Modernization and Safety Improvements 3. Development of Specific Plan for Rollins Road 4. Sea Level Rise Shoreline Protection Improvements 5. Undergrounding of Power Lines on El Camino Real Finance Director Augustine reviewed the City’s legally obligated pension liabilities. She noted that in FY2014-15, GASB Statement 68 was implemented, and it regulates the accounting and financial reporting for pensions. As a result, the City’s net position reported in financial statements took a hit. She explained that staff now must put $65.9 million in net pension liability on the City’s balance sheet. Finance Director Augustine stated that the balance in the Section 115 Fund is $8.5 million. Mayor Colson asked if the City has a dollar amount target for the Section 115 Fund in order to cut the peak off of the contribution rate projects. Finance Director Augustine replied that it was a percentage of salaries. Mayor Colson asked if she was correct that the City’s $65.9 million net pension liability does not include CCFD. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative. Mayor Colson asked staff to provide Council with information on CCFD’s pension liabilities and future payments scale. City Manager Goldman explained that the CCFD Board is discussing setting up a Section 115 Fund. Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19 May 8, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 6 Mayor Colson asked if the City could set up a Section 115 Fund for its portion of CCFD’s pension liabilities if the Fire Board decided not to set up a fund. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Ortiz stated his agreement with Mayor Colson that CCFD’s pension liabilities should be reviewed, and a Section 115 fund should be established for CCFD. Mayor Colson noted that the City’s outstanding pension obligation bonds are not included in the City’s net pension liability. Vice Mayor Beach asked if the City would need to set up a separate Section 115 Fund for CCFD. Finance Director Augustine stated that it could be included in the current Section 115 Fund. She noted that the money in the Section 115 Fund can’t be shown on the balance sheet to offset the City’s pension liability because the City still has the funds. Councilmember Ortiz asked if the City puts funds for CCFD’s pension liabilities in its Section 115 Fund, could the money later be transferred out if CCFD set up their own fund. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative. Finance Director Augustine discussed the City’s legally obligated OPEB liabilities. She explained that as a result of GASB Statement 75, the City is required to report OPEB liability on its balance sheet. She noted that the City’s OPEB liability is $38.9 million. Finance Director Augustine discussed the CalPERS decision to reduce the discount rate and the amortization period. She stated that a result of these actions, the City’s contribution rates for both miscellaneous and safety employees will increase over the coming years. Below is a chart that depicts the increases. Group Current Contribution Rates FY 2019-20 Contribution Rates In Five Years the Contribution Rates In 10 Years the Contribution Rates Miscellaneous 26% 29.1% 37.3% 38.5% Safety 50.4% 56.8% 75.2% 82.7% Mayor Colson stated that the total proposed budget for Police is $17.5 million. She asked if this number included pension costs. Finance Director Augustine stated that this number includes the employer’s required contribution. Finance Director Augustine stated that when the miscellaneous contribution rate gets to 37.7% and safety gets to 76.9%, the City will start drawing from the Section 115 Fund. Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19 May 8, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 7 Finance Director Augustine stated that the preliminary budget leaves the City with $13.1 million in unassigned fund balance. She noted that last year, the Council talked about keeping the unassigned fund balance at $9 million. She explained that this would leave $4 million for the Council to appropriate. Councilmember Brownrigg recommended adding $5,000 to the community groups funding. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the new Community Center and the need to set aside funds for that project. He noted that funds should also be set aside for pension liabilities. Councilmember Ortiz suggested putting $1 million towards CCFD pension liabilities and $2 million into the Capital Investment Reserve. He noted his approval for increasing the community group funding to $55,000. Vice Mayor Beach stated that she leaned towards utilizing the $4 million for pension liabilities and the Capital Investment Reserve. Councilmember Keighran voiced her support for increasing community group funding. She noted that the City needs to ensure that the community groups understand that the City’s funding is not guaranteed in the future. Councilmember Keighran discussed CCFD pension liabilities and stated that additional funds should be set aside for CCFD in the Section 115 Fund. Mayor Colson discussed the unknown cost of the new Community Center. She stated that the Council needed to ensure that the Center is properly funded. She added that she wanted to better understand what CCFD’s pension liability is before determining a course of action. She stated that CCFD’s pension liability could be discussed at the mid-year review when Council has more information. Finance Director Augustine stated that the Section 115 Fund is a lot more flexible than the OPEB Trust. Mayor Colson asked if this meant that the City could draw down on the Section 115 Fund at any point. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative and added that the only rule is that the Section 115 Fund is to be utilized for pension liabilities. Mayor Colson asked if the proposed personnel costs incapsulated current negotiations. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Keighran asked about the funding gap for the Community Center. City Manager Goldman explained that staff and the consultants are undertaking some value engineering to ensure that the project does not exceed $50 million. She noted that the $50 million is separate from the work that is being done on the playground and sports court. She explained that it will be up to the Council to determine if the cost of the Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19 May 8, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 8 Community Center goes beyond $50 million based on how strongly they feel about some of the features that have been removed from the project. Councilmember Keighran asked when the Council will have a better understanding of the costs of different features. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that staff will have an update for the Council on July 1, 2019. Councilmember Brownrigg noted that $50 million is more than the lease revenue bond that the City expects to get from Measure I. Mayor Colson explained that the City is expected to obtain $30 million from the lease revenue bond. She added that this would mean the City still has to fund $20 million of the project. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that this is why the Council should set aside some of the unassigned fund balance for the Community Center. Mayor Colson explained that the City will draw down on the lease revenue bond funds prior to utilizing the Capital Investment Reserves. Therefore, the City has a few years before it will need to use Capital Investment Reserves for the Community Center. However, she noted that Broadway Grade Separation is looming right behind the new Community Center. Mayor Colson asked City Manager Goldman for her opinion on how the unassigned funds should be utilized. City Manager Goldman stated that although the City doesn’t know the total of the CCFD pension liability, she felt that there was a symbolic value in setting aside some funds for this liability. She explained that the City’s share of CCFD’s expenses is 42%. She suggested that Council set aside $250,000 to $500,000 for CCFD’s pension liabilities. She stated that the Council should also put additional funds in the Capital Investment Reserve for both the new Community Center and to assist in upgrading City Hall. Lastly, she noted that the Council needed to ensure that the City had matching funds available for Broadway Grade Separation. Mayor Colson suggested putting $500,000 into the Section 115 Fund for CCFD and $3.5 million in the Capital Investment Reserve. She discussed the potential of matching the $500,000 at the mid-year. Mayor Colson stated that as the City pays off the pension obligation bonds, those funds could be used for pension liabilities. Finance Director Augustine stated that the payments would be finished in 2036. City Manager Goldman stated that there was consensus in increasing the community funding to $55,000. Vice Mayor Beach asked if the $500,000 for the Section 115 Fund was in addition to the $2.2 million that the City had already allotted for pension funds. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative. Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19 May 8, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 9 Vice Mayor Beach suggested making the total payment to the Section 115 Fund an even $3 million. Therefore, the City would allocate an additional $800,000 to the Section 115 Fund. She added that the remaining $3.2 million should be put in the Capital Investment Reserve. She added that she wanted to see the Community Center budget stick to $50 million because of the City’s other infrastructure needs. Mayor Colson stated that the City had success in the past fundraising for the Library’s remodel and would be undertaking similar efforts for the new Community Center. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the pension obligation bonds were refinanced. Finance Director Augustine replied in the negative and stated that they couldn’t be refinanced. Mayor Colson asked if the pension obligation bonds are at 6%. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative. Mayor Colson discussed potentially paying off the pension obligation bonds ahead of time. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if there are prepayment penalties. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative. The Council agreed on assigning $800,000 to the Section 115 Fund and approximately $3.2 million to the Capital Investment Reserve. b. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF DRAFT FY 2019-20 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Assistant Public Works Director Morimoto presented the proposed FY 2019-20 Capital Improvement Program. He stated that it amounted to $8.665 million in General Fund projects. Mr. Morimoto reviewed the proposed Mobility and Transportation Improvement Projects for FY 2019-20 including: • Broadway Grade Separation (final design phase, local match towards $19.8 million total) - $1.5 million • Sidewalk and ADA Improvements (General Fund $500,000, Measure I $700,000) - $1.2 million • Traffic Signal Upgrades - $200,000 • Pedestrian Improvements - $100,000 • Residential Street Lighting Improvements - $100,000 • Traffic Calming Improvements - $100,000 • Annual Traffic and Transportation Studies - $80,000 • El Camino Real Development (Consultant Assistance) - $80,000 The total proposed budget for Mobility and Transportation Improvement Projects is $3.36 million. Mr. Morimoto reviewed the proposed Parks and Recreation Projects for FY 2019-20, including: Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19 May 8, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 10 • Field Renovations at Ray Park - $1.5 million • BHS Pool Renovations - $700,000 • Ray Park Parking Lot Safety Improvements - $400,000 • BSD Synthetic Turf Replacement - $200,000 • Murray Field Synthetic Turf Replacement - $150,000 • Playground Replacement Fund - $100,000 • Central Irrigation Controller - $50,000 • El Camino Real Tree Safety - $50,000 • Mills Canyon Hazard Mitigation - $50,000 • Parks, Picnic Tables, Benches and Fountains - $50,000 • Playground Resilient Resurfacing/Treatment - $50,000 • Annual Tree Replace - $5,000 The total proposed budget for Parks and Recreation Projects is $3.305 million. Mr. Morimoto reviewed the proposed Building Facilities Projects for FY 2019-20, including: • Fire Stations 34, 35 and 36 Generators - $850,000 • Building Facilities Parking Lots Resurfacing - $250,000 • ADA Improvements Program - $250,000 • Minor Building Facilities Upgrades - $100,000 • City Attorney’s Office Remodel - $50,000 The total proposed budget for Building Facilities Projects is $1.5 million. He noted that the one addition since the mid-year is the City Attorney’s Office remodel. He explained that the remodel is to create space for the newly created Assistant/Deputy City Attorney position. Mayor Colson asked for an explanation of the BHS pool renovations. City Manager Goldman stated that the City is going to pay half the cost now and the other half when the community center is completed. She stated that the City’s total contribution is $2.7 million, and thus far the City has paid $600,000. Mayor Colson discussed the cost of the BHS pool renovation and stated that it is an enormous per capita investment for the community. Councilmember Brownrigg agreed and stated that the renovations don’t include the needed upgrade to the changing rooms. Mr. Morimoto reviewed the proposed Police Department Projects for FY 2019-20: • Remodeling of Jail at BPD - $500,000 Mayor Colson asked for an explanation of the remodel of the jail at BPD. Mr. Morimoto stated that the Police Department currently has holding cells that will be remodeled to create sleeping quarters and a lactation room. Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19 May 8, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 11 Mr. Morimoto reviewed the proposed Parking Enterprise Fund Projects for FY 2019-20, including: • City’s Contribution for Construction of a Parking Structure at Lot N - $1.85 million • Smart Parking Meters for Downtown Parking Lots - $550,000 • Downtown Public Parking Lots Improvements - $250,000 The total cost of the Parking Enterprise Fund Projects is $2.65 million. Mr. Morimoto reviewed the proposed Street Resurfacing Program for FY 2019-20 that will be funded by Gas Tax, SB 1, Measure A, Measure I, and Measure M. The following streets are included in the resurfacing program for the upcoming fiscal year: • Atwater Drive – Escalante to Rivera • Albermarle Way – Ray to End • Arguello Drive – Escalante to Toledo • Benito Avenue – Hillside to Easton • Castenada Drive – Trousdale to City Limit • Coronado Way – Ray to Davis • Dolores Way – Mariposa to Capistrano • Drake Avenue – Adeline to End • Lassen Way – Davis to Ray • Los Montes Drive – Margarita to Hillside • Marco Polo Way – Ray to Davis • Margarita Avenue – Skyline to Alturas • Mills Canyon Court – End to End • Quesada Way – Davis to Ray The total cost of the Street Resurfacing Program is $2.35 million. Vice Mayor Beach discussed the Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan and the Lyon Hoag Traffic Calming Study. She asked if projects arose from these studies, would a mid-year adjustment be necessary. Mr. Morimoto stated that it is believed that both studies will be completed at the end of the calendar year. Thereafter, staff will make recommendations on proposed projects at that time. Senior Engineer Okada discussed the Water, Sewer, and Storm Drain CIP projects for FY 2019-20. Mr. Okada stated that studies were performed to assess the conditions of the City’s water system. He noted that the CIP master plan prioritized over $120 million of improvements. Since 2001, $43.5 million of work has been completed, with an $81 million backlog of work remaining. Mr. Okada reviewed the Water System CIP projects that were completed in FY 2018-19: • Shoreland Subdivision Water Main Replacement Project – replaced old cast iron mains with new PVC water mains, and the pipe size was increased to improve fire flows - $2 million • Hillside and Skyview Reservoir Exterior Coating Project – coated the exterior of two concrete reservoirs to extend the life of the reservoir and improve water quality by protecting the concreate with a heavy pedestrian coating system - $200,000 Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19 May 8, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 12 • 12 Airport Boulevard Water Main Replacement Project – new 12” water main was constructed jointly with the County of San Mateo to provide water to the new animal shelter - $300,000 • California Drive Roundabout – new hydrant and services to improve the water system under the roundabout - $200,000 Mr. Okada and DPW Murtuza showed old water pipes from the 1920s to the Council. Mr. Okada reviewed the proposed Water System CIP projects for FY 2019-20: • South El Camino Real Water Main Replacement Project - $2.18 million • Emergency Water Main Replacement - $300,000 • Sensory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System Upgrades - $120,000 • Water System Valve Replacements - $100,000 • Water Meter Replacements - $100,000 • Trousdale Pump Station Repairs - $100,000 • Regional Water Supply Studies/Modeling - $50,000 • Miscellaneous Coating of Above Ground Water Mains - $50,000 The total cost of the proposed Water System CIP projects is $3 million. Mr. Okada noted that all of the residential water meters have been replaced and that staff is currently working on replacing hotel and apartment building meters. Councilmember Brownrigg asked whether it makes sense to wait on the water main replacement for El Camino Real until Caltrans rebuilds El Camino Real. DPW Murtuza stated that this project has been advanced for this purpose. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that these projects are funded by the water enterprise fund which is distinct from the storm drain funds. Mr. Okada replied in the affirmative. Mr. Okada next reviewed the Sewer System Capital Improvement Program. He explained that studies were performed to assess the condition of the City’s sanitary sewer system. He noted that the CIP master plan prioritized over $160 million of needed upgrades. He stated that $78.5 million of work has been completed and that there is a backlog of $83 million of work that remains. Mr. Okada reviewed the Sewer System CIP projects that were completed in FY 2018-19: • Easton Addition and Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation – Phase 3 – 6,230 linear feet of new sewer pipelines and 31 new sewer manholes - $1.75 million • Citywide Sanitary Sewer Point Repair Project – removal of structural deficiencies and replaced sections with new PVC pipe - $400,000 • Carolan-Rollins Easement Sanitary Sewer Main Relocation – installed approximately 730 linear feet of new 12-inch diameter PVC sewer main in the new sanitary sewer easement - $460,000 Mr. Okada reviewed the proposed Sewer System CIP projects for FY 2019-20: Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19 May 8, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 13 • Sanitary Sewer Main Rehabilitation - $1.5 million • Rollins Road Gravity and Force Main Rehabilitation - $1.2 million • WWTP upgrades - $710,000 • Sewer System Modeling and Master Plan Updates - $600,000 • Burlingame Avenue East of California Utility Improvements - $500,000 • Mills Canyon Sewer Access Road Repair - $200,000 • Easton Addition Subdivision Sewer Rehabilitation - $150,000 • SCADA System Upgrades - $120,000 • Force Main Sewer Studies - $50,000 • Miscellaneous Sewer Root Foaming and Miscellaneous Sewer Repair - $50,000 The total cost of the Sewer System CIP projects is $5.08 million. Mr. Okada explained that in 2009, voters approved a ballot measure to upgrade the City’s storm drainage system. Since the ballot measure passed, the City has completed $26 million of projects and $28 million of projects remain. Mr. Okada reviewed the Storm Drain System CIP projects that were completed in FY 2018-19: • El Portal/Trousdale Channel Rehabilitation – removed build-up of sediment accumulated in the channel over the years to improve drainage flow - $1.2 million • Sanchez Lagoon Flap Gates Project – installation of flap gates prevents backwater from the Bay into the surrounding neighborhoods during storm events - $185,000 • Neighborhood Storm Drain Project #10 – focused on upgrading areas that had drainage issues during the winter 2017 storm - $1.12 million Mr. Okada reviewed the proposed Storm Drain System CIP projects for FY 2019-20: • 1740 Rollins and 842 Cowan Stormwater Pump Station Upgrades (including $900,000 from Millbrae) - $1.9 million • Neighborhood Storm Drain Project #12 - $1.5 million • Easton Drive Drainage Improvements - $500,000 • El Portal Channel Flap Gates Rehabilitation - $150,000 • FY 2019-20 Program Management - $50,000 The total cost of the Storm Drain System CIP projects is $4.1 million. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the City is pretty much at the end of the wet season. He noted that his impression is that the City emerged from it with a whole lot less collateral damage than the season before. DPW Murtuza stated that the storms were spaced out evenly, and there was enough time between storms to handle the capacity. Mayor Colson asked how Caltrain’s parallel station 3 project was progressing and if the City has incurred any costs. DPW Murtuza stated that there has been no construction activity. Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 05/20/19 May 8, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 14 Mayor Colson voiced her irritation that the City was informed that this needed to be done immediately and if it wasn’t the City would be fined, and yet no construction has occurred. Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. City Manager Goldman discussed the work load that staff has undertaken over the past years. She thanked the Council for increasing the amount that the City has spent on these “bread and butter” projects. The Council thanked staff for their hard work. 6. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Colson adjourned the meeting at 8:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8c MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 20, 2019 From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307 Nicole Acquisti, Recreation Supervisor – (650) 558-7337 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Galeb Paving, Inc. for the Construction of Skyline Park, City Project No. 85460 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Galeb Paving, Inc. at a cost of $384,800 for construction of Skyline Park, including fencing and parking, City Project No. 85460. BACKGROUND For many years, community members have requested additional locations within the city to take their dogs off leash. The City currently only has one dog park on the Bayfront and two sites that have limited hours due to joint use of the sites by sports groups. In 2015, the Dog Park Task Force (DPTF) asked Recreation Division staff to research possible locations for a new dog off-leash area. Staff reviewed both City-owned and privately-owned parcels. Most sites that staff considered were not owned by the City, posed challenges with access, and/or were expensive to acquire. The Skyline parcel, however, belongs to the City and is vacant. The area is about three acres and is located on Skyline just south of the Trousdale exit off the 280 Freeway. Staff presented the location to the DPTF and received their approval to start the public outreach process to gather input about using the site as a passive park that would allow dogs off leash during all hours when the park is open for use. On October 3, 2015, the City sent 700 letters to neighbors in the area informing them that the City was looking at the parcel as a possible location for a park that would allow dogs off leash. On April 25, 2016 and October 6, 2016, Parks Superintendent Bob Disco and Recreation Supervisor Nicole Acquisti, along with Landscape Architect John Cahalan, hosted community meetings to discuss the ideas for the parcel. Parks and Recreation staff also met with Community Development Department (CDD) staff, the Town of Hillsborough Beautification Committee, and Hillsborough’s then-City Manager, to discuss the proposed project. At the November 17, 2016 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, after hearing from community members and neighbors, the Commission unanimously approved moving forward with Contract with Galeb Paving Inc., for Skyline Park Project May 20, 2019 conceptual plans and directed staff to work with CDD staff to address the parking and traffic concerns that community members raised during the public outreach process. In January 2017, Recreation Supervisor Acquisti met with CDD staff to discuss traffic and parking concerns. Through an ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) report, CDD staff worked on generating the information needed to determine the required parking and, in turn, how it would affect traffic specifically during the peak hours between 7 and 9 AM and 4 and 6 PM. The ITE parking generation model did not have a specific item for “dog park”, so CDD staff looked at other sources including exclusive dog park locations and other studies in the Bay Area. They concluded that three parking spaces were sufficient—two on-street spaces and one ADA off-street space. Staff met throughout February and March 2017 to determine possible additional parking locations, as well as entry and exit points, for minimal impact to the current traffic patterns and the residents across the street. Staff determined that since there is a slight slope up from the edge of the pavement at the proposed parking location, the best option was to put in parallel parking spaces at the most level part of the road shoulder adjacent to the site. The first draft of the additional parking spaces included the required eight foot wide parallel spot. After CDD staff reviewed the updated plans, they determined that an 11 foot wide lane with a raised curb for the entry and exit point was required to increase visitor safety when entering and exiting vehicles from the street spaces. The landscape architect updated the plans to reflect the required changes and updated the cost estimate. On June 15, 2017, the project went back to the Parks and Recreation Commission for review, public comment, and discussion. The Commission unanimously approved the updated plans that addressed the community concerns regarding parking and traffic for Skyline Park. Following the meeting, staff determined that investigating the option of adding one more off-street parking space next to the accessible space, if cost effective, would be in the best interest of the project. Staff met with the landscape architect, and new plans were proposed with an additional parking spot. On November 16, 2017, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the plans and costs associated with adding an additional off-street parking space. After public comment and discussion, the Commission unanimously agreed to move forward with the original three parking spaces—two on-street spaces and one ADA off-street space. The Skyline Park project was brought to the City Council on April 16, 2018 for review and approval. The City Council unanimously voted to proceed and allocated $400,000 in CIP funds for the project. DISCUSSION As construction documents were in development, the landscape architect informed staff that the elevations on the site and the need for the off-street ADA accessible parking space would require a geotechnical evaluation of the retaining wall structures in order to complete the construction documents and bid the project. These costs were not anticipated when the project went before the City Council for approval. Once the plans and geotechnical evaluation were completed, the information was provided to the Public Works Department, Central County Fire Department, and the Community Development Department. Contract with Galeb Paving Inc., for Skyline Park Project May 20, 2019 All departments approved the updated construction documents, and the project was duly noticed and advertised for bids on March 14, 2019. The City instructed bidders to bid a lump sum bid on the basic project, which included the provision of all labor and materials required for project construction, including but not limited to: traffic control, construction fencing, demolition and clearing of the areas within the project limits, grading and drainage, concrete retaining walls, curbs and gutters, paving, stamped concrete, asphaltic concrete, parking striping, seal coat, chain-link fencing and gates, and other miscellaneous items. The site furnishings, including landscaping and a water fountain, will be purchased and installed by Parks staff. The anticipated cost is $8,000. The benches will be repurposed from other City parks. On April 10, 2019, the City received 3 bids for the project, with the bids ranging from $368,000 to $418,100. Gabel Paving, Inc. submitted the lowest responsive bid. The bid results were as follows: 1 Galeb Paving, Inc $384,800.00 2 Guerra Construction Group $418,100.00 3 Rehak General Engineering $368,000.00 Non-Responsive FISCAL IMPACT The original engineer’s estimate for the project was $397,787. Due to the additional requirement of the geotechnical evaluation and the need to revise the plans, an additional $19,525 was spent to complete the construction documents. Staff is requesting an additional $20,000 from the General Fund in order to complete the project. There are adequate funds in the Parks and Trees Capital Improvement Program for the site furnishings. Estimated Project Costs: Mobilization/traffic control $15,800.00 Removal, clearing, Excavation and grading $30,600.00 Concrete wall, drain and asphalt $96,352.00 Fencing $93,850.00 Signage/Striping $16,000.00 Water connections, Soil prep $70,100.00 Contingency, 10% $33,000.00 Design & Engineering Services $52,810.50 Benches, Landscaping, and a Water Fountain $8,000.00 Advertising $1,320.00 Total $417,832.50 Contract with Galeb Paving Inc., for Skyline Park Project May 20, 2019 Exhibits: • Resolution • Skyline Park Designs • Bid Summary • Agreement with Galeb Paving, Inc. RESOLUTION NO.________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECTURE AN AGREEMENT WITH GALEB PAVING, INC. AT A COST OF $384,800 FOR SKYLINE PARK CITY PROJECT NO. 85460 WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame Capital Improvement Program has identified the Skyline Park as a location for a passive park in the Burlingame park system; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of the public work and improvements provided for in the attached contract; and WHEREAS, a notice was duly published on March 14, 2019 for bids for the contract for the Skyline Park Project; and WHEREAS, on April 10, 2019, the City received three proposals, which were opened before the City Clerk and representatives of the Parks & Recreation Department; and WHEREAS, Galeb Paving, Inc. submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid for the project in the amount of $384,800; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The facts in the recitals above and in the staff report are true and correct. 2. The Plans and Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted. 3. The bid from Galeb Paving, Inc. in the amount of $384,800 is the lowest responsive and responsible bid for said project and is accepted. 4. The City shall enter into a contact with the successful bidder, Galeb Paving, Inc. for the performance of the Skyline Park, Project No. 85460, and the City Manager is authorized on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute said contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor. __________________________ Donna Colson, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of May, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: _________________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk CS SHEET JOB No. SCALE DATE CHECKED DRAWN BYREVISIONS BL JC 10/12/18 AS NOTED 15.010 OF SHEETS17SKYLINE BOULEVARD PARKCity of Burlingame, Parks & Recreation DepartmentCity Council Members: Emily Beach Michael Brownrigg, Mayor Donna Colson, Vice Mayor Ricardo Ortiz Ann Keighran City Manager: Lisa K. Goldman Department of Parks & Recreation: Margaret Glomstad, Director Parks & Recreation Commission Christine Ardito Ian Milne Shari Lewis Bob Palacio Karen Malekos-Smith Claire Schissler Emily Matthews Consultants: John Cahalan, Landscape Architect 2050 Beavercreek Rd. Ste. 101-447 Oregon City, OR 97045 Office: (503) 631-8634 Mobile: (408) 656-2713 E-mail: john.cahalan@comcast.net NTerra Group, Inc 1295 East Dunne Avenue, Ste 230 Morgan Hill, CA 95037 Office: (408) 656-8321 CSCOVER SHEETCITY OF BURLINGAME PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT Project Number 85460 SHEET INDEX No.SHEET 2.CONTRACTOR COORDINATION: EACH CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE AND OTHERWISE INTEGRATE HIS WORK WITH THAT OF OTHERS IN AN EFFICIENT CRAFTSMAN-LIKE AND TIMELY MANNER SO AS TO PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH A WELL CONSTRUCTED EASILY MAINTAINABLE PROJECT. EACH CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OTHERS AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS IN ADVANCE OF COVERING, COMPLETING OR EXPOSING WORK TO BE INSTALLED BY OTHERS. 1.DESIGN INTENT: THESE DRAWINGS REPRESENT THE GENERAL DESIGN INTENT TO BE IMPLEMENTED ON THE SITE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR ANY CLARIFICATION OR DETAILS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE SITE CONDITIONS OR CONSTRUCTION DETAILS. 3.CONTRACTOR'S JOB SITE CONDITIONS: CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT HE SHALL ASSUME COMPLETE AND SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SITE CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, INCLUDING THE SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY; THAT THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS; AND THAT THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY AND HOLD THE OWNER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK ON THIS PROJECT, EXCEPTING FOR LIABILITY ARISING FROM SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF THE OWNER OR THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 4.COMPOSITE BASE SHEET: THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS ARE SUPERIMPOSED OR REDRAWN ON A BASE SHEET. THIS BASE SHEET IS COMPILED FROM A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY, ARCHITECTURAL OR ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS, AND/OR OTHER DATA AS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, WHO SHALL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR CHANGES, INACCURACIES, OMISSIONS OR OTHER ERRORS ON THESE DOCUMENTS. THE COMPOSITE BASE SHEET IS PROVIDED AS AN AID ONLY AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REVIEWING THESE DOCUMENTS AND INCORPORATING AND INTEGRATING ALL CONSTRUCTION AS REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE SAME. THE TOPOGRAPHIC WAS PREPARED BY: MacLEOD AND ASSOCIATES Civil Engineering, Land Surveying 965 Center Street San Carolos, CA 94070 Office (650) 593-8580 5.UTILITIES: THE CONTRACTOR IS HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT, PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION, HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING THE UTILITY COMPANIES INVOLVED AND REQUESTING A VISUAL VERIFICATION IF NECESSARY, OF THE LOCATIONS OF THEIR UNDERGROUND FACILITIES. THE UTILITY COMPANIES ARE MEMBERS OF THE UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (U.S.A.) ON-CALL PROGRAM. THE CONTRACTOR OR ANY SUBCONTRACTOR FOR THIS CONTRACT MAY WISH TO NOTIFY MEMBERS OF THE U.S.A. 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF PERFORMING ANY EXCAVATION WORK BY CALLING THE TOLL - FREE NUMBER AT 800 227-2600. EXCAVATION IS DEFINED AS BEING 18 INCHES OR MORE IN DEPTH BELOW THE EXISTING SURFACE. SHEET TITLE NOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP PROJECT TEAMGENERAL NOTES 1 THE DESCRIPTION OF WORK BELOW SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS A COMPLETE LIST OF ALL WORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CAREFULLY REVIEWING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL WORK SHOWN ON THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. THE CITY WILL PURCHASE AND INSTALL THE DECOMPOSED GRANITE PADS AND BENCHES, TRASH / RECYCLING BINS, DRINKING FOUNTAIN (INCLUDING WATER LINE AND CONNECTIONS), WATER METER, SOIL PREPARATION, FINE GRADING, IRRIGATION AND PLANTING. BASIC PROJECT: 1.CONSTRUCTION FENCING 2.DEMOLITION AND OFF-HAUL 3.GRADING AND DRAINAGE 4.ASPHALT PAVING, PATCHING AND SEAL COAT. 5.SITE CONCRETE WORK 6.PARKING LOT SIGNAGE AND STRIPING 7.JOB CLEAN-UP SCOPE OF WORK 1 CS Cover Sheet 2 C1.00 Civil General Notes 3 C1.01 Legends, Abbreviations & Notes 4 C1.02 Construction Details 5 C1.03 Construction Details 6 C1.04 Construction Best Management Practices 7 C2.00 Topographic Survey 8 C2.01 Site Demolition & Erosion Control Plan 9 C3.00 Overall Site Plan 10 C3.02 Horizontal Control Plan 11 C4.01 Grading & Drainage Plan 12 L1.01 Irrigation Plan (1 " = 30'-0") 13 L1.02 Irrigation Plan (1 " = 10'-0") 14 L2.01 Planting Plan (1 " = 30'-0") 15 L2.02 Planting Plan (1" = 10'-0") 16 L3.01 Construction Details 17 L3.02 Construction Details SKYLINE BOULEVARD PARK RENOVATION BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA PROJECT LOCATION (N) 6'-0" HIGH CHAIN-LINK FENCE - SEE CIVIL DRWGS. 2 1" 49 GPH 3 1" 47 GPH (N) 6'-0" HIGH CHAIN-LINK FENCE - SEE CIVIL DRWGS. (E) 6'-0" HIGH CHAIN-LINK FENCE ALONG EAST P.L. TO REMAIN SEE ENLARGED IRRIGATION PLAN L1.02 SHEET JOB No. SCALE DATE CHECKED DRAWN BYREVISIONS BL JC 10/12/18 AS NOTED 15.010 OF SHEETS17North15'30'60'120'0'SKYLINE BOULEVARD PARKCity of Burlingame, Parks & Recreation DepartmentL1.01IRRIGATION PLAN12 IRRIGATION NOTES SYM DESCRIPTION DRIP SYSTEM: HUNTER PLD-06-18 (18); IN-LINE PRESSURE COMPENSATING LANDSCAPE DRIPLINE WITH BUILT-IN CHECK VALVE. 0.6 GPH EMITTERS AT 18.0" O.C. DRIP LATERALS SPACED AT 18.0" APART WITH EMITTERS OFF-SET FOR TRIANGULAR PATTERN. UV RESISTANT. FOR ROW OF SHRUBS ALONG SKYLINE BLVD., INSTALL TWO ROWS WITH FOUR (4) EMITTERS PER SHRUB. DRIP CONTROL VALVE KIT: HUNTER PCZ-101-40 WITH DC LATCHING SOLENOID 1" SIZE, GLOBE CONFIGURATION WITH HY100 FILTER SYSTEM. PRESSURE REGULATION AT 40 PSI. FLOW RANGE: 0.5 TO 15 GPM. 150 MESH STAINLESS STEEL SCREEN. BALL VALVE: BRASS SHUT-OFF VALVE, NIBCO T-580-A; INSTALL ON PRESSURE SIDE OF ALL VALVES IN A SEPARATE, ROUND CARSON BOX WITH BOLT DOWN LID. EXISTING 1" WATER METER BACKFLOW PREVENTER: FEBCO 825Y WITH WYE STRAINER, 1-1/2" SIZE. INSTALL IN ENCLOSURE TO BE SELECTED BY CITY. IRRIGATION CONTROLLER: RAINBIRD T-BOS II FOR COMMERCIAL BATTERY-POWERED SYSTEMS. TBOS2CM4, 4-STATION CONTROL MODULE WITH FIELD TRANSMITTER TBOS2FTUS. WATERPROOF CASE IS IP-68 RATED. QUICK COUPLER: HUNTER HQ-44LRC-AW. YELLOW RUBBER LOCKING COVER, RED BRASS AND STAINLESS STEEL, WITH 1" NPT INLET, 2-PIECE BODY. ACME KEY WITH ANTI-ROTATION WINGS. LOCATE AS SHOWN ON PLAN MAIN: SCHED. 40 PVC PLASTIC PIPE, 1" SIZE, 18" MIN. COVER. LATERAL LINE: SCHED. 40 PVC PLASTIC PIPE, 1" SIZE, 12" MIN. COVER. SLEEVING: SCHED. 40 PVC PLASTIC PIPE, 3" SIZE. 12" MIN. COVER VALVE # VALVE SIZE APPROX. GAL./MINUTE OR APPROX. GAL./HOUR (5.6 GPM) IRRIGATION NOTES 1.SPECIFICATIONS: SEE THE TECHNICAL SECTION OF THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND REQUIREMENTS. 2.WATER PRESSURE AND FLOW VERIFICATION: SYSTEM DESIGN IS BASED ON MIN. 50 PSI STATIC WATER PRESSURE AND A MINIMUM OF 25 GPM AVAILABLE AT DISCHARGE OUTLET OF METER OR OTHER POINT OF CONNECTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE EXISTING STATIC PRESSURE AND GPM (GALLONS PER MINUTE FLOW) AND NOTIFY CITY REPRESENTATIVE IF SUCH DATA ADVERSELY EFFECTS THE OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM. SUCH NOTICE SHALL BE MADE IN WRITING PRIOR TO COMMENCING WITH ANY IRRIGATION INSTALLATION. 3.UTILITIES: VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO TRENCHING. SEE "GENERAL NOTES". 4.SCHEMATIC CLARITY: SYSTEM FEATURES ARE SHOWN SCHEMATICALLY FOR GRAPHIC CLARITY. INSTALL ALL PIPING AND VALVES IN COMMON TRENCHES WHERE FEASIBLE AND IN PLANTING AREAS WHENEVER POSSIBLE. ALL VALVES SHALL BE LOCATED IN GROUND COVER OR SHRUB AREAS INSTEAD OF LAWN AREAS WHERE POSSIBLE. 5.CODES: IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL LOCAL AND STATE CODES AND ORDINANCES AND THE MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY TELEPHONE AND IN WRITING IF ANY CONFLICTS OCCUR PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 6.SLEEVES: CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SLEEVES TWICE THE DIAMETER OF ALL MAIN AND LATERALS THAT OCCUR BENEATH PAVING, WALLS OR STRUCTURES. SLEEVES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE NECESSARY DEPTHS PRIOR TO PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION. SLEEVES SHALL EXTEND 1'-0" FROM EDGE OF PAVING INTO LAWN OR PLANTING, AND SHALL HAVE ENDS CLEARLY MARKED ABOVE GRADE. 7.QUICK COUPLER VALVES: SEE LEGEND AND DETAILS FOR TYPE. TREE PROTECTION NOTES 1.FENCING REQUIREMENTS: TREES TO REMAIN SHALL BE FENCED WITH TEMPORARY FENCING, SUCH AS STEEL STAKES (MAX. 5'-0" ON CENTER) WITH WIRE OR PLASTIC MESH FABRIC (6X6 OPEN) OR SIMILAR APPROPRIATE MATERIAL. FENCES SHALL BE INSTALLED A MINIMUM OF 2/3'S THE DISTANCE FROM THE DRIP LINE AND SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4'-0" HIGH. 2.TRENCHING: ALL TRENCHING WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN SHALL BE BY HAND WITH CARE TAKEN NOT TO DAMAGE ROOTS OVER 2" DIAMETER. 3.PRUNING: TREES TO REMAIN SHALL BE PRUNED TO "THIN OUT" LIMBS TO MINIMIZE LIMB BREAKS AND WIND DAMAGE AND TO REMOVE DEAD OR DISEASED WOOD. PRUNING SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A LICENSED TREE ARBORIST OR PROFESSIONAL SPECIFICALLY TRAINED IN PLANT PRUNING. 4.CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS: NO CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS SHALL BE CARRIED ON WITHIN THE DRIP LINE AREA OF ANY TREE DESIGNATED TO BE SAVED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 5.GRADING OPERATIONS: TREES WHICH REQUIRE ANY DEGREE OF FILL AROUND THE NATURAL GRADE SHALL BE GUARDED BY RECOGNIZED STANDARDS OF TREE PROTECTION AND DESIGN OF TREE WELLS. 6.STORAGE: THE AREA UNDER THE DRIP LINE OF THE TREE SHALL BE KEPT CLEAN. NO CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OR CHEMICAL SOLVENTS SHALL BE STORED OR DISPOSED OF AROUND OR UNDER TREES. 7.TREE DAMAGE: ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING TREE CROWNS OR ROOT SYSTEMS SHALL BE REPAIRED IMMEDIATELY BY AN APPROVED AND LICENSED ARBORIST OR TREE SURGEON. NOTE TO BIDDERS: THE ENTIRE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND RELATED COMPONENTS WILL BE PURCHASED AND INSTALLED BY CITY INCLUDING THE WATER METER. 1 1" 1 1" 21 GPH DF LITTER/RECYCLE RECEPTACLES 3" SLEEVE 1" SERVICE TO DRINKING FOUNTAIN SEE IRRIGAT I O N P L A N SHEET L1.01 SHEET JOB No. SCALE DATE CHECKED DRAWN BYREVISIONS BL JC 10/12/18 AS NOTED 15.010 OF SHEETS175'10'20'40'0'North SKYLINE BOULEVARD PARKCity of Burlingame, Parks & Recreation DepartmentL1.02IRRIGATION PLAN1 1" 13 IRRIGATION NOTES SYM DESCRIPTION DRIP SYSTEM: HUNTER PLD-06-18 (18); IN-LINE PRESSURE COMPENSATING LANDSCAPE DRIPLINE WITH BUILT-IN CHECK VALVE. 0.6 GPH EMITTERS AT 18.0" O.C. DRIP LATERALS SPACED AT 18.0" APART WITH EMITTERS OFF-SET FOR TRIANGULAR PATTERN. UV RESISTANT. FOR ROW OF SHRUBS ALONG SKYLINE BLVD., INSTALL TWO ROWS WITH FOUR (4) EMITTERS PER SHRUB. DRIP CONTROL VALVE KIT: HUNTER PCZ-101-40 WITH DC LATCHING SOLENOID 1" SIZE, GLOBE CONFIGURATION WITH HY100 FILTER SYSTEM. PRESSURE REGULATION AT 40 PSI. FLOW RANGE: 0.5 TO 15 GPM. 150 MESH STAINLESS STEEL SCREEN. BALL VALVE: BRASS SHUT-OFF VALVE, NIBCO T-580-A; INSTALL ON PRESSURE SIDE OF ALL VALVES IN A SEPARATE, ROUND CARSON BOX WITH BOLT DOWN LID. EXISTING 1" WATER METER BACKFLOW PREVENTER: FEBCO 825Y WITH WYE STRAINER, 1-1/2" SIZE. INSTALL IN ENCLOSURE TO BE SELECTED BY CITY. IRRIGATION CONTROLLER: RAINBIRD T-BOS II FOR COMMERCIAL BATTERY-POWERED SYSTEMS. TBOS2CM4, 4-STATION CONTROL MODULE WITH FIELD TRANSMITTER TBOS2FTUS. WATERPROOF CASE IS IP-68 RATED. QUICK COUPLER: HUNTER HQ-44LRC-AW. YELLOW RUBBER LOCKING COVER, RED BRASS AND STAINLESS STEEL, WITH 1" NPT INLET, 2-PIECE BODY. ACME KEY WITH ANTI-ROTATION WINGS. LOCATE AS SHOWN ON PLAN MAIN: SCHED. 40 PVC PLASTIC PIPE, 1" SIZE, 18" MIN. COVER. LATERAL LINE: SCHED. 40 PVC PLASTIC PIPE, 1" SIZE, 12" MIN. COVER. SLEEVING: SCHED. 40 PVC PLASTIC PIPE, 3" SIZE. 12" MIN. COVER VALVE # VALVE SIZE APPROX. GAL./MINUTE OR APPROX. GAL./HOUR (5.6 GPM) IRRIGATION NOTES 1.SPECIFICATIONS: SEE THE TECHNICAL SECTION OF THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND REQUIREMENTS. 2.WATER PRESSURE AND FLOW VERIFICATION: SYSTEM DESIGN IS BASED ON MIN. 50 PSI STATIC WATER PRESSURE AND A MINIMUM OF 25 GPM AVAILABLE AT DISCHARGE OUTLET OF METER OR OTHER POINT OF CONNECTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE EXISTING STATIC PRESSURE AND GPM (GALLONS PER MINUTE FLOW) AND NOTIFY CITY REPRESENTATIVE IF SUCH DATA ADVERSELY EFFECTS THE OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM. SUCH NOTICE SHALL BE MADE IN WRITING PRIOR TO COMMENCING WITH ANY IRRIGATION INSTALLATION. 3.UTILITIES: VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO TRENCHING. SEE "GENERAL NOTES". 4.SCHEMATIC CLARITY: SYSTEM FEATURES ARE SHOWN SCHEMATICALLY FOR GRAPHIC CLARITY. INSTALL ALL PIPING AND VALVES IN COMMON TRENCHES WHERE FEASIBLE AND IN PLANTING AREAS WHENEVER POSSIBLE. ALL VALVES SHALL BE LOCATED IN GROUND COVER OR SHRUB AREAS INSTEAD OF LAWN AREAS WHERE POSSIBLE. 5.CODES: IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL LOCAL AND STATE CODES AND ORDINANCES AND THE MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY TELEPHONE AND IN WRITING IF ANY CONFLICTS OCCUR PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 6.SLEEVES: CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SLEEVES TWICE THE DIAMETER OF ALL MAIN AND LATERALS THAT OCCUR BENEATH PAVING, WALLS OR STRUCTURES. SLEEVES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE NECESSARY DEPTHS PRIOR TO PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION. SLEEVES SHALL EXTEND 1'-0" FROM EDGE OF PAVING INTO LAWN OR PLANTING, AND SHALL HAVE ENDS CLEARLY MARKED ABOVE GRADE. 7.QUICK COUPLER VALVES: SEE LEGEND AND DETAILS FOR TYPE. TREE PROTECTION NOTES 1.FENCING REQUIREMENTS: TREES TO REMAIN SHALL BE FENCED WITH TEMPORARY FENCING, SUCH AS STEEL STAKES (MAX. 5'-0" ON CENTER) WITH WIRE OR PLASTIC MESH FABRIC (6X6 OPEN) OR SIMILAR APPROPRIATE MATERIAL. FENCES SHALL BE INSTALLED A MINIMUM OF 2/3'S THE DISTANCE FROM THE DRIP LINE AND SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4'-0" HIGH. 2.TRENCHING: ALL TRENCHING WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN SHALL BE BY HAND WITH CARE TAKEN NOT TO DAMAGE ROOTS OVER 2" DIAMETER. 3.PRUNING: TREES TO REMAIN SHALL BE PRUNED TO "THIN OUT" LIMBS TO MINIMIZE LIMB BREAKS AND WIND DAMAGE AND TO REMOVE DEAD OR DISEASED WOOD. PRUNING SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A LICENSED TREE ARBORIST OR PROFESSIONAL SPECIFICALLY TRAINED IN PLANT PRUNING. 4.CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS: NO CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS SHALL BE CARRIED ON WITHIN THE DRIP LINE AREA OF ANY TREE DESIGNATED TO BE SAVED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 5.GRADING OPERATIONS: TREES WHICH REQUIRE ANY DEGREE OF FILL AROUND THE NATURAL GRADE SHALL BE GUARDED BY RECOGNIZED STANDARDS OF TREE PROTECTION AND DESIGN OF TREE WELLS. 6.STORAGE: THE AREA UNDER THE DRIP LINE OF THE TREE SHALL BE KEPT CLEAN. NO CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OR CHEMICAL SOLVENTS SHALL BE STORED OR DISPOSED OF AROUND OR UNDER TREES. 7.TREE DAMAGE: ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING TREE CROWNS OR ROOT SYSTEMS SHALL BE REPAIRED IMMEDIATELY BY AN APPROVED AND LICENSED ARBORIST OR TREE SURGEON. NOTE TO BIDDERS: THE ENTIRE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND RELATED COMPONENTS WILL BE PURCHASED AND INSTALLED BY CITY INCLUDING THE WATER METER. (N) 6'-0" HIGH CHAIN-LINK FENCE - SEE CIVIL DRWGS. (E) 6'-0" HIGH CHAIN-LINK FENCE ALONG EAST P.L. SEE ENLARGED PLANTING PLAN L2.02 25'R L3.01 A BENCHES W/ D.G. LIMITS OF AREA TO BE CLEARED (2 AT THIS LOCATION) (E) TREE HET ARB160 SHEET JOB No. SCALE DATE CHECKED DRAWN BYREVISIONS BL JC 10/12/18 AS NOTED 15.010 OF SHEETS17North15'30'60'120'0'SKYLINE BOULEVARD PARKCity of Burlingame, Parks & Recreation DepartmentL2.01PLANTING PLAN14 (E) 6'-0" HIGH CHAIN-LINK FENCE ALONG EAST P.L. TO REMAIN DF SEE PLANTIN G P L A N SHEET L2.01 MAH REP19 CEA HOR62 MAH REP35 HET ARB9 (N) 6'-0" HIGH CHAIN-LINK FENCE - SEE CIVIL DRWGS. CIS HYB45 L R L3.01 LITTER & RECYCLING RECEPTACLES C L3.01 DRINKING FOUNTAIN (SEE L1.02 FOR POTABLE WATER LINE) D (N) 6'-0" HIGH CHAIN-LINK FENCE - SEE CIVIL DRWGS. SHEET JOB No. SCALE DATE CHECKED DRAWN BYREVISIONS BL JC 10/12/18 AS NOTED 15.010 OF SHEETS175'10'20'40'0'North SKYLINE BOULEVARD PARKCity of Burlingame, Parks & Recreation DepartmentL2.02PLANTING PLAN15 (LITTER)(RECYCLING) SHEET JOB No. SCALE DATE CHECKED DRAWN BYREVISIONS BL JC 10/12/18 AS NOTED 15.010 OF SHEETS17SKYLINE BOULEVARD PARKCity of Burlingame, Parks & Recreation DepartmentL3.01CONSTRUCTION DETAILS16 BENCH WITH DECOMPOSED GRANITE PAD - PLAN VIEW L3.01 A LITTER / RECYCLING BINS L3.01 C SCORE JOINT EXPANSION JOINT PLAN VIEW BENCH WITH DECOMPOSED GRANITE PAD - SECTION L3.01 B SECTION DRINKING FOUNTAIN L3.01 D NOTE: ALL OF THESE SITE AMENITIES SHALL BE PURCHASED AND INSTALLED BY CITY OF BURLINGAME AND ARE NOT A PART OF THIS BID. HG BA C L3.02 L3.02 L3.02 L3.02L3.02 SHRUB PLANTING TRENCHINGE L3.02 DRIP CONTROL ZONE KIT I L3.02 J L3.02 VALVE BOX INSTALLATION IRRIGATION CONTROLLER (PEDESTAL MOUNT)BACKFLOW PREVENTER DRIP EMITTERS - PLAN VIEW D L3.02 QUICK COUPLING VALVE F BALL VALVE L3.02 SHEET JOB No. SCALE DATE CHECKED DRAWN BYREVISIONS BL JC 10/12/18 AS NOTED 15.010 OF SHEETS17SKYLINE BOULEVARD PARKCity of Burlingame, Parks & Recreation DepartmentL3.02CONSTRUCTION DETAILS17 NOTE: ALL FINE GRADING, SOIL PREPARATION, IRRIGATION, PLANTING AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE WILL BE PURCHASED AND INSTALLED BY CITY OF BURLINGAME AND ARE NOT A PART OF THIS BID. 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8d MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 20, 2019 From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307 Karen Hager, Management Analyst – (650) 558-7317 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to: Procure Landscape Structures Playground Equipment and Installation; Procure Robertson Industries, Inc. TotTurf Surfacing and Installation; and Execute an Agreement with Suarez and Muñoz Construction, Inc. for the Washington Park Playground, Sports Court, and Picnic Area, City Project Number 85670 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to: procure Robertson Industries, Inc. TotTurf playground surfacing and installation at a cost of $158,000 through National IPA; procure the playground equipment and installation from Landscape Structures at a cost of $498,262.82 through CMAS; and execute an agreement with Suarez and Muñoz Construction, Inc. (Exhibit A) for the Washington Park Playground, Sports Court and Picnic Area, City Project No. 85670 in the amount of $1,364,120. BACKGROUND On November 5, 2018, the City Council approved the phasing plan for the Burlingame Community Center Project. Information about the Community Center, the process, and public outreach can be found at www.burlingame.org/communitycenter. With the goal of providing uninterrupted community access to the Washington Park playground during the construction of the new Burlingame Community Center, Landscape Architect RHAA and Group 4 Architecture, Inc. prepared the early site package that includes the design and construction of the relocated children’s playground, sports court, and picnic area as phase one of the Community Center Project. Washington Park Playground Survey & Committee To commence the playground redesign process, staff sent a letter and playground equipment priority survey in August 2018 to the Washington Park neighbors informing them of the upcoming Community Center project and the relocation and redesign of the Washington Park playground. Additionally, the letter invited neighbors to submit an application to serve on the Washington Park Playground Committee. Staff received six applications and chose three neighbors for the committee. Contract with Suarez & Muñoz Construction, Inc. for Washington Park Playground, Sports Court & Picnic Area May 20, 2019 2 The Washington Park Playground Committee included the following members: Ian Milne – Parks & Recreation Commission Chair Christine Ardito – Parks & Recreation Commissioner Melissa Matthews – Washington Park neighbor with small children Daniel Devoy – Washington Park neighbor with small children Jodie Keegan – Washington Park neighbor with a small child and current Board Member of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Foundation Richard Holtz – Parks Supervisor, Certified Playground Safety Inspector Kevin Sanchez – Recreation Coordinator James Ingels – RHAA, Landscape Architect Maggie Luo – RHAA, Landscape Architect Karen Hager – Management Analyst, Project Manager The Committee convened on two occasions. The first meeting took place on October 1, 2018 and included reviewing the survey results, discussing the timeline of the project, reviewing the site plan, and identifying needs to provide direction to the playground vendors to submit proposals. The subsequent meeting on November 13, 2018 included selecting Landscape Structures as the playground vendor and preferred playground design based on the survey. The Committee then approved final refinements to the playground design via email, and the Parks and Recreation Commission approved the playground design (Exhibit B) at their meeting on January 17, 2018. DISCUSSION The City Council approved the Washington Park Playground, Sports Court, and Picnic Area Project as a Capital Improvement Project in the FY 2018-19 mid-year budget adjustment. The project description is as follows: Basic Project: Contractor shall provide all labor and materials required for project construction including but not limited to: construction preparation, temporary fencing and erosion control, demolition and clearing of areas within the project limits, grading and drainage, wet and dry utility work, tree protection and tree removal, pedestrian asphalt paving, pedestrian concrete, curbs, stabilized decomposed granite, bioretention areas, landscape, irrigation, site lighting, concrete seat walls, chain link and decorative fences, multi-use sports court, site furnishings installation, heritage tree installation, and other miscellaneous items. Existing bleachers/benches adjacent to the existing baseball field and picnic barbeque grills shall be salvaged and re-installed. Refer to Package 1: Washington Park Playground, Sports Court, and Picnic Area documents for detail on the full scope of work. Procurement and/or Work by Others: The City will be responsible for procuring and the contractor will be responsible for installing a number of site furnishings including but not limited to: benches, picnic tables, trash and recycling bins, bicycle racks, and a heritage tree. The City will procure play equipment and playground synthetic surface separately and will arrange for another contractor to install them during the normal course and schedule of construction. Contract with Suarez & Muñoz Construction, Inc. for Washington Park Playground, Sports Court & Picnic Area May 20, 2019 3 The project was advertised for bids on March 29, 2019. Bidders were instructed to bid a lump sum proposal for all the labor and materials required to complete the project. On April 23, 2019, the City received two bids (Exhibit C), with Suarez & Muñoz Construction, Inc. submitting the lowest responsive bid. The bid results were as follows: Company Name Bid 1. Suarez & Muñoz Construction, Inc. $1,364,120 2. Interstate Grading & Paving $1,392,004 The City will purchase the playground turf surfacing and installation directly from Robertson Industries through National IPA for $158,000 (Exhibit D), and the playground equipment and installation from Landscape Structures through CMAS for $498,262.82 (Exhibit E). Both CMAS and National IPA are purchasing cooperatives under the California Department of General Services Procurement Division for California local governmental agencies. They are receptacles for Federal General Services Administration previously bid and awarded contracts. National IPA and CMAS then establish an independent California contract for the same products and services at equal or lower prices. FISCAL IMPACT The following are the estimated project expenditures: COMPONENT DETAILS TOTALS Hard Costs Package 1 $1,568,738 Construction Contract $1,364,120 Contingency $204,618 Ross Recreation Playground Equipment $498,263 Robertson Tot Turf $158,000 City Procured/Contractor Installed Items Picnic Tables $30,800 6'-0" Table $15,750 6'-0" Table Accessible $3,550 12'-0" Table $11,500 Park Grill $5,200 Single $3,450 Double $1,750 Site Furnishings $62,500 Trash and Recycle Bins $7,000 Bike Racks $3,150 Park Benches 6' $10,200 8' $18,750 Drinking Fountains $23,400 Contract with Suarez & Muñoz Construction, Inc. for Washington Park Playground, Sports Court & Picnic Area May 20, 2019 4 Subtotal $98,500 Delivery & Installation 15% $14,775 Tax 9% $8,865 Procurement Contingency 15% $14,775 Subtotal- Hard Cost $2,361,916 Soft Costs A/E Fees - specific to Package 1 $191,835 Construction Manager $95,750 Inspection and Testing $30,000 Utility Company Connections Services & Fees $5,000 Miscellaneous Fees $15,499 Subtotal- Soft Cost $338,084 PACKAGE 1 MASTER BUDGET $2,700,000 There are sufficient funds available in the Parks and Trees Capital Improvement Program to cover the cost of the Washington Park Playground, Sports Court, and Picnic Area Project Exhibits: • Resolution • Agreement with Suarez and Muñoz Construction, Inc. • Playground Design • Bid Summary • Purchasing Agreement for Robertson Industries, Inc. TotTurf Surfacing and Installation • Purchasing Agreement for Landscape Structures, Playground Equipment and Installation RESOLUTION NO.________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO: PROCURE LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION; PROCURE ROBERTSON INDUSTRIES, INC. TOTTURF SURFACING AND INSTALLATION; AND EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH SUAREZ AND MUÑOZ CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE WASHINGTON PARK PLAYGROUND, SPORTS COURT, AND PICNIC AREA PROJECT NO 85670 WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame Capital Improvement Program has identified the Washington Park Playground, Sports Court and Small Picnic Area as needing replacement due to the construction of a new Community Center; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of the public work and improvements provided for in the attached contract; and WHEREAS, a notice was duly published on March 29, 2019 for bids for the contract for the Washington Park Playground, Sports Court, and Picnic Area Project; and WHEREAS, on April 23, 2019, all proposals were received and opened before the City Clerk and representatives of the Parks & Recreation Department; and WHEREAS, Suarez & Muñoz Construction, Inc. submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid for the project in the amount of $1,364,120; and WHEREAS, the Ross Recreation playground equipment and installation can be purchased through CMAS, a government purchasing contract, for $498,262.82; and WHEREAS, the Robertson Industries TotTurf playground surfacing and installation can be purchased thorough National IPA, a government purchasing contract, for $158,000. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The facts in the recitals above and in the staff report are true and correct. 2. The Plans and Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted. 3. The bid from Suarez & Muñoz Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,364,120 is the lowest responsive and responsible bid for said project and is accepted. 4. The City shall enter into a contract with the successful bidder, Suarez & Muñoz Construction, Inc. for the performance of the Washington Park Playground, Sports Court, and Picnic Area Project, Project No. 85670, and the City Manager is authorized on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute said contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor. __________________________ Donna Colson, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of May, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: _________________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk City Project: 85670 Date: 4/23/19 General Signatures Page #1Sub-Contractors #2Experience Qualifications #3Non-Collusion #4Public Code Statement #5Public Contract Code Questionnaire #6Public Contract Code 10232 Statement #7Bid Form #8Required Documents Page #9Proposal Security #10 Addendum Acknowledgement1 x x x x x x x x x x x 2 x x x x x x x x x x x 3 4 5 6 Bid Summary Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department Washington Park Playground, Sports Court and Picnic Area Renovation Time: 3:00pm Bid Amount 1,364,120.00$ 1,392,004.00$ Company Suarez & Munoz Interstate Grading & Paving PROPOSAL # 18-26100 Page 1 of 2 Robertson Industries, Inc. 2414 West 12th Street, Suite 5 Tempe, AZ 85281 (800) 858-0519 FAX: (602) 340-0402 www.totturf.com Date Issued: May 8, 2019 Project Name:Washington Park, Burlingame ca Sales RepresentativeAddress:850 Burlingame Ave Burlingame Ca 94010 Name:Kevin Cox Contact:Karen Hager Phone:(650) 558-7317 Phone:(408) 390-0671 Fax: (602) 340-0402 Email:khager@burlingame.org Email:kevin.cox@totturf.com PRICE EXPIRES: 08/06/2019 PRODUCT NAME DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT PRICE TOTAL TotTurf Synthetic Turf see page 2 scope notes 1 $158,000.00 $158,000.00 GRAND TOTAL $158,000.00 CONTRACT TYPE: Regular WAGE TYPE: State Prevailing UNION:CA GRANT: DETAILED SCOPE: Robertson to supply and install the following material: sq. ft. 7769 12' CFH SBR Cushion Layer- Attenuation 5" SBR PL 929 Pro lay Elite Enviro Fill 300 L. Ft of 2x4 Syn Nailer board Scheduling/Site Contact:Karen Hager ESTIMATED INSTALL DATE: Phone:(650) 558-7317 Email:khager@burlingame.org 4/19 INITIALS PROPOSAL # 18-26100 Page 2 of 2 TERMS & CONDITIONS: 1.Quote is based on the information provided here within and is subject to change based on final installation unless otherwise indicated in writing. Any changes or additions to this proposal will affect pricing. 2.Changes to the proposed scope not agreed to here within or separately in writing may result in additional charges (change order). Work cannot commence until Change Order(s) are fully executed. 3.ANY additional site work not included here within, including sub base, is the responsibility of the owner. 4.Job site access must be at a maximum of 25' for trucks and mixer, with no stairs. Irrigation, sprinkler, and/or water systems must be shut off 24 hours before install and remain off until 24 hours after the installation has completed. 5.Charges for downtime/stand-by may be assessed in the event that installation is delayed due to the site not being ready as scheduled or if installation is interrupted for reasons other than those related to weather or general public emergencies. 6.Security during install and upon completion is the responsibility of the owner, unless specified otherwise in Project Scope. 7.Excess material at the job site upon completion is property of Robertson Industries, Inc., unless otherwise noted here within. 8.Installations scheduled after 90 days of proposal acceptance may be subject to price adjustments. 9.Scheduling and crew deployment is subject to local weather conditions. 10.Warranty will NOT be issued unless "Completion Sheet" is signed. 11.All projects over $2,500.00 will be issued a preliminary lien. PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE: I agree to the scope and details as provided for the abovementioned proposal as well as the terms outlined in this agreement. I am duly authorized approve and accept this proposal as stated. ☐ CONTRACT to follow ☐ PURCHASE ORDER to follow PAYMENT TERMS: Payment may be made via Check, Cash, or Credit Card. Customers requesting a line of credit must submit a credit application and/or a 50% deposit. Credit applications can be obtained from your sales representative. Please attach a copy of your TAX EXEMPT CERTIFICATE if you or your company is claiming tax exemption. TOTAL PURCHASE AMOUNT: $158,000.00 SIGNATURE:DATE: Printed Name:Title: Company Name: Address: BILLING Contact Name: BILLING Email:Phone:Fax: Issue all POs, Contracts, and payments to ROBERTSON INDUSTRIES, INC. Send ALL completed forms back to your Sales Representative: Kevin Cox: kevin.cox@totturf.com or Fax: (602) 340-0402 CLICK HERE TO PAY WITH A CREDIT CARD: …PAY NOW!... Robertson Industries, Inc: 2414 West 12th Street, Suite 5, Tempe, AZ 85281 ~ (800) 858-0519, FX: (602) 340-0402 AZ: ROC091920, CLASS L-05 ~ CA: 667261, CLASS C/61 D/12 ~ FL: CGC 038554 ~ NV: 42331, CLASS C25 C40 CALIFORNIA PWC REGISTRATION NUMBER: 1000002700 (DIR#) The PlayCore Surfacing Division Includes: Robertson Recreational Surfacing (Robertson Industries, Inc.), Sports Surface Specialties, Rubber Designs and American Recycling Center Check with Sales RepEst Lead Time 5/31/2019Quote Exp Date 2/12/2019Quote Date Burlingame Ave & Carolan Drive Burlingame, California 94010 United States Ship To Washington ParkShip To Name   ALL PURCHASE ORDERS, CONTRACTS, AND CHECKS TO BE MADE OUT TO: LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES, INC. 601 7TH STREET SOUTH DELANO, MN 55328 U.S.A. 763-972-3391 800-328-0035 Fax: 763-972-3185 Washington Park: Nature Play DesignQuote Name 00027560Quote Number 850 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 United States Bill To Burlingame, City ofBill To Name   CMAS Contract # 4-10-78-0057A   CMAS Proposal   $498,262.82   alexh@rossrec.com   707.538.3800   00027560   Ross Recreation Equipment, Inc.   Alex Hailey   Thank you for the opportunity to quote your upcoming project. PLEASE NOTE: quote does not include installation, offload, payment and performance bonds, engineering calculations, security, storage, permits, inspection, or safety surfacing unless otherwise noted. Deposits may be required before order can be placed depending on customer credit terms. Your purchase is subject to the terms and conditions of this quote, approval of this quote agrees to those terms.   Signature _________________________________ Name ____________________________________ Title _____________________________________ Date _____________________________________   SIGNATURE BELOW ACCEPTING THIS PROPOSAL WILL CONSTITUTE A PURCHASE ORDER ONLY UPON APPROVAL BY LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES, INC. CUSTOMER RECEIPT OF AN ORDER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CONSTITUTES SUCH APPROVAL. $498,262.82Total $29,356.00Freight Amount $120,095.00Labor Total $28,065.32Tax Amount $320,746.50Materials Amount Quantity Product Product Description Sales Price Total Price 1.00 CMAS LSI Discount CMAS LSI Discount CMAS Contract # 4-10-78-0057A ($14,255.40)($14,255.40) 1.00 CMAS Ross Discount CMAS Ross Discount ($21,383.10)($21,383.10) 1.00 Installation Installation of Landscape Structures design #1132157-01-03 by a manufacturer certified installer.$118,795.00 $118,795.00 1.00 Installation Installation of LSI Train into new play area (all existing hardware and footing posts to be reused). *Does not include removal from existing playground.$1,300.00 $1,300.00 1.00 PlayBooster, 5-12 Landscape Structures PlayBooster Design #1132157-01-03 $356,385.00 $356,385.00 Notes to Customer Check with Sales RepEst Lead Time 5/31/2019Quote Exp Date 2/12/2019Quote Date Burlingame Ave & Carolan Drive Burlingame, California 94010 United States Ship To Washington ParkShip To Name   ALL PURCHASE ORDERS, CONTRACTS, AND CHECKS TO BE MADE OUT TO: LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES, INC. 601 7TH STREET SOUTH DELANO, MN 55328 U.S.A. 763-972-3391 800-328-0035 Fax: 763-972-3185 Washington Park: Nature Play DesignQuote Name 00027560Quote Number 850 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 United States Bill To Burlingame, City ofBill To Name   CMAS Contract # 4-10-78-0057A   CMAS Proposal   $498,262.82   alexh@rossrec.com   707.538.3800   00027560   Ross Recreation Equipment, Inc.   Alex Hailey   If ordering materials after the expiration date, please add 3-6% annually to materials for anticipated price increase. If this is for a BID, it is the responsibility of the General Contractor bidding to adjust their bid to accommodate anticipated pricing. Please also note that sales tax will be based on the current rate at the time of shipping, not order date. Customer will be expected to cover these taxes. 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8e MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 20, 2019 From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks & Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Murray Field Synthetic Turf Project, City Project No. 84130 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the Murray Field Synthetic Turf Project, City Project No. 84130, in the amount of $1,114,846. BACKGROUND On January 16, 2018, the City Council awarded the base bid for the site work, including demolition of the existing turf, irrigation, and hardscape, to Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc. (IGP) at a cost of $1,061,000. The procurement and installation of Field Turf synthetic turf, Purefill, and a Brock pad, along with a groomer and sweeper and an eight-year maintenance plan through CMAS, a purchasing cooperative under the California Department of General Services Procurement Division, was purchased under another contract at a cost of $785,371.80. DISCUSSION The project construction has been satisfactorily completed in compliance with the plans and specifications. The final construction cost was $1,114,846. This includes two change orders totaling $53,846. FISCAL IMPACT The following are the estimated final project construction expenditures: Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc. $1,114,846.00 Landscape Architect/Consultants $206,957.38 Field Turf Products $785,371.80 Construction Manager $74,635.00 Legal Ads/Permit Fees $2,605.00 Total Expenses $2,184,415.18 Accepting the Murray Field Synthetic Turf Project, City Project No. 84130 May 20, 2019 2 There are adequate funds available in the Capital Improvement budget to cover the estimated final costs. Exhibits: • Resolution • Final Progress Payment RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS – (MURRAY FIELD PROJECT) BY INTERSTATE GRADING AND PAVING, INC. CITY PROJECT NO. 84130 RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, which finds, orders, and determines as follows: 1. The Director of Parks and Recreation of the City has certified the work done by Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc. under the terms of its contract with the City dated February 6, 2018, has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation. 2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 84130 3. Said work is accepted. __________________________ Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of May, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: __________________________ City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8f MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 20, 2019 From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager – (650) 558-7243 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Term Sheet with the San Mateo Union High School District for the Burlingame Aquatic Center RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution approving a term sheet with the San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD, the District) for the Burlingame Aquatic Center construction project. BACKGROUND The Burlingame Aquatic Center on the Burlingame High School campus includes a 50-meter by 25 yard competition pool, a smaller, warm pool for lessons, and a pool house that includes locker rooms, offices, and pool equipment. The Center was built in the late 1990s using funds from an anonymous donor ($1,210,000), the City ($1,166,695), and the District ($300,000). Last summer, the District undertook a pool renovation project that included removal and replacement of the deck, removal and replacement of the pool finish, and the replacement of the interior lights with LED fixtures. The entire project, which was to begin June 1 and be completed by September 21, had a projected budget of $1,902,659, with the City’s share $951,330, or 50% of the total. The actual demolition began July 2. Various problems related to corrosion of the rebar and improper concrete coverage, among other challenges, arose throughout July, August, and September, and work on the pool ceased. In October, District staff recommended to their Board that the District replace the pool rather than repair it given the many problems uncovered. At their October 25 meeting, the District Board approved proceeding with a replacement of the pool, rather than continuing with the repair of the pool. DISCUSSION The City Council has held a number of discussions about the pool since the problems were discovered, including study sessions on November 19, 2018, January 7, 2019, and March 18, 2019 (staff report attached), and a Council meeting on October 15, 2018. The discussions primarily focused on how much the City would contribute to the reconstruction of the pool. Approval of a Term Sheet for the Pool Construction Project May 20, 2019 2 City staff and District staff, with the assistance of a Council subcommittee (Mayor Colson and Councilmember Brownrigg) and District Board subcommittee (President Land and Clerk of the Board Griffin) have since developed a Term Sheet that lays out the City’s financial contribution to the pool construction project and other items. The District Board approved the Term Sheet at their meeting on May 9, 2019, and again on May 15. (Due to a clerical error, an earlier, incomplete version of the Term Sheet was presented to the Board on May 9.) Should the City Council approve the attached Term Sheet, then the District’s legal counsel will work with the City Attorney to craft an amended and restated agreement between the City and the District for the use, operation, and maintenance of the Burlingame Aquatic Center. FISCAL IMPACT Approval of the Term Sheet does not obligate the City to commit any additional funds to this project. (The City has already paid $605,799.99 to date.) Should the Council approve the amended and restated agreement with terms similar to those in the Term Sheet, then the City’s total contribution will be $2.7 million toward the reconstruction of the pool. The City would also like to explore improving the locker rooms; additional funds in a yet-to-be-determined amount will be required should the City and the District proceed with such improvements. Exhibits: • Resolution • Term Sheet • March 18, 2019 Study Session Staff Report City of Burlingame/SMUHSD Aquatic Center, Term Sheet May 15, 2019 1) Capital Expenditures and Replacement/Repair Program a) The City shall contribute $2.7 million as its total contribution to the Burlingame High School Aquatic Center reconstruction. This $2.7 million shall be paid out $1,269,203 (less anything paid so far toward the repair project) upon billing in 2019 with the balance of the payment paid after the City completes its new Community Center, but in any event no later than June 2023. b) The City’s contribution of $2.7 million shall be divided such that $1,000,000 is for the cost of the deck, $250,000 is for the mechanical room cost, and $1,450,000 is for the new pool shell. (Note - the reason for this division is that it corresponds to roughly the same proportion of the cost of the components of the reconstruction as the City is contributing, in total) c) The City will not be obligated to contribute any additional funds beyond those agreed to here for the deck or the shell during the amortization period as outlined, except that in the case of an earthquake, catastrophic flood, or similar disaster or act of god, the parties may agree to additional apportionment of related repair costs. 2) City and District Allocation of Maintenance and Operating Expenses a) The City’s share of maintenance and operations expenses will be changed from 78% prior to the pool shutdown in 2018 to 50%. The change will be implemented the week after the Notice of Completion is filed for the new BHS replacement project and will remain in place for one full year. After the one-year period, the City and District staff will work together to determine a fair and equitable formula to calculate the District’s and City’s share of expenses for all pool hours. The formula will be based on the hours each party uses the facility, the hours of shared time, and the hours of unused time with the formula to be documented in the contract. 3) Term of Agreement a) The expiration of the Amended and Restated Agreement will be extended from January 1, 2026 to January 1, 2040. After January 1, 2035 either party can give the other party five years notice that it does not intend to negotiate a continuation of the agreement. If SMUHSD ends the agreement, it must reimburse the City for the City’s unamortized contribution to the cost of the components of the BHS Pool replacement. If the City of Burlingame ends the agreement, it shall be eligible for reimbursement on the components it has paid for as identified in 1) above. The schedule for amortization of the components shall be based on the following expected lifespans: Mechanical Room 16 years Pool Shell 50 years Pool Deck 27.5 years 4) Future Potential Improvements to the Aquatic Center a) In order to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and other current standards, the City or the School District may wish to make further improvements to the Aquatic Center or its environs. If so, both parties commit to working with the other with the goal of improving the facility for all users. 5) Annual Pool Maintenance Closure; City Use of District Pools (Similar to existing agreement) a) The possible maintenance windows are November 15-December 15, January 15- January 31, and the week of the SMUHSD spring break. District and City would agree to 1 or 2 closures maximum per year, unless an emergency repair or major construction is scheduled. b) District to provide 90-day notice of closure period except in emergency situations. c) District to use ‘best efforts” to minimize closure period d) If available, District to provide City use of SMHS, Mills or CHS pools, minimum 8 lanes, when BHS pool is anticipated to be closed longer than one week. District to make locker rooms available to BAC if possible. e) The City to pay labor costs at alternate facility during BHS closure. f) The City to pay 50% of standard facility use fees (non-profit rate) at alternate pools during BHS pool closure. g) City will not pay for expenses at BHS (excluding those associated with projects undertaken during closure) while using alternate facility. 6) Usage Allocation – Note that this information is from previous agreement and will be reviewed and revised no later than two months before BHS pool renews operation a) District use (for illustrative purposes based on usage before pool reconstruction) i) Monday to Friday 5:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.: up to 10 adjoining swimming lanes (no buffer lane) ii) Monday to Friday 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. as needed: up to 10 adjoining lanes (no buffer lane). Entire pool up to three times per year for special school events, e.g., Senior Day. Full-day use will begin no earlier than 8 a.m. iii) PE Units [RESERVED] require exclusive use of pool; times TBD iv) Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. during water polo season: up to 10 adjoining lanes (no buffer lane) v) Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. during swimming season: up to 10 adjoining lanes (no buffer lane) vi) Interscholastic competition scheduling as needed. Exclusive use of pool for duration of contest required. District to provide notice of competitions as soon as possible. b) City use (this shall be adjusted as BAC and the city decide on usage) i) Monday to Friday 5:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.: up to 10 adjoining lanes (no buffer lane) ii) Monday to Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.: all lanes unless District requests entire use (see 6aii above); if District requests use, then up to 10 adjoining lanes (no buffer lane) iii) Monday to Friday 7:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. all lanes iv) Saturday 5:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.: all lanes v) Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. during swimming season and 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. during water polo season: up to 10 adjoining lanes (no buffer lane) vi) Saturday 1:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. all lanes vii) Sunday 5:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. all lanes viii) Scheduling of BAC swim meets or water polo tournaments outside the three traditional events in February, June and October must be mutually agreed upon by City and District. ix) Usage allocation shall be discussed and reviewed at annual meetings. 7) Liability language will be incorporated as what was in the previous Amended and Restated Agreement. 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: STUDY MEETING DATE: March 18, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: March 18, 2019 From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager – (650) 558-7243 Subject: Update on Negotiations Regarding Burlingame Aquatic Center Construction Project RECOMMENDATION Receive an update on the negotiations between the City and the San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) regarding the Burlingame Aquatic Center construction project. BACKGROUND In November 1997, the City and the San Mateo Union High School District (the District) entered into an agreement to jointly fund the construction and ongoing repair, improvements, and operations of a new 25-yard pool at Burlingame High School. The agreement included terms regarding scheduling of the facility, maintenance, record keeping, and the distribution of costs. In August 1999, after an anonymous donor agreed to provide funding to upgrade the 25-yard pool facility into a 50-meter pool, the City and the District approved a first amendment to the original agreement. The amended agreement expanded the hours that the facility (the Burlingame Aquatic Center) could be open and made various other changes. The total project cost $2,676,695, with the anonymous donor paying $1,210,000, the City paying $1,166,695, and the District paying $300,000. Between the time the pool opened (2000) and 2011, the City operated the community programs at the pool, including recreational swimming, lap swimming, swim lessons, and fitness classes, and managed the scheduling. In 2011, the City contracted with the Burlingame Aquatic Club (BAC) to operate these programs on the City’s behalf. BAC was already managing competitive programs in adult and youth swimming and water polo at the pool. DISCUSSION In 2016, the City and the District approved a new pool agreement that extends the term by three years, to January 1, 2026, and covers how maintenance and operating expenses are split (the City pays 78%, while the District pays 22%), and how capital expenses are split (50-50 basis). The new agreement also includes language related to when the City has exclusive use of the pool and when the pool is to be shared with the District, and when the pool can be closed for annual maintenance and where BAC is to be relocated during closure periods. The new agreement includes as an exhibit a 2015 District-commissioned Aquatic Design Group facility audit of the aquatic center. The Update on Negotiations with SMUHSD for Pool Construction Project March 18, 2019 2 intent of the audit was to help the City and District jointly develop a capital replacement program. Among the items included in the five-year timeframe were removal and replacement of the pool deck and drainage and removal and replacement of the pool finish in the competition pool. Last year, the District undertook the renovation of the aquatic center; the project included removal and replacement of the deck, removal and replacement of the pool finish, and the replacement of the interior lights with LED fixtures. The entire project, which was to begin June 1 and be completed by September 21, had a projected budget of $1,902,659, with the City’s share $951,330. (The City originally budgeted $600,000 for its share of the project, prior to the bidding and approval of the construction contract.) Due to a variety of factors, including the need to re-bid the project and delays getting approvals from the Department of the State Architect, which approves school construction projects, demolition of the deck actually began on July 2. In July, District staff notified City staff that the pool shell contained problems related to rebar and waterproofing, and that there were additional problems with the light fixtures and electrical work. The cost to make the repairs to the electrical exceeded the Public Contract Code limits that the District must follow, and the repair work needed to be formally bid, delaying any progress on the pool. Throughout August, the contractor uncovered additional problems with corrosion of the rebar at various locations, such as the lights, stairs, and floor inlets, and improper concrete coverage in many areas. (Per State Code, concrete coverage should extend at least three inches between the soil and the rebar to maintain structural integrity and at least three inches between the rebar and the pool shell to prevent water intrusion and subsequent corrosion. The current coverage is about one each on either side.) In early September, the District requested that its pool engineer produce an existing conditions report that highlighted the various challenges with the pool. The report, completed later in September, concluded that the pool shell is compromised and should be replaced, rather than repaired. City staff and District staff met on September 28 to discuss options for moving forward, including repair of the pool, at an estimated cost of $2,538,406 (with the City’s share 50%, or $1,269,203), or replacement. At that time, City staff was under the impression that the estimated cost of replacement was $4,988,452. At the District’s Board meeting of October 11, the District staff recommended that the District pursue the replacement option given the many uncertainties associated with the repair option. In particular, the staff and the District’s engineers and consultants are concerned that there will be additional maintenance costs and significant pool downtime as the pool shell steel continues to erode, and the new plaster dislodges. In addition, the engineers and consultants believe that the pool will need to be replaced in 10-15 years, at an estimated cost of $11.9 million in ten years, or $19.2 million in 15 years. This cost will be on top of the $2.54 millio n spent now to bring the pool back online. Under the replacement option, in contrast, the consultants and engineers believe that the life of the pool shell will be extended to 50 years, and the new shell will require less maintenance than the repaired shell. The District Board did not make a decision at the October 11 Board meeting and, instead, asked staff to come back with additional information. At the October 25 Board meeting, the District Board approved proceeding with the New Pool Project and hiring an architect. Update on Negotiations with SMUHSD for Pool Construction Project March 18, 2019 3 In November, the City Manager met with the Council’s pool subcommittee (then-Mayor Brownrigg and then-Vice Mayor Colson) to discuss the City’s proposed terms for a new agreement, and the City Council discussed the proposed terms at a study session on November 19. The City proposed contributing $2.5 million toward the $4,988,452 cost, with $1 million paid as bills come due, and $1.5 million paid in the future, $150,000 per year for ten years. The City also proposed a long-term lease, and a 50-50 split on operating expenditures for the first three years, followed by a re- evaluation of the split based on actual BAC usage as it will take some time for BAC to rebuild its programs. The City also wanted an opportunity to evaluate how the locker room building can be rebuilt to improve the locker rooms and make space to accommodate transgender pool users and employees. On December 13, the SMUHSD Board met to receive an update on the pool and discuss the City’s proposal. Just prior to the District’s Board meeting, as the City Manager and the School Superintendent were discussing the City’s proposal and the Superintendent’s upcoming presentation to his Board, the Superintendent informed the City Manager that the estimated cost of the pool reconstruction project was not $4,988,452, which was the figure described as “Total Project Cost” on an October District slide, but $6,430,108. Apparently, the Total Project Cost figure did not include the estimates of the costs to date ($851,655), or the contract termination fee ($108,000). The other cost not included in the Total Project Cost figure was $482,001 for mechanical room upgrades. The cost has continued to change since October; the estimate presented to the District Board in February was just under $6.5 million. At the December 13 Board meeting, which then-Mayor Brownrigg, the City Manager, and the Parks and Recreation Director attended, the District Board rejected the City’s earlier offer but did not come to a consensus on what they expected the City to contribute. In early February, Mayor Colson, Councilmember Brownrigg, the City Manager, and the Parks and Recreation Director met with the School Superintendent and the School Board’s newly appointed subcommittee (President Greg Land and Clerk of the Board Robert Griffin) to develop a new term sheet. Unfortunately, the School Board did not agree to that term sheet at their meeti ng on February 21, though they did eventually come to consensus on some of the items, including the City’s new offer of a $2.7 million contribution toward the capital costs. The City Manager and School Superintendent have continued to work on the term sheet since the February Board meeting. The latest iteration, which has not yet been considered by the School Board or the City Council, includes the following terms: Payment: $2.7 million total, with $1,269,203 (less anything the City has paid so far toward the repair project) paid in 2019. This amount is the City’s half of the Option 1 repair only costs. For cash flow purposes, the remainder of the funds would be paid after the City completes the new Community Center, but no later than June 2023. The Superintendent included the following language in the draft term sheet: “The City’s contribution of $2.7 million shall be divided such that $1,000,000 is for the cost of the deck , $250,000 is for the mechanical room cost, and $1,450,000 is for the new pool shell. Note - the reason for this division is that it corresponds to roughly the Update on Negotiations with SMUHSD for Pool Construction Project March 18, 2019 4 same proportion of the cost of the components of the reconstruction as the city is contributing , in total.” Term: The term of the agreement will be extended from January 1, 2026 to January 1, 2040. After January 1, 2035, either party can give the other party five years’ notice that it does not intend to negotiate a continuation of the agreement. If SMUHSD ends the agreement, it must reimburse the City for the City’s unamortized contribution to the cost of the components of the BHS Pool replacement. If the City ends the agreement, it shall be eligible for reimbursement on the components it has paid for as identified in payment section above. The schedule for amortization of the components shall be based on the following expected lifespans: Mechanical Room 16 years Pool Shell 50 years Pool Deck 27.5 years Locker Room Facility: In order to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and other current standards, the City or the School District may wish to make further improvements to the Aquatic Center or its environs. If so, both parties commit to working with the other with the goal of improving the facility for all users. Operating Expenses: The City’s share of maintenance and operations expenses will be changed from 78% prior to the pool shutdown in 2018 to 50%. The change will be implemented the week after the Notice of Completion is filed for the new BHS replacement project and will remain in place for one full year. After the one-year period, the pool usage formula will be reviewed and revised based usage. An nual Pool Maintenance Closure and Usage Allocation: The language in the existing agreement would remain in place, allowing BAC exclusive use of the pool at certain times of the day, and shared use in the early mornings, weekday afternoons, and Saturday mornings except during high school competition times (water polo games and swim meets). FISCAL IMPACT The total cost to the City is unknown at this time and will depend on the final negotiated agreement. 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8g MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 20, 2019 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of Resolutions Awarding a Construction Contract to G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc. for the 2019 Street Resurfacing Program, City Project No. 85120, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Cost Sharing Agreement with the City of Millbrae for the Resurfacing of Sequoia Avenue & Murchison Drive RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions as follows: (1) Awarding a construction contract to G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc. for the 2019 Street Resurfacing Program in the amount of $1,728,424.40 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the same; and (2) Authorizing the City Manager to execute a cost sharing agreement with the City of Millbrae for the resurfacing of Sequoia Avenue and Murchison Drive. BACKGROUND The 2019 Street Resurfacing Program consists of performing asphalt base-failure repair (digouts), asphalt overlay, striping improvements, and minor concrete repairs for the following streets: • 1600 and 1700 block of Albemarle Way; • 1300 block of Alvarado Avenue; • 1300 block of Carlos Avenue; • 1300 block of Castillo Avenue; • 10 block through 200 block of Channing Road; • 10 block through 200 block of Clarendon Road; • 1300 block of Columbus Avenue; • Corbitt Drive; • 1500 block through 2300 block of Davis Drive; • 1300 block of Desoto Avenue; • Hillside Circle; • Maple Avenue; • 1300 block of Montero Avenue; Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc. May 20, 2019 for the 2019 Street Resurfacing Program, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Cost sharing Agreement with the City of Millbrae 2 • 1000 and 2000 block of Murchison Drive; • 800 block through 1000 block of Park Avenue; • 1800 block of Sequoia Avenue; and • Winchester Place. DISCUSSION The project bids were opened on April 30, 2019. The City received four bid proposals, with bids ranging from $1,728,424.40 to $1,999,376. G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder with its bid amount of $1,728,424.40, which is 8.2% higher than the engineer’s estimate of $1,597,226. The contractor has met all the project requirements and has a past history of successful construction work for the City of Burlingame as well as for other public agencies in the Bay Area. The project construction is scheduled to begin in July 2019, and is expected to be completed by November 2019. Staff will send construction notices to the residents in the affected areas and coordinate with the contractor to minimize the construction inconvenience to the residents as much as possible. Both Murchison Drive and Sequoia Avenue are shared streets between the City of Burlingame and the City of Millbrae, and therefore the costs of resurfacing these streets will be shared equally between the agencies. The preliminary estimated cost of the City of Millbrae share is approximately $200,000. However, it is understood and agreed between the agencies that the final cost may vary and will be determined upon completion of the project. The City of Millbrae will reimburse the City of Burlingame one half of the total actual cost to complete the shared work. FISCAL IMPACT Estimated Project Expenditures: The following are the estimated project construction expenditures: Construction $ 1,728,424.40 Construction Inspection and Testing $88,060.00 Public Outreach Services $17,000.00 Engineering Design & Administration Contingencies (15%) $47,493.00 $275,022.60 Total $2,156,000 FUNDING AVAILABILITY: There are adequate funds available in the FY 2018-19 Street Resurfacing Program budget to complete the project. The estimated reimbursement from the City of Millbrae for the work on Murchison Drive and Sequoia Avenue is approximately $200,000. Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc. May 20, 2019 for the 2019 Street Resurfacing Program, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Cost sharing Agreement with the City of Millbrae 3 Exhibits: • Resolution for Construction Contract • Resolution for Cost Sharing Agreement • Construction Contract • Cost Sharing Agreement • Cost Sharing Estimate • Bid Summary • Project Location Map RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO G. BORTOLOTTO & CO., INC. FOR THE 2019 STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CITY PROJECT NO. 85120 WHEREAS, on April 8, 2019, the City issued a notice inviting bid proposals for the 2019 Street Resurfacing Program, City Project No. 85120; and WHEREAS, on April 30, 2019, all proposals were received and opened before the City Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc., submitted the lowest responsible bid for the project in the amount of $1,728,424.40. NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and ORDERED, that the Plans and Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid of G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc., for said project in the amount of $1,728,424.40 is accepted; and BE IT 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 said contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor. _______________ _____ Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of May, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: _______________ _____ City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. __________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A COST SHARING AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF MILLBRAE FOR RESURFACING MURCHISON DRIVE AND SEQUOIA AVENUE AS PART OF THE 2019 STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM WHEREAS, Murchison Drive and Sequoia Avenue have been identified as streets to be resurfaced as part of the 2019 Street Resurfacing Program; and WHEREAS, Murchison Drive and Sequoia Avenue straddle the border of Burlingame and Millbrae, and are shared between both cities; and WHEREAS, the cities of Burlingame and Millbrae desire to share the cost of resurfacing Sequoia Avenue and Murchison Drive; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame will receive approximately $200,000 for one half of the associated project costs from the City of Millbrae; and WHEREAS, both Burlingame and Millbrae understand and agree that the estimate is not final, and Millbrae will reimburse Burlingame one half of the total actual cost to complete the shared work. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The City Manager is authorized to enter into and execute a cost-sharing agreement with the City of Millbrae for the resurfacing of Sequoia Avenue and Murchison Drive. Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of May, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk AGREEMENT - 1 AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT 2019 STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM CITY PROJECT NO. 85120 THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into in the City of Burlingame, County of San Mateo, State of California on , 2019 by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter called "City", and G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc., a California Corporation, hereinafter called "Contractor." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of the public work and improvements herein provided for and to authorize execution of this Contract; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State law and City requirements, a notice was duly published for bids for the contract for the improvement hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, on _______________, after notice duly given, the City Council of Burlingame awarded the contract for the construction of the improvements hereinafter described to Contractor, which the Council found to be the lowest responsive, responsible bidder for these improvements; and WHEREAS, City and Contractor desire to enter into this Agreement for the construction of said improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work. Contractor shall perform the work described in those Contract Documents entitled: 2019 STREET RESURFACING PROGAM, CITY PROJECT NO. 85120. 2. The Contract Documents. The complete contract between City and Contractor consists of the following documents: this Agreement; Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, attached hereto as Exhibit A; the accepted Bid Proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit B; the specifications, provisions, addenda, complete plans, profiles, and detailed drawings contained in the bid documents titled “2019 Street Resurfacing Program, City Project No. 85120” attached as Exhibit C; AGREEMENT - 2 the State of California Standard Specifications 2010, as promulgated by the California Department of Transportation; prevailing wage rates of the State of California applicable to this project by State law; and all bonds; which are collectively hereinafter referred to as the Contract Documents. All rights and obligations of City and Contractor are fully set forth and described in the Contract Documents, which are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. All of the above described documents are intended to cooperate so that any work called for in one, and not mentioned in the other, or vice versa, is to be executed the same as if mentioned in all said documents. 3. Contract Price. The City shall pay, and the Contractor shall accept, in full, payment of the work above agreed to be done, the sum of one million, seven hundred and twenty-eight thousand, four-hundred and twenty-four dollars and forty cents ($1,728,424.40), called the “Contract Price”. This price is determined by the lump sum and unit prices contained in Contractor's Bid. In the event authorized work is performed or materials furnished in addition to those set forth in Contractor's Bid and the Specifications, such work and materials will be paid for at the unit prices therein contained. Said amount shall be paid in progress payments as provided in the Contract Documents. 4. Termination At any time and with or without cause, the City may suspend the work or any portion of the work for a period of not more than 90 consecutive calendar days by notice in writing to Contractor that will fix the date on which work will be resumed. Contractor will be granted an adjustment to the Contract Price or an extension of the Time for Completion, or both, directly attributable to any such suspension if Contractor makes a claim therefor was provided in the Contract Documents. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events will justify termination of the contract by the City for cause: (1) Contractor’s persistent failure to perform the work in accordance with the Contract Documents; (2) Contractor’s disregard of Laws or Regulations of any public body having jurisdiction; (3) Contractor’s disregard of the authority of the Engineer; or (4) Contractor’s violation in any substantial way of any provision of the Contract Documents. In the case of any one or more of these events, the 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. Such termination will not affect any rights or remedies of City against Contractor then existing or that accrue thereafter. Any retention or payment of moneys due Contractor will not AGREEMENT - 3 release Contractor from liability. At the City’s sole discretion, Contractor’s services may not be terminated if Contractor begins, within seven calendar days of receipt of such notice of intent to terminate, to correct its failure to perform and proceeds diligently to cure such failure within no more than 30 calendar days of such notice. Upon seven calendar days written notice to Contractor, City may, without cause and without prejudice to any other right or remedy of City, terminate the Contract for City’s convenience. In such case, Contractor will be paid for (1) work satisfactorily completed prior the effective date of such termination, (2) furnishing of labor, equipment, and materials in accordance with the Contract Documents in connection with uncompleted work, (3) reasonable expenses directly attributable to termination, and (4) fair and reasonable compensation for associated overhead and profit. No payment will be made on account of loss of anticipated profits or revenue or other economic loss arising out of or resulting from such termination. 5. Provisions Cumulative. The provisions of this Agreement are cumulative and in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the City. 6. Notices. All notices shall be in writing and delivered in person or transmitted by certified mail, postage prepaid. Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows: Mr. Kevin Okada Senior Engineer City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows: Robert Bortolotto G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc. 582 Bragato Road San Carlos, CA 94070 7. Interpretation As used herein, any gender includes the other gender and the singular includes the plural and vice versa. AGREEMENT - 4 8. Waiver or Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Contractor. One or more waivers of any term, condition, or other provision of this Agreement by either party shall not be construed as a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision. 9. Controlling Law. This Agreement is to be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 10. Successors and Assignees. This Agreement is to be binding on the heirs, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto but may not be assigned by either party without first obtaining the written consent of the other party. 11. Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement is deemed invalid, void, or unenforceable by any court of lawful jurisdiction, the remaining terms and provisions of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in full force and effect. 12. Indemnification. Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City, its directors, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the actual or alleged negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Contractor, its employees, subcontractors, or agents, or on account of the performance or character of the services, except for any such claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. It is understood that the duty of Contractor to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any design professional services, the duty to defend and indemnify City shall be limited to that allowed by state law. Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Contractor from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be AGREEMENT - 5 applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two identical counterparts of this Agreement, consisting of five pages, including this page, each of which counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed an original of this Agreement, have been duly executed by the parties hereinabove named on the day and year first hereinabove written. CITY OF BURLINGAME, a Municipal Corporation By Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager Approved as to form: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney ATTEST: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk "CONTRACTOR" By Print Name: G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc. Page 1 of 3 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND THE CITY OF MILLBRAE FOR SHARING THE COST OF RESURFACING MURCHISON DRIVE AND SEQUOIA AVENUE THIS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into this ___________ day of ____________, 2019, by and between the City of Burlingame, herein called "Burlingame," and the City of Millbrae, herein called “Millbrae,” for sharing the cost of resurfacing Murchison Drive and Sequoia Avenue. RECITALS WHEREAS, after a public competitive bid process, Burlingame will award a contract for resurfacing its city streets for the 2018-2019 fiscal year; WHEREAS, two of the streets designated for resurfacing are Murchison Drive and Sequoia Avenue, which straddle the border of Burlingame and Millbrae; and WHEREAS, Burlingame and Millbrae desire to share the cost of resurfacing Murchison Drive and Sequoia Avenue in order to efficiently use public funds. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Duties of City of Burlingame Burlingame shall issue a Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, Plans and Specifications, and related documents for the 2018-2019 Street Resurfacing Program Resurfacing Project (“Resurfacing Project”). The Resurfacing Project will include resurfacing work on Murchison Drive and Sequoia Avenue, parts of which are located within the city limits of the City of Millbrae (“Work”). For the Resurfacing Project, Burlingame shall issue bid documents, receive sealed bids, and publicly open the bids. Burlingame, in its sole discretion, shall award the Resurfacing Project to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. The contractor to whom the Resurfacing Project is awarded shall complete the Work in conformance with the plans and specifications contained in the Resurfacing Project contract documents, Project No. 85120. Nothing in this Agreement shall constrain Burlingame’s discretion regarding the issuance of the bid documents and the award of the Resurfacing Project. 2. Duties of City of Millbrae Millbrae shall pay to Burlingame $200,000.00, which is one-half of the estimated total cost of the Work ($400,000.00), as evidenced by the units prices and quantities estimated in Attachment A. However, Millbrae and Burlingame understand and hereby agree that this estimate is not final, as the total costs will be unknown until the Work is completed. Millbrae Page 2 of 3 shall reimburse Burlingame one half of the total actual cost to complete the Work, as specified in the Resurfacing Project contract documents, Project No. 85120. The total amount shall be due and payable to Burlingame within thirty (30) days of City of Millbrae’s receipt of written notice of completion of the Work. 3. Project Manager. The Project Managers are Kevin Okada for Burlingame and Andrew Yang for Millbrae. 4. Notices. Any notice required to be given shall be deemed to be duly and properly given if mailed postage prepaid, and addressed to: To Burlingame: Kevin Okada, P.E. City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 To Millbrae: Andrew Yang, P.E. City of Millbrae 621 Magnolia Avenue Millbrae, CA 94030 or personally delivered to a party at such address or such other address as the party designates in writing to the other party. 5. Indemnity. The City of Burlingame shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of Millbrae, its officers, agents and employees from all claims, damages, suits or actions arising out of the performance of this agreement to the extent such claims, suits or actions are due to the negligence or willful misconduct of the City of Burlingame or its failure to perform obligations required of it under this Agreement. The City of Millbrae shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of Burlingame, its officers, agents and employees from all claims, damages, suits or actions arising out of the performance of this agreement to the extent such claims, suits or actions are due to the negligence or willful misconduct of the City of Millbrae or its failure to perform obligations required of it under this Agreement. 6. Governing Law. This Agreement, regardless of where executed, shall be governed by and construed to the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of the County of San Mateo. Page 3 of 3 7. Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Consultant. 8. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the Agreement between the City and Consultant. No terms, conditions, understandings or agreements purporting to modify or vary this Agreement, unless hereafter made in writing and signed by the party to be bound, shall be binding on either party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Millbrae have executed this Agreement as of the date indicated on page one (1). City of Burlingame City of Millbrae By By_______________________ Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager Tom Williams, City Manager Approved as to form: Approved as to form: __________________________ __________________________ Kathleen Kane, City Attorney Joan Cassman, City Attorney ATTEST: ATTEST: ___________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk Elena Suazo, City Clerk City of Millbrae and City of Burlingame Cost Sharing Estimate MURCHISON AND SEQUOIA RESURFACING COST ESTIMATE 1 A.C. Digout Repair 135 TON $252.00 $34,020.00 2 A.C. Overlay 1330 TON $135.00 $179,550.00 3 Cold Plane 660 C. Y.$82.00 $54,120.00 4 Adjust Manholes 19 EACH $900.00 $17,100.00 5 Adjust Valves, Lampholes, Etc 47 EACH $600.00 $28,200.00 6 Type "D" & Blue (Pavement Markers)176 EACH $15.00 $2,640.00 7 4" Solid Line -- Thermoplastic 3350 L. F.$3.27 $10,954.50 8 8" Solid Line -- Thermoplastic 168 L. F.$8.25 $1,386.00 9 12" Solid Line -- Thermoplastic 2001 L. F.$5.55 $11,105.55 10 24" Solid Line -- Thermoplastic 460 L. F.$15.00 $6,900.00 11 Legends & Arrows -- Thermoplastic 659 S. F.$6.45 $4,250.55 12 Bike Proof Grates 5 Each $2,051.00 $10,255.00 Construction TOTAL:$360,481.60 Soft costs (12%)$12,607.20 Contingency (7.5%)$26,911.20 Total Cost $400,000.00 City of Millbrae (50%):$200,000.00 ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8h MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 20, 2019 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to Engineered Soil Repairs Inc., for the Mills Canyon Sewer Access Road Repair Project, City Project No. 85090, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Construction Contract RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution awarding a construction contract to Engineered Soil Repairs Inc., for the Mills Canyon Sewer Access Road Repair Project, City Project No. 85090, in the amount of $290,723, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the construction contract. BACKGROUND An 8-inch sanitary sewer main was constructed in 1980 along a sewer easement within Mills Canyon. A paved access road approximately 0.4 miles in length and 10 feet in width was constructed over the pipeline alignment. Due to recent heavy rainfall and subsurface soil movement, three sections of the roadway have settled, resulting in damages to the road with potential risk of further settlement, and damage to the sanitary sewer main. Any damage to the sanitary sewer main could lead to sewage spills into the creek and natural environment that is located at the bottom of the sewer access road embankment. The Mills Canyon Sewer Access Road Repair project includes construction of three new soldier piles and lagging retaining walls ranging from 50 feet to 100 feet long, consisting of steel beams embedded in cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) caisson foundations with treated wood lagging and wall back-drains. Within the failed roadway area, the project also includes removal of soil and replacement with new engineered fill or controlled-low-strength-material, installation of surface drainage improvements, and installation of new asphaltic concrete road and dikes. DISCUSSION The project was advertised for bids on March 19, 2019. The sealed bids were opened on April 30, 2019, and three bid proposals were received, with bids ranging from $290,723 to $427,020. Engineered Soil Repairs Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder with its bid amount of $290,723, which is approximately $27,000, or about 9%, lower than the engineer’s estimate of $317,525. Staff has reviewed the bid proposal from Engineered Soil Repairs Inc. and finds that the contractor Construction Contract for Mills Canyon Sewer Access May 20, 2019 Road Repair Project, City Project No. 85090 2 has met all the project requirements and is well qualified for the job. The contractor also has a track record of successfully completing similar work for other agencies. Staff has verified the contractor’s references and received positive feedback about the contractor’s work. The project construction is planned to begin in June 2019 and is tentatively scheduled to be completed by October 2019, barring construction delays due to weather and unforeseen conditions. Staff will coordinate the construction activities with adjacent residential neighborhood to minimize inconveniences and construction noise impacts as best as possible. FISCAL IMPACT Estimated Project Expenditures The following are the estimated project construction expenditures: Construction Contract $290,723 Construction Management $79,844 Construction Materials Testing $25,544 Construction Contingency 15% $59,417 Contract Administration $24,472 Total $480,000 Funding Availability There are adequate funds available in the Sewer Capital Improvement Program to complete the project. Exhibits: • Resolution • Construction Contract • Bid Summary • Project Location Map RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE MILLS CANYON SEWER ACCESS ROAD REPAIR PROJECT TO ENGINEERED SOIL REPAIRS INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT CITY PROJECT NO. 85090 WHEREAS, on March 19, 2019, the City issued a notice inviting bid proposals for the Mills Canyon Sewer Access Road Repair Project, City Project No. 85090; and WHEREAS, on April 30, 2019, three proposals were received and opened before the City Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, Engineered Soil Repairs Inc., submitted the lowest responsible bid for the job in the amount of $290,723. NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and ORDERED, that the Plans and Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid of Engineered Soil Repairs Inc., for said project in the amount of $290,723 is accepted; and BE IT 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 be authorized on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute the contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor. ____________________________ Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel 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 20th day of May, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: _____________________________ City Clerk AGREEMENT - 1 AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT MILLS CANYON SEWER ACCESS ROAD REPAIR PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO. 85090 THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into in the City of Burlingame, County of San Mateo, State of California on , 2019 by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter called "City", and Engineered Soil Repairs Inc., a California corporation, hereinafter called "Contractor." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of the public work and improvements herein provided for and to authorize execution of this Contract; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State law and City requirements, a notice was duly published for bids for the contract for the improvement hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, on _______________, after notice duly given, the City Council of Burlingame awarded the contract for the construction of the improvements hereinafter described to Contractor, which the Council found to be the lowest responsive, responsible bidder for these improvements; and WHEREAS, City and Contractor desire to enter into this Agreement for the construction of said improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work. Contractor shall perform the work described in those Contract Documents entitled: MILLS CANYON SEWER ACCESS ROAD REPAIR PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO. 85090. 2. The Contract Documents. The complete contract between City and Contractor consists of the following documents: this Agreement; Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, attached hereto as Exhibit A; the accepted Bid Proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit B; the specifications, provisions, addenda, complete plans, profiles, and detailed drawings contained in the bid documents titled “Mills Canyon Sewer Access Road Repair Project, City Project No. 85090” attached AGREEMENT - 2 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 two hundred and ninety thousand, seven hundred and twenty three dollars ($290,723), called the “Contract Price”. This price is determined by the lump sum and unit prices contained in Contractor's Bid. In the event authorized work is performed or materials furnished in addition to those set forth in Contractor's Bid and the Specifications, such work and materials will be paid for at the unit prices therein contained. Said amount shall be paid in progress payments as provided in the Contract Documents. 4. Termination At any time and with or without cause, the City may suspend the work or any portion of the work for a period of not more than 90 consecutive calendar days by notice in writing to Contractor that will fix the date on which work will be resumed. Contractor will be granted an adjustment to the Contract Price or an extension of the Time for Completion, or both, directly attributable to any such suspension if Contractor makes a claim therefor was provided in the Contract Documents. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events will justify termination of the contract by the City for cause: (1) Contractor’s persistent failure to perform the work in accordance with the Contract Documents; (2) Contractor’s disregard of Laws or Regulations of any public body having jurisdiction; (3) Contractor’s disregard of the authority of the Engineer; or (4) Contractor’s violation in any substantial way of any provision of the Contract Documents. In the case of any one or more of these events, the 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. Such termination will not affect any rights or remedies of City against Contractor then existing or that accrue thereafter. Any retention or payment of moneys due Contractor will not AGREEMENT - 3 release Contractor from liability. At the City’s sole discretion, Contractor’s services may not be terminated if Contractor begins, within seven calendar days of receipt of such notice of intent to terminate, to correct its failure to perform and proceeds diligently to cure such failure within no more than 30 calendar days of such notice. Upon seven calendar days written notice to Contractor, City may, without cause and without prejudice to any other right or remedy of City, terminate the Contract for City’s convenience. In such case, Contractor will be paid for (1) work satisfactorily completed prior the effective date of such termination, (2) furnishing of labor, equipment, and materials in accordance with the Contract Documents in connection with uncompleted work, (3) reasonable expenses directly attributable to termination, and (4) fair and reasonable compensation for associated overhead and profit. No payment will be made on account of loss of anticipated profits or revenue or other economic loss arising out of or resulting from such termination. 5. Provisions Cumulative. The provisions of this Agreement are cumulative and in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the City. 6. Notices. All notices shall be in writing and delivered in person or transmitted by certified mail, postage prepaid. Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows: Mr. Mahesh Yedluri Senior Civil Engineer City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows: Mark Wilhite Engineered Soil Repairs Inc. 1267 Springbrook Road Walnut Creek, CA 94597 7. Interpretation As used herein, any gender includes the other gender and the singular includes the plural and vice versa. AGREEMENT - 4 8. Waiver or Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Contractor. One or more waivers of any term, condition, or other provision of this Agreement by either party shall not be construed as a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision. 9. Controlling Law. This Agreement is to be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 10. Successors and Assignees. This Agreement is to be binding on the heirs, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto but may not be assigned by either party without first obtaining the written consent of the other party. 11. Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement is deemed invalid, void, or unenforceable by any court of lawful jurisdiction, the remaining terms and provisions of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in full force and effect. 12. Indemnification. Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City, its directors, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the actual or alleged negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Contractor, its employees, subcontractors, or agents, or on account of the performance or character of the services, except for any such claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. It is understood that the duty of Contractor to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any design professional services, the duty to defend and indemnify City shall be limited to that allowed by state law. Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Contractor from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages. AGREEMENT - 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two identical counterparts of this Agreement, consisting of five pages, including this page, each of which counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed an original of this Agreement, have been duly executed by the parties hereinabove named on the day and year first hereinabove written. CITY OF BURLINGAME, a Municipal Corporation By Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager Approved as to form: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney ATTEST: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk "CONTRACTOR" By Print Name: Engineered Soil Repairs Inc. BID DATE: April 30, 2019 at 2:00PMMILLS CANYON SEWER ACCESS ROAD REPAIR PROJECTCITY PROJECT NO. 85090Page 1 of 1ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION OF ITEMESTIMATED QUANTITYUNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST 1Mobilization and Demobilization1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ 11,182$ 11,182$ 35,000$ 35,000$ 42,000$ 42,000$ 2Site Preparation1 LS 3,000$ 3,000$ 10,400$ 10,400$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 37,000$ 37,000$ 3Survey Layout1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ 2,160$ 2,160$ 12,000$ 12,000$ 12,000$ 12,000$ 4 Retaining Wall Pier Excavations 665 LF 150$ 99,750$ 123$ 81,795$ 80$ 53,200$ 110$ 73,150$ 5Retaining Wall Piers665 LF 180$ 119,700$ 89$ 59,185$ 140$ 93,100$ 190$ 126,350$ 6Retaining Wall Lagging550 SF 25$ 13,750$ 41$ 22,550$ 40$ 22,000$ 49$ 26,950$ 7Retaininig Wall Back-drains32 LF 50$ 1,600$ 290$ 9,280$ 60$ 1,920$ 10$ 320$ 8Drop Inlet1 EA 4,000$ 4,000$ 2,196$ 2,196$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 9Storm Drain Pipe100 LF 40$ 4,000$ 60.50$ 6,050$ 150$ 15,000$ 100$ 10,000$ 10Chain Link Fence145 LF 40$ 5,800$ 120$ 17,400$ 90$ 13,050$ 50$ 7,250$ 11Grading220 CY 60$ 13,200$ 112$ 24,640$ 180$ 39,600$ 150$ 33,000$ 12Pavement1,620 SF 20$ 32,400$ 20$ 32,400$ 30$ 48,600$ 20$ 32,400$ 13Asphaltic Concrete Dike 55 LF 15$ 825$ 4$ 220$ 70$ 3,850$ 120$ 6,600$ 14Stormwater Pollution Prevention1 LS 3,000$ 3,000$ 180$ 180$ 4,000$ 4,000$ 8,000$ 8,000$ 15Erosion Control1 LS 2,000$ 2,000$ 5,645$ 5,645$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 4,000$ 4,000$ 16Gate1 LS 4,500$ 4,500$ 5,440$ 5,440$ 7,000$ 7,000$ 3,000$ 3,000$ 317,525$ 290,723$ 388,320$ 427,020$ TOTAL BID (ITEMS 1-16)BID SCHEDULEEngineer's Estimate Hillside Drilling, Inc. Graniterock Company Richmond, CA San Jose, CA Engineered Soil Repairs, Inc. Walnut Creek, CA Mills Canyon Sewer Access Road Repair Project City Project No. 85090 Project Location Map 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8i MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 20, 2019 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to PMK Contractors LLC for the Police Station Underground Fuel Storage Tank Removal, City Project No. 84640, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Construction Contract RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution awarding a construction contract to PMK Contractors LLC for the removal of two underground fuel storage tanks (UST) at the Police Station in the amount of $285,607 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the construction contract. BACKGROUND The City Council has authorized funds for removal of a 12,000 gallon gasoline underground storage tank and a 4,000 gallon diesel underground storage tank (UST). Both single-walled fiberglass USTs were constructed when the Police Station was built in 1983 and are beyond their design life. In addition, the County has required all single-wall USTs to be removed. The City obtained a subsurface drilling permit from the San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health to perform exploratory soil boring during the design phase. Seventeen initial underground exploratory borings were performed to a depth of up to 24 feet. The field and test results indicate that petroleum hydrocarbon constituents are present in the soil and groundwater around the gasoline tank. No evidence of contaminated soil was found around the diesel tank. Results of the investigation activities were submitted to the County, and the County opened a case naming the City as a responsible party for the release of gasoline from the UST. The County has been informed of the plan to remove the tanks and has requested a UST removal report be submitted no later than August 15, 2019. After the tanks are removed, the County will have additional requirements primarily focused on the extent of petroleum hydrocarbon migration in the groundwater, monitoring, and reporting. DISCUSSION The project was advertised for bids on April 8, 2019. The City received one sealed bid, which was opened on April 24, 2019. PMK Contractors LLC was the apparent low bidder with its bid of $285,607, which is approximately 1% lower than the engineer’s estimate of $292,900. Staff has Award of Construction Contract to PMK Contractors LLC May 20, 2019 for removal of UST’s at the Police Station 2 reviewed PMK’s proposal and finds that the contractor has met all the project requirements and has a past history of performing similar work successfully for other agencies. As a result, staff recommends that the City Council award the project to PMK Contractors LLC and authorize the City Manager to execute the construction contract. Staff also recommends that the City Council authorize a 15% construction contingency budget to deal with the unknown extent of soil contamination and other unforeseen conditions that may present problems during construction. The project is anticipated to begin in July 2019 and be completed by September 2019. After the decommissioning of the underground fuel tanks at the Police Station, the Police vehicles will be fueling at the Public Works Corporation Yard fuel station site. FISCAL IMPACT Estimated Project Expenditures The following are the estimated project construction expenditures: Construction $285,607 Environmental Engineering & Testing $73,880 Contingencies (15%) $53,923 Engineering & Administration $6,590 Total $420,000 Funding Availability There are adequate funds available in the Facilities Capital Improvement Fund to complete the project. Exhibits: • Resolution • Construction Contract • Bid Summary • Project Location Map RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR REMOVAL OF TWO UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO PMK CONTRACTORS LLC CITY PROJECT NO. 84640 WHEREAS, on April 8, 2019, the City issued a notice inviting bid proposals for the Removal of Two Underground Storage Tanks at the Police Station, City Project No. 84640; and WHEREAS, on April 24, 2019, all proposals were received and opened before the City Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, PMK Contractors LLC submitted the lowest responsible bid for the job in the amount of $285,607. NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and ORDERED, that the Plans and Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid of PMK Contractors LLC for said project in the amount of $285,607 is accepted; and BE IT 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 said contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor. ____________________ Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of May, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ____________________ City Clerk AGREEMENT - 1 AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT POLICE STATION UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REMOVAL PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO. 84640 THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into in the City of Burlingame, County of San Mateo, State of California on ___________, 2019 by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter called "City", and PMK CONTRACTORS LLC, a California Corporation, hereinafter called "Contractor." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of the public work and improvements herein provided for and to authorize execution of this Contract; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State law and City requirements, a notice was duly published for bids for the contract for the improvement hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, on _______________, after notice duly given, the City Council of Burlingame awarded the contract for the construction of the improvements hereinafter described to Contractor, which the Council found to be the lowest responsive, responsible bidder for these improvements; and WHEREAS, City and Contractor desire to enter into this Agreement for the construction of said improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work. Contractor shall perform the work described in those Contract Documents entitled: POLICE STATION UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REMOVAL, CITY PROJECT NO. 84640. 2. The Contract Documents. The complete contract between City and Contractor consists of the following documents: this Agreement; Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, attached hereto as Exhibit A; the accepted Bid Proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit B; the specifications, provisions, addenda, complete plans, profiles, and detailed drawings contained in the bid documents AGREEMENT - 2 titled “Police Station Underground Storage Tank Removal, City Project No. 84640” 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 two hundred eighty five thousand, six hundred and seven dollars ($285,607), called the “Contract Price”. This price is determined by the lump sum and unit prices contained in Contractor's Bid. In the event authorized work is performed or materials furnished in addition to those set forth in Contractor's Bid and the Specifications, such work and materials will be paid for at the unit prices therein contained. Said amount shall be paid in progress payments as provided in the Contract Documents. 4. Termination At any time and with or without cause, the City may suspend the work or any portion of the work for a period of not more than 90 consecutive calendar days by notice in writing to Contractor that will fix the date on which work will be resumed. Contractor will be granted an adjustment to the Contract Price or an extension of the Time for Completion, or both, directly attributable to any such suspension if Contractor makes a claim therefor was provided in the Contract Documents. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events will justify termination of the contract by the City for cause: (1) Contractor’s persistent failure to perform the work in accordance with the Contract Documents; (2) Contractor’s disregard of Laws or Regulations of any public body having jurisdiction; (3) Contractor’s disregard of the authority of the Engineer; or (4) Contractor’s violation in any substantial way of any provision of the Contract Documents. In the case of any one or more of these events, the 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. Such termination will not affect any rights or remedies of City against Contractor then existing or that accrue thereafter. Any retention or payment of moneys due Contractor will not AGREEMENT - 3 release Contractor from liability. At the City’s sole discretion, Contractor’s services may not be terminated if Contractor begins, within seven calendar days of receipt of such notice of intent to terminate, to correct its failure to perform and proceeds diligently to cure such failure within no more than 30 calendar days of such notice. Upon seven calendar days written notice to Contractor, City may, without cause and without prejudice to any other right or remedy of City, terminate the Contract for City’s convenience. In such case, Contractor will be paid for (1) work satisfactorily completed prior the effective date of such termination, (2) furnishing of labor, equipment, and materials in accordance with the Contract Documents in connection with uncompleted work, (3) reasonable expenses directly attributable to termination, and (4) fair and reasonable compensation for associated overhead and profit. No payment will be made on account of loss of anticipated profits or revenue or other economic loss arising out of or resulting from such termination. 5. Provisions Cumulative. The provisions of this Agreement are cumulative and in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the City. 6. Notices. All notices shall be in writing and delivered in person or transmitted by certified mail, postage prepaid. Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows: Mr. Kevin Okada Senior Engineer City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows: Preet Johal President PMK Contractors LLC 1580 Chabot Court, Second Floor Hayward, CA 94545 7. Interpretation As used herein, any gender includes the other gender and the singular includes AGREEMENT - 4 the plural and vice versa. 8. Waiver or Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Contractor. One or more waivers of any term, condition, or other provision of this Agreement by either party shall not be construed as a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision. 9. Controlling Law. This Agreement is to be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 10. Successors and Assignees. This Agreement is to be binding on the heirs, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto but may not be assigned by either party without first obtaining the written consent of the other party. 11. Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement is deemed invalid, void, or unenforceable by any court of lawful jurisdiction, the remaining terms and provisions of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in full force and effect. 12. Indemnification. Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City, its directors, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the actual or alleged negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Contractor, its employees, subcontractors, or agents, or on account of the performance or character of the services, except for any such claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. It is understood that the duty of Contractor to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any design professional services, the duty to defend and indemnify City shall be limited to that allowed by state law. Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Contractor from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause AGREEMENT - 5 shall apply whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two identical counterparts of this Agreement, consisting of five pages, including this page, each of which counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed an original of this Agreement, have been duly executed by the parties hereinabove named on the day and year first hereinabove written. CITY OF BURLINGAME, a Municipal Corporation By Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager Approved as to form: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney ATTEST: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk "CONTRACTOR" By Print Name: Company Name: PMK Contractors LLC Police Station UST Removal Project City Project No. 84640 BID SUMMARY Page 1 of 1 BID OPENING: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:00 P.M. ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION No.QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 1 San Mateo Co. UST Removal Permit 1 LS 2,827.00$ 2,827.00$ 4,800.00$ 4,800.00$ 2 Stormwater Quality Control Plan and Maintenance 1 LS 2,750.00$ 2,750.00$ 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 3A Mobilization/demobilization Gasoline UST 1 LS 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 3B Mobilization/demobilization Diesel UST 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 4 Excavation Support and Protection 1 LS 6,600.00$ 6,600.00$ 36,000.00$ 36,000.00$ 5 Concrete and Asphalt Demolition/Removal 1 LS 5,500.00$ 5,500.00$ 11,000.00$ 11,000.00$ 6 Concrete/Asphalt Transportation and Disposal 81 tons 30.80$ 2,494.80$ 48.00$ 3,888.00$ 7 Remove and Dispose of Residual Liquid, Solid or Sludge from both Underground Storage Tanks 1 LS 26,400.00$ 26,400.00$ 39,600.00$ 39,600.00$ 8 Excavate and Remove Material Surrounding Gasoline UST 560 CY 16.50$ 9,240.00$ 17.00$ 9,520.00$ 9 Excavate and Remove Material Surrounding Diesel UST 65 CY 16.50$ 1,072.50$ 77.00$ 5,005.00$ 10 Transportation and Disposal of Excavated Spoils to Class II (Gasoline UST)1020 ton 75.90$ 77,418.00$ 60.00$ 61,200.00$ 11 Transportation and Disposal of Excavated Spoils Material to Class III (Diesel UST)120 ton 38.50$ 4,620.00$ 58.00$ 6,960.00$ 12 Excavate and Remove USTs 1 LS 33,000.00$ 33,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 13 Transportation and Disposal of USTs 1 LS 22,000.00$ 22,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 14 Backfill - Class 1 Permeable Material 50 CY 55.00$ 2,750.00$ 103.00$ 5,150.00$ 15 Backfill - Aggregate Base 540 CY 57.20$ 30,888.00$ 36.00$ 19,440.00$ 16 6-inch Aggregate Base Subgrade 42 CY 57.20$ 2,402.40$ 157.00$ 6,594.00$ 17 6-inch Asphalt Pavement 90 tons 308.00$ 27,720.00$ 245.00$ 22,050.00$ 18 Allowance for Dewatering including disposal of water 1 LS 22,000.00$ 22,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 19 All work in accordance with the contract documents, except for work included under Bid Times 1 through 20 1 LS 2,200.00$ 2,200.00$ 4,400.00$ 4,400.00$ Total Base Bid 292,900.00$ 285,607.00$ ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE PMK Contractors LLC 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8j MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 20, 2019 From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Extending the Agreement with Maze & Associates Accountancy Corporation to Serve as the City of Burlingame’s Independent External Financial Auditors for Three Additional Years RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the extension of the agreement with Maze & Associates Accountancy Corporation for external financial audit services for an additional three years. BACKGROUND The City is required to have an annual, independent, external audit of its financial statements to ensure compliance with federal, state and local laws, generally accepted accounting principles, and pronouncements and standards of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). In accordance with the best practices promulgated by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), governmental entities should enter into multiyear agreements of at least five years in duration when obtaining the services of independent auditors. Such multiyear agreements can take a variety of different forms (e.g., a series of single-year contracts), consistent with applicable legal requirements. Such agreements allow for greater continuity and help minimize the potential for disruption in connection with the independent audit. Multiyear agreements can also help to reduce audit costs by allowing auditors to recover certain "startup" costs over several years, rather than over a single year. In addition, GFOA best practices also stipulate that a governmental entity should actively seek to replace the auditor at the end of the multiyear agreement in order to preserve and enhance independence, objectivity and impartiality. In April, 2016, after a thorough RFP process, the City selected Maze & Associates as the best qualified firm to provide independent audit and consulting services. The term of the agreement was for three years, terminating on March 31, 2019, with the option of the City to extend the agreement for up to two additional years. The first year of the audit engagement covered the audit and Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the year ended June 30, 2016, and the third year of services covered the audit and CAFR for the year ended June 30, 2018. As staff had every intention of extending the contract for the additional two years, no RFP was planned for alternative service providers for the current fiscal year audit services. Extension of Contract for Audit Services May 20, 2019 2 DISCUSSION Each year the audit firm prepares an Engagement Letter outlining the audit services to be performed for the upcoming fiscal year end. Maze & Associates informed the City that a CPI increase to the audit fee of 4.5% would apply to each fiscal year for which the contract was extended. However, the firm would be able to keep the fee flat for the next two fiscal years, plus provide a $5,000 discount for fiscal year 2021 services, if the agreement was extended for a three- year period. If extended for a three-year period, the City would save nearly $6,100 over the next two years, as well as enjoy the final year discount offered. Staff has been pleased with the services provided by Maze & Associates and would like to extend the agreement for audit services. As the agreement confers the authority of extending the contract only two years, staff is requesting that the City Council approve an amendment to the contract to provide for an additional third year of auditing services. (The agreement would be amended to provide a three-year extension as opposed to the current two-year extension allowed at the sole option of the City.) FISCAL IMPACT The price for the most recent audit services – for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018 – was $66,137. If extended for a three-year period, the annual cost of the audit engagement with Maze & Associates would remain stable for the next two years of engagement (covering fiscal years ending June 30, 2019 and 2020), saving the City approximately $6,100. The City would also benefit from a $5,000 discount on these services in the third year of the extension (fiscal year ended June 30, 2021). Exhibit: • Resolution 1 RESOLUTION NO. _________________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AMEND THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND MAZE & ASSOCIATES ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION FOR EXTERNAL FINANCIAL AUDITING SERVICES TO ALLOW FOR AN EXTENSION OF THREE YEARS WHEREAS, the City is required by State law to have an annual, independent, external audit of its financial statements to ensure compliance with federal, state, and local laws, with generally accepted accounting principles and with pronouncements and standards of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB); and WHEREAS, in accordance with the best practices promulgated by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), governmental entities in practice enter into multiyear agreements (usually no longer than five years) when obtaining the services of independent auditors, as such agreements allows for greater continuity and minimize the potential for disruption in connection with the independent audit ; and WHEREAS, the GFOA best practices also state that a governmental entity should actively seek to replace the external auditor at the end of the multiyear agreement in order to preserve and enhance independence, objectivity, and impartiality; and WHEREAS, consistent with the GFOA best practices, the City issued a Request for Proposals for external financial auditing services; seven firms submitted qualified proposals, three firms were selected for interviews, and after completion of the review process, the City selected Maze & Associates Accountancy Corporation as the best qualified firm; and WHEREAS, the current three-year agreement with Maze & Associates, terminating on March 31, 2019, authorizes an extension of up to two additional years; and WHEREAS, the City has been very satisfied with the audit and consulting services provided to date; and WHEREAS, Maze & Associates has offered cost savings to the City if the agreement is extended an additional three years instead of the two-year extension provided in the 2016 agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: The City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute a three-year extension of the Agreement with Maze & Associates Accountancy Corporation, to include performance of annual external auditing services for the City of Burlingame for fiscal years 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020- 21. 2 _____________________________ Mayor I, MEAGAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of May, 2019 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: _____________________________ City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8k MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 20, 2019 From: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk – (650) 558-7203 Subject: Adoption of a Proclamation Recognizing June as Immigrant Heritage Month RECOMMENDATION Mayor Colson recommends that the City Council adopt a proclamation recognizing June as Immigrant Heritage Month. BACKGROUND Mayor Colson recently received a request from FWD.us Northern California Director of Systems and Projects Jenny Barin asking if the City would issue an official proclamation declaring June 2019 Immigrant Heritage Month. Ms. Barin explained that “this summer marks the 5th annual Immigrant Heritage Month, which is a time to celebrate the many contributions immigrants make to American communities.” In the past few years, Governors and Mayors from 48 states, including then- Governor Brown, issued a proclamation for Immigrant Heritage Month. DISCUSSION Mayor Colson drafted the attached proclamation, which recognizes the City’s strong immigrant base and notes the City’s founder, Anson Burlingame, was a champion of open borders between nations. Mayor Colson recommends adopting the proclamation recognizing June as Immigrant Heritage Month. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact Exhibit: • Proclamation PROCLAMATION Recognizing June as Immigrant Heritage Month Whereas, since 2015, June has been recognized nationwide as “Immigrant Heritage Month” in order to celebrate the inextricable links between immigration and our country’s growth and development; and Whereas, generations of immigrants from each corner of the globe have built our country’s economy and created the unique character of our state and nation; and Whereas, immigrants continue to grow businesses, innovate, strengthen our economy, and create American jobs in Burlingame and the Bay Area generally; and Whereas, over 35% of residents of Silicon Valley are first generation immigrants; and Whereas, immigrants have provided the United States with unique social and cultural influence, fundamentally enriching the extraordinary character of our nation; and Whereas, each new wave of immigration over the last 240 years has had its detractors at the time, whether the wave was from Germany or Ireland or Greece or China or Latin America, and yet each wave of immigration has been absorbed by our great nation and contributed to making the whole greater than the sum of the parts; and Whereas, our City’s namesake, Anson Burlingame, was a champion of more open borders between nations as a way of building mutual respect, understanding, peace, and growth; and Whereas, despite these countless contributions over decades, the role of immigrants in building and enriching our nation is being criticized (again) by nationalists and isolationists, and therefore it is important to speak out for the values and contributions of immigrant. Now therefore I, Donna Colson, Mayor of the City of Burlingame in the State of California, hereby recognize June 2019 as Immigrant Heritage Month. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Burlingame to be affixed this, the 20th day of May, 2019. Donna Colson, Mayor 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8l MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 20, 2019 From: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204 Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance Prohibiting Retaliation for Smoking Complaints RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council consider the adoption of an ordinance amending Section 8.18.090 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to broaden prohibitions on retaliation for persons making complaints of illegal smoking. In order to do so, the Council should: A. By motion, adopt the proposed ordinance. B. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION Burlingame’s current smoking regulations, located in Chapter 8.18 of the Municipal Code, contain a prohibition on discrimination or retaliation by employers for making complaints regarding illegal smoking. Since that provision was enacted, the City Council has amended the Code to extend smoking prohibitions to multi-family housing and has increased the number of public locations where smoking is prohibited. Rental tenants, in particular, may be vulnerable to or afraid of retaliation in this tight rental market and may be reluctant to come forward with complaints. The proposed code amendment would prohibit retaliation and discrimination broadly, including in the housing context as well as in other circumstances where a manager or other person or entity in authority may retaliate for smoking complaints. The proposed amendment recognizes a carve-out for malicious prosecution and defamatory statements, in the rare circumstance where a complaint is made in bad faith in order to harass or defame another person. The Council introduced the ordinance and held a public hearing on it at the May 6, 2019 Council meeting. The ordinance is now back for adoption. FISCAL IMPACT There is no impact on the City General Fund. Exhibit: • Proposed Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. ____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING SECTION 8.18.090 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING COMPLAINTS OF ILLEGAL SMOKING WHEREAS, Chapter 8.18 of the Burlingame Municipal Code contains numerous regulations regarding smoking, enacted to preserve the public health and welfare; and WHEREAS, existing Section 8.18.090 is designed to protect current and prospective employees from discrimination or retaliation for making complaints of illegal smoking , by stating “[n]o person shall discharge, refuse to hire or in any manner discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because such employee or applicant exercises any rights afforded by this chapter;” and WHEREAS, the City has a complaint-based code enforcement program, which relies on the public to indicate areas needing enforcement; and WHEREAS, good faith attempts to protect oneself or other members of the public from the negative health effects of prohibited smoking should not be discouraged; and WHEREAS, Section 8.18.090 can be broadened to provide greater protections for those complaining of illegal smoking; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: DIVISION 1: Section 1: Burlingame Municipal Code Section 8.19.090 is amended as follows: Existing Section 8.18.090 is re-titled as follows: “8.18.090 Nondiscrimination and Prohibition on Retaliation.” The text of Section 8.18.090 is amended to add the following at the end of the existing statutory language: “Further, no landlord, property manager, homeowners’ association, business manager, or other person in authority shall discriminate or retaliate against any person for making a complaint to the person or entity in authority, the city’s code enforcement or police departments, or to the County Health Department, regarding alleged violations of this Chapter, unless such complaints have been determined by a competent court to be defamatory or malicious prosecution. Discrimination or retaliation against persons making complaints regarding alleged violations of this Chapter shall themselves be deemed a violation of the Municipal Code and shall be punishable and enforceable under its provisions.” DIVISION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Council 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 3: 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. _________________________________ Donna Colson, Mayor I, 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 6th day of May, 2019, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ______ day of ___________ 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: __________________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9a MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 20, 2019 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230 Subject: Public Hearing to Renew the Levy and Collection of Assessments for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project for Fiscal Year 2019-20 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions to renew the levy and collection of assessments for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvements Assessment District No. 2012-1 for fiscal year 2019-20: 1. Hold a Public Hearing; and 2. Adopt the attached resolution confirming the assessments and ordering the levy for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Assessment District No. 2012-1 for fiscal year 2019-20. BACKGROUND At its April 2, 2012 meeting, the City Council initiated the proceedings to form the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Assessment District No. 2012-1. The proceedings were conducted under the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (Act). Weighted ballots were sent via certified mail to the property owners on April 5, 2012. At the May 21, 2012 meeting, the City Council conducted a Public Hearing to tabulate ballots for the Assessment District. The results of the ballot showed no “majority protest”, thereby allowing the City Council to order improvements, form the Assessment District, and levy assessments totaling $335,787 annually for 30 years to the downtown Burlingame Avenue property owners. Property owners were given the option to pre-pay their assessments to avoid paying annually. Five property owners have exercised this option. DISCUSSION The Engineer’s Report is updated annually to reflect any changes that may have occurred to property configuration in the Assessment District. The Act requires an annual Public Hearing to confirm and levy the assessment. Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvements Assessments May 20, 2019 2 FISCAL IMPACT The total assessment for fiscal year 2019-20 is $310,156, which reflects pre-payments by property owners. There are no changes to the annual assessment from the last year. Funds collected through assessments will be used as part of the debt payment for Burlingame Avenue Streetscape bonds. Exhibits: • Resolution • Engineer’s Report for FY 2019-20 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING THE LEVY FOR THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 2012-1 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019-20 The City Council (the “Council”) of the City of Burlingame (the “City”) resolves as follows: WHEREAS, the Council previously completed its proceedings in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 22500) (the “Act”) to establish the City’s Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project (the “Assessment District”); and WHEREAS, the City has, by previous resolution, declared its intention to hold a Public Hearing concerning the levy and collection of assessments within the Assessment District; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing has been held and concluded and notice thereof was given in accordance with Section 22626 of the Act; and WHEREAS, at the time and place specified in the Resolution of Intention the City conducted such hearing and considered all objections to the assessment. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED BY THE COUNCIL, AS FOLLOWS: 1. Confirmation of Assessment and Diagram: The Council confirms the assessment and the diagram as is described in full detail in the Annual Report on file with the Clerk. 2. Levy of Assessment: Pursuant to Section 22631 of the Act, the adoption of this resolution shall constitute the levy of an assessment for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2020. 3. Ordering of the Levy: The Council orders City staff to prepare and submit the levy of assessments to San Mateo County for placement on the fiscal year 2019-20 secured property tax roll, including executing any necessary and appropriate documents on behalf of the City to accomplish the levy and collection of assessments. Donna Colson, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of May, 2019 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk City of Burlingame Assessment District No. 2012-1, Dow ntow n Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project Engineer’s Report City of Burlingame Fiscal Year 2019/20 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMM ARY 1-1 2. INTRODUCTION 2-1 2.1. Background of District ................................................................................... 2-1 2.2. Reason for the Assessment..........................................................................2-1 2.3. Establishment of the Assessment .................................................................2-1 3. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 3-1 3.1. Description of the Boundaries of the District ................................................. 3-1 3.2. Description of the District Improvement Project ............................................ 3-1 3.3. Map of District Improvement Project ............................................................. 3-1 4. ESTIM ATE OF COSTS 4-1 4.1. District Improvement Project Costs .............................................................. 4-1 5. SPECI AL AND GENER AL BENEFIT 5-1 5.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................5-1 5.2. Identif ication of Benefit .................................................................................. 5-1 5.3. Separation of General Benefit ......................................................................5-3 5.4. Quantif ication of General Benefit ..................................................................5-4 5.5. Apportioning of Special Benefit.....................................................................5-5 6. METHOD ASSESSMENT 6-1 6.1. Assessment Budget ....................................................................................... 6-1 6.2. Method of Assessment Spread.....................................................................6-2 6.3. District Improvement Project Debt Financing................................................. 6-2 6.4. Assessment Prepayment Formula ................................................................. 6-3 7. ASSESSMENT DIAGR AM 7-1 8. ASSESSMENT ROLL 8-1 Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 3-1 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY T he City Council of the City of Burlingame (“City Council”), pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (“1972 Act”), previously form ed the assessm ent district k nown and designated as “Assessment District No. 2012-1, Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvem ent Project”, (hereafter referred to as the “District”). T he City Council has initiated proceedings directing the preparation and filing of a report for Fiscal Year 2019/20 presenting the improvem ents, an estim ated cost, including debt financing, of the improvem ents, annual administrative costs, and a diagram showing the area and properties to be assessed. T he following assessm ent is authorized in order to pay the estim ated costs, including debt financing of the improvements and annual administrative costs to be paid by the assessable real property within the boundaries of the District in proportion to the special benefit received. The following table summarizes the assessm ent: Description Amount District Im provem ent Project Costs $11,227,015 Less: Allocation to General Benefit(1) (3,238,994) Subtotal: Allocation to Special Benefit $7,988,021 Less: Sewer and W ater Enterprise Fund Contribution(2) ($922,000) Less: T LC Grant (301,000) Less: Additional Contribution from Park ing Enterprise Fund (782,432) Less: Additional City Contribution (20,195) T otal Amount to be Specially Assessed $5,962,394 T otal Amount Pre-Paid During 30 Day Collection Period $341,582 Annual Assessable Budget: Average Annual Debt Service Pa ym ent(3) $310,156 T otal Annual Assessable Budget $310,156 (1)See Section 5.4. (2)Contemporaneously with the District Improvement Project, the City, using sewer and water enterprise funds, replaced the sewer and water lines under Burlingame Avenue (the overall total cost for all projects is $15,443,660). A portion of the money for that project was allocated for patching the streets and sidewalks. Since the District Improvement Project eliminates the need for patching, the $922,000 is being contributed to the District Improvement Project. (3)See Section 6.3. This annual report represents no changes to the Fiscal Year 2018/19 annual report. ____________________________ Art Morimoto Assistant Public Works Director City of Burlingame Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 4-1 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1. Background of District The City of Burlingam e (“Cit y”) has com pleted, in coordination with planned utility im provem ents, the Downtown Burlingam e Avenue Streetscape Im provem ent Project (“District Im provem ent Project”). The District Im provem ent Project provided an opportunit y for comm unity stak eholders to plan and im plem ent streetscaping and sidewalk im provem ents that com plem ent the evolving vision and needs of the Burlingam e Avenue property owners, m erchants and comm unity. The District Im provem ent Project im proves the public infrastructure that fronts propert y along Burlingam e Avenue (and portions of certain side streets at intersections with Burlingam e Avenue) between El Cam ino Real and California Drive. Further, the District Im provem ent Project enhances the overall experience of m erchants and visitors by creating a m em orable Burlingam e Avenue for shopping, dining, and strolling. 2.2. Reason for the Assessment T he assessm ent covered by this Engineer’s Report will generate the assessment revenue necessary to provide for a portion of the public im provem ents provided b y the District Im provem ent Project and further described in Section 3.2 of this Engineer’s Report. The District im provem ents m ay include but are not lim ited to, all of the following: streetscape im provem ents, sidewalk im provem ents, District financing costs, and adm inistrative costs as sociated with the ongoing annual adm inistration of the District. 2.3. Establishment of the Assessment The Cit y form ed the Distric t and established assessments b y com plying with the procedures specified in Article XIIID and the Proposition 218 Om nibus Im plem entation Act (“Proposition 218”). In Novem ber 1996, the voters in the State of California added Article XIIID to the California Constitution im posing, am ong other requirem ents, the necessity for the Cit y to conduct an assessm ent ballot procedure to enable the owners of each propert y on which assessm ents are proposed to be enacted, the opportunity to express their support for, or opposition to the proposed assessm ent. The basic steps of the assessm ent ballot procedure are outlined below. The City prepared a Notic e of Public Hearing (“Notice”), which describes, along with other m andated inform ation, the reason for the proposed assessm ents and provided a date, tim e, and location of a public hearing to be held on the matter. The City prepared an assessm ent ballot, which clearl y gave the propert y owner the abilit y to sign and execute their assessm ent ballot either in favor of, or in opposition to, the assessm ent. T he Notice and assessm ent ballots were m ailed to each affected property owner within the District a m inim um of 45 days prior to the public hearing date as shown in the Notice. The City held comm unity m eetings with the propert y owners to dis cuss the issues f acing the District and to answer propert y owner questions directl y. After the Notice and asses sm ent ballots were m ailed, propert y owners were given until the close of the public hearing, as stated in the Notice, to return their signed and executed assessm ent ballot. During the public hearing, propert y owners were given the opportunit y to address the Cit y Council and ask questions or voice their concerns. After the public hearing, the returned assessm ent ballots received prior to the close of the public hearing were tabulated, weighted b y the proposed assessm ent am ount on each propert y and the results were announced b y the City Council. Article XIIID provides that if, as a result of the assessment ballot proceeding, a m ajority protest is found to exist, the City Council shall not have the authorit y to enact the assessm ents as proposed. A majority protest Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 2-2 exists if the assessm ents represented b y ballots subm itted in opposition exceed those subm itted in favor of the assessm ent. All returned ballots were tabulated and weighted according to the financial obligation of each particular parcel. T here wasn’t a m ajority protest as described above and the Cit y Council approved the District form ation and assessm ents. T he City Council will annuall y declare its intention to levy and collect the assessm ents within the District and hold a public hearing concerning such lev y of assessm ents. At such tim e all interested persons shall be afforded the opportunity to hear and be heard. Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 3-1 3. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS The District provides for various Burlingam e Avenue streetscape and sidewalk improvem ents located within the public right-of-wa y and dedicated easem ents within the boundaries of the District. 3.1. Description of the Boundaries of the District The boundaries of the District include properties located along Burlingam e Avenue within the Cit y. The District runs along Burlingam e Avenue and is bounded on the east b y California Drive and on the west b y El Cam ino Real. T he City will not provide public im provem ents from the District Im provem ent Project to any area located outside of the District boundaries. Section 7 of this Engineer’s Report provides an assessm ent diagram that m ore fully provides a description of the District’s boundaries and the parcels within thos e boundaries. 3.2. Description of the District Improvement Project The District Im provem ent Project includes streetscape item s such as sidewalk, street and pedestrian lighting, trees and landscaping, seating, signage, k iosks, gatewa y treatm ents, site furnishings, and other park ing im provem ents, appurtenant facilities, and soft costs. The District Im provem ent Project provides for public im provem ents to be distributed throughout the entire District, and as such, are of direct and specia l benefit to the parcels within the District. The District Im provem ent Project consists of a classic design style with touches of traditional and contem porary design. This desired design style creates a structured, tim eless design with patter ned, elegant m aterials consistent throughout the Burlingam e Avenue area. Not only does the District Im provem ent Project provide necessary street im provem ents, but it allows for an increase in pedestrian space along Burlingam e Avenue. To allow for this additional pedestrian space, parallel park ing replaced the existing angled park ing. The change from angled parking to parallel parking will allow for an expanded 16 foot width of sidewalk area on both sides of Burlingam e Avenue. This additional sidewalk area can provide sufficient space for seating, art features, landscaping, and lighting. Burlingam e Avenue will be m aintained with two-wa y traffic and 10 foot wide travel lanes. The parallel park ing stalls, with a park ing assist zone, will have a width of nine feet. The park ing assist zone allows for car door openings and lim ited bik e through lanes along Burlingam e Avenue. At the intersection corners along Burlingam e Avenue bulb-outs are proposed to allow for additional pedestrian areas. In addition to providing an enhanced pedestrian area, the corner intersection bulb-outs will reduce pedestrian crossing distances. As an additional safety feature, the crosswalk s will be of a different construction m aterial than the street surface to provide a warning for traffic to slow down. The District Im provem ent Project includes asphalt paving in the roadwa y and colored concrete for the park ing and park ing assist zones. The sidewalk s, corner intersection bulb-outs and cross walk s will be constructed of concrete pavers. Trees, street lights with lim ited features, and other public furnishings are also included throughout the District. 3.3. Map of District Improvement Project The following m ap provides the approxim ate location (for reference only – m ay not include all) of the im provem ents provided b y the District Im provem ent Project throughout the District. Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 4-1 4. ESTIMATE OF COSTS The estim ated cost of the District Im provem ent Project as m ore fully described in Section 3 of this Engineer’s Report is outlined below. 4.1. District Improvement Project Costs T he following table provides the costs for the District Im provem ent Project. Refer to Section 6 for m ore detail on the financing plan and the annual assessm ent budget. Description Amount District Improvement Project Costs Construction $9,709,355 Construction Managem ent 825,660 Construction Engineering 332,000 Engineering Adm inistration 360,000 T otal District Improvement Project Costs $11,227,015 Contem poraneousl y with the District Im provem ent Project, the City, using sewer and water enterprise funds, replaced the sewer and water lines under Burlingam e Avenue (the overall total cost for all projects was $15,443,660). B y c om pleting the District Im provem ent Project in coordination with the utility im provem ents, it saved significant project costs and m inim ize the construction im pacts to property and businesses along Burlingam e Avenue. A portion of the planned utility im provem ent budget, $922,000, was allocated for patching the streets and sidewalk s. Since the District Im provem ent Project elim inates that need for patching, the $922,000 is being contributed to the streetscape project from the sewer and water enterprise funds and thus will not be specially assessed. Thus, overall, the District Im provem ent Project was funded by state gas tax, Measure A funds, grant funds, sewer and water enterprise funds, the parking enterprise fund, and revenues from District special assessm ents. Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 5-1 5. SPECIAL AND GENERAL BENEFIT 5.1. Introduction Pursuant to Article XIIID, all parcels that receive a special benefit conferred upon them as a result of the im provem ents shall be identified, and the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determ ined in relationship to the entire costs of the im provem ents. Division 12 of the Streets and Highwa ys Code, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, perm its the establishm ent of assessm ent districts b y local agencies for the purpose of providing certain public im provem ents necessary or convenient for providing certain public services. Section 22573 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 requires that assessm ents m ust be levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. This Section states: "The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements." Article XIIID, Section 4(a) of the California Constitution lim its the am ount of any assessm ent to the proportional special benefit conferred on the property. Article XIIID also provides that publicly owned properties m ust be assessed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties receive no spec ial benefit from the assessm ent. Exam ples of parcels exem pted from the assessm ent would be the areas of public streets, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, public easem ents and rights-of-wa ys, public greenbelts, and public park ways. Furtherm ore, Proposition 218 requires that the Cit y separate the general benefit from special benefit, so onl y spec ial benefit m ay be assessed. 5.2. Identification of Benefit The District Im provem ent Project will provide benefits to both those properties within the District boundaries and to the comm unity as a whole. The benefit conferred to propert y within the District can be grouped into three prim ary benefit categories; aesthetic benefit, safety benefit, and econom ic activity benefit. The three District benefit categories are further expanded upon in each section below. Aesthetic Benefit The aesthetic benefit relates to the increase in the overall aesthetics as a result of the District Im provem ent Project. T he District Im provem ent Project will provide public street and sidewalk infrastructure beautification throughout the District, that will enhance the overall im age and desirabilit y of the properties within the District. Burlingam e Avenue streetscape im provem ents within the District were last com pleted back in the early 1960s. Since that tim e, the public facilities have deteriorated. The following aesthetic benefits will be provided as a result of the District Im provem ent Project:  The District Im provem ent Project enhances the comm unity identit y of the Burlingam e Avenue area, which will lead to a stronger and healthier street corridor. The im age of the Burlingam e Avenue area will be increased b y correcting the visual clutter such as trash containers and news racks that currently encroach on the pedestrian area.  Uniform and up to date streetscape and sidewalk im provem ents creates cohesion throughout the District from El Cam ino Real to California Drive. This District cohesion enhances the retail experience as well as encourage m axim um use of space. Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 5-2  Upgraded streetscaping and sidewalk am enities provided by the District Im provem ent Project enhances the appearanc e, des irabilit y, and “livability” of the property directly fronting the im provem ents provided throughout the District. As a result of the District Im provem ent Project, the overall “livability” of the District increases. “Livability” encom passes several qualities and characteristics that are unique to a specific area. The Victoria Transport Polic y Institute (www.vtpi.org) expands on the concept of “livability” and the various benefits associated with that designation: “The livability of an area increases property des irability and business activity. Livability is largely affected by conditions in the public realm, places where people naturally interact with each other and their community, including streets, parks, transportation terminals and other public facilities. Livability also refers to the environmental and social quality of an area as perceived by employees, customers and visitors. This includes local environmental conditions, the quality of social interactions, opportunities for recreation and entertainment, aesthetics, and existence of unique cultural and environmental resources.” Safety Benefit The District Im provem ent Project provides an increased level of safety to the property, businesses, and visitors to the District. Additionally, the District Im provem ent Project help m itigate potential crim inal activit y throughout the District area. The f ollowing safety benefits are provided as a result of the District Im provem ent Project:  The District Im provem ent Project repaired uneven and deteriorating sidewalks within the District. Im provem ents to the existing sidewalk infrastructure will reduce the num ber of future trip and fall occurrences potentially occurring in front of District property.  The District Im provem ent Project provides better lighting throughout the Burlingam e Avenue area. The im proved lighting ensures that sidewalk s, streets, and propert y fronts are m ore visible. This increased level of visibilit y reduces the opportunities for vandalism to propert y within the District.  W ider sidewalk s provide additional space between vehicle and propert y as well as vehicle and pedestrian, which provides a safety benefit for both property and pedestrian.  Traffic calm ing im provem ents can reduce autom obile traffic and speeds, which in turn, increases the safety for vehicular passengers, pedestrians, and other non-m otorized travels. The streetscaping strategies utilized in the developm ent of the District Im provem ent Project provide num erous safety benefits to propert y and people throughout the District. Again, the Victoria Transport Polic y Institute (www.vtpi.org) notes the safet y benefit attributable to streetscaping im provem ents: “Several studies indicate that common streetscaping strategies, such as landscaping and narrowing traffic lanes, tend to increase traffic safety. Streetscaping that reduces traffic speeds and improves pedestrian crossing conditions can significantly reduce collisions. Research by the U.S. Highway Safety Research System concludes that road diets (arterial street traffic calming) typically reduce crash rates by 47% on major highways through small urban areas, by 19% on corridors in larger city suburban areas, and 29% overall.” Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 5-3 Econom ic Activit y Benefit The econom ic activit y benefit relates to the increase in the District’s econom ic activit y and further potential as a result of the District Im provem ent Project. The econom ic activity for property within the District can best be described as the abilit y for the propert y within the District to develop and operate at the property’s highest and best use. Properties within the District receive the following econom ic activit y benefits as a result of the District Im provem ent Project:  The District Im provem ent Project revitalizes the Burlingam e Avenue area. This revitalization will encourage new business developm ent and existing business expansion which will reduce vacanc y rates and increase lease rates for propert y within the District.  The streetscaping im provem ents encourages an increase in comm erce throughout the District. The Burlingam e Avenue area will becom e m ore pedestrian friendly, thus im proving custom er activit y for stores and restaurants. The streetscaping im provem ents not onl y add econom ic value to property adjacent to the im provem ents, but the im provem ents m ake the propert y appear more stable and prosperous. The National Com plete Streets Coalition (www.com pletestreets.org) notes that: “Street design that is inc lus ive of all modes of transportation, where appropriate, not only improves conditions for existing businesses, but also is a proven method for revitalizing an area and attracting new development. W ashington, DC’s Barracks Row was experiencing a steady decline of commercial activity due to uninviting sidewalks, lack of streetlights, and speeding traffic. After many design improvements, which included new patterned sidewalks, more efficient public parking, and new traffic signals, Barrack ’s Row attracted 44 new businesses and 200 new jobs. Economic activity on this three-quarter mile strip (measured by sales, employees, and number of pedestrians) has more than tripled since the inception of the project.” 5.3. Separation of General Benefit Section 4 of Artic le XIIID of the California Constitution provides that once a local agency which proposes to im pose assessm ents on propert y has identified those parcels that will have special benefits conferred upon them and upon which an assessm ent will be im posed, the local agenc y m ust next “separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred,” and onl y the special benefits can be included in the am ount of the assessm ents im posed. General benefit is an overall and sim ilar benefit to the public at large resulting from the im provem ents to be provided b y the assessm ents levied. T he District im provem ents, which are m ore fully presented in Section 3.2 of this Engineer’s Report, will be constructed and provided within the District boundaries only. There will be no im provem ents from the District Im provem ent Project constructed outside of the District boundaries. The District Im provem ent Project provide aesthetic, safety, and econom ic benefits to the propert y within the District, but it is recognized that the District Im provem ent Project also provides a level of benefit to some propert y and bus inesses within proxim ity to the District, as well as visitors and individuals passing through the District. Vehicular and pedestrian traffic from propert y within and outside of the District as well as individual passing through the downtown Burlingam e Avenue area are able to utilize the im provem ents to not onl y access property and businesses located within a close proxim ity to the District, but also roadwa ys located outside of the District. Therefore, the general benefit created as a result of the District Im provem ent Project has been considered. Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 5-4 5.4. Quantification of General Benefit In order for propert y within the District to be assessed onl y for that portion of special benefit received from the District Im provem ent Project, the general benefit provided b y the District Im provem ent Project needs to be quantified. T he am ount of general benefit provided from the District Im provem ent Project can not be assessed to the benefitting properties within the District. To quantif y the general benefit provided to the variet y of traffic that pass es through the District for the general benefit of enjoying the surrounding atm osphere, observing the level of econom ic activit y, or accessing adjacent property or arterial streets in a m ore efficient and safe m anner, both vehicular and pedestrian traffic flows have been incorporated in the quantification of general benefit. Vehicular Traffic Activity Access to the Burlingam e Avenue comm ercial core area is provided b y m ajor north-south arterials. Those m ajor arterials are El Cam ino Real to the west of the District and California Drive to the east of the District. Collector streets feed traffic to these and other arterials throughout the City. As such, Burlingam e Avenue is considered a collector street within the City. In 2010, the Cit y adopted the Burlingam e Downtown Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”). The Specific Plan included a Traffic Im pact Analysis Technical Mem orandum (“T raffic Analysis”) prepared by W ilbur Sm ith Associates. This Traffic Anal ysis evaluated existing traffic conditions at various points throughout the project area. One point evaluated by the consultants was existing travel conditions at the intersection of Burlingam e Avenue and Park Road. The Traffic Analysis evaluated, am ong other characteristics, traffic counts, turning m ovem ent data, vehicle dela y, and level of service for each intersection. Existing conditions for the project area intersections, including the Burlingam e Avenue intersection, were evaluated during a week day, evening peak hour tim efram e. There were 664 observed traffic counts at the intersection of Burlingam e Avenue and Park Road. Park Road term inates at Burlingam e Avenue requiring traffic to either turn left or right onto Burlingam e Avenue. In addition to the Traffic Analysis, inform ation related to vehicle trips by purpose was used from the Summ ary of Travel Trends 2009 National Household Travel Survey (“2009 NHTS”) sponsored by the U.S. Departm ent of Transportation Federal Highwa y Adm inistration. Of the observed 2,171 vehicle trips in the 2009 NHTS survey, 643 trips represented social, recreational and other travel purposes; the rem aining 1,425 vehicle trips represented work , shopping and other errands. Appl ying this vehicle trip break down to the observed traffic counts at the intersection of Burlingam e Avenue and Park Road, 207 of the traffic counts represent social, recreational, and other travel purposes not directly related to District activities but m ore lik ely utilizing Burlingam e Avenue as a collector street to feed to one of the adjacent arterial streets. This non-District related traffic count represents approxim ately 31.20% of the total observed traffic counts and is considered to be general benefit from the District Im provem ent Project. Pedestrian Traffic Activity As result of the sidewalk im provem ents and beautification provided b y the District Im provem ent Project, there is a level of benefit to those pedestrians not involved with an y of the shopping, dining, or other comm erce activities provided b y the District properties. People walk for a variety of reasons; work , errands, shopping, recreation, health, and m any others. Further, pedestrians will seek out and utilize sidewalk facilities that provide a safe place to walk as well as an environm ent that provides a certain am ount of visual interest. Again, the 2009 NHTS analyzed the annual num ber of walking trips and the purpose of the walk ing trips m ade by individuals surve yed. Of the annual total 40,962 (in m illions) walk ing trips, 30,129 of those walk ing trips were for travel, work , shopping, errands, business obligations, and m eals; the rem aining 10,833 walk ing trips were for social, recreational, and other purposes. The social, recreational, and other purpose walk ing trips represented 26.5% of the total walk ing trips reported. Therefore, to account for that portion of the Burlingam e Avenue pedestrian activit y utilizing the im provem ents provided b y the District Im provem ent Project for non-District related activities, 26.50% of pedestrian traffic activit y is considered to be of general benefit. Since the District Im provem ent Project provides a blend of both vehicular and pedestrian activit y the two categories m ust be addressed in a collective form rather than independently. Therefore, to appropriately quantify the overall level of general benefit provided b y the District Im provem ent Project the arithmetic m ean Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 5-5 of the general benefit percentages from the vehicular traffic activit y and the pedestrian traffic activit y has been calculated. T his general benefit result is provided in the table below. Description Percentage General Benefit 28.85% Accordingl y, 71.15% of the benefits from the District Improvem ent Project are considered to provide special benefits to the properties within the District and thus could be subject to assessm ent therein. 5.5. Apportioning of Special Benefit As outlined above, each of the parcels within the District is deem ed to receive special benefit from the District Im provem ent Project. Each parcel that has a special benefit conferred upon it as a result of the District Im provem ent Project is identified and the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel is determ ined in relationship to the entire cost of the District Im provem ent Project. Benefit Point Assignment Aesthetic Benefit Points Aesthetic benefit points are assigned based upon not only the propert y’s location to the District Im provem ent Project, but also the propert y’s zoning designation. All District parcels are located within the Burlingam e Avenue Commercial District, which has a comm ercial zoning designation. Additionally, since the District Im provem ent Project is provided uniform ly throughout the District all properties within the District are within the sam e proxim ity to the location of the infrastructure provided by the District Im provem ent Project. Therefore, the aes thetic benefit to each parcel in the District is deem ed to be the sam e. Each propert y within the District is assigned one (1.00) benefit point for the aesthetic benefits received from the District Im provem ent Project. Safety Benefit Points T he safety benefit points are assigned based upon not onl y the property’s location to the District Im provem ent Project, but also the property’s zoning designation. All District parcels are located within the Burlingam e Avenue Commercial District, which has a comm ercial zoning designation. Additionally, since the District Im provem ent Project is provided uniform ly throughout the District all properties within the District are within the sam e proxim ity to the location of the infrastructure provided by the District Im provem ent Project. T herefore, the safety benefit to each parcel in the District is deem ed to be the sam e. Each propert y within the District is assigned one (1.00) benefit point for the safety benefits received from the District Im provem ent Project. Econom ic Activit y Benefit Points The econom ic activity benefit points are assigned based upon not onl y the property’s location to the District Im provem ent Project, but also the property’s zoning designation. All District parcels are located within the Burlingam e Avenue Commercial District, which has a comm ercial zoning designation. Additionally, since the District Im provem ent Project is provided uniform ly throughout the District all properties within the District are within the sam e proxim ity to the location of the infrastructure provided by the District Im provem ent Project. Therefore, the econom ic activit y benefit to each parcel in the District is deem ed to be the sam e. The Burlingam e Avenue Commercial District is already a well-established comm ercial district with a strong econom ic activity presence. The Burlingam e Avenue area features a m ixture of restaurants, national retail stores, and m any locall y based retailers. Mark eting and prom otional efforts to increase the econom ic presence of an expanded area that includes the District boundaries is currently being funded b y the Burlingam e Avenue Downtown Business Im provem ent District (“DBID”). In an effort to increase the econom ic presence, business owners within the DBID pay an annual assessm ent to fund various activities that aid in the prom otion, advertising and im age building of the businesses within the DBID boundaries. Existing m ark eting and prom otional activities throughout the District area have resulted in higher tenant lease rates. According to Loopnet.com on March 23, 2012, the average lease rate along Burlingam e Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 5-6 Avenue was approx im ately 45% higher than the average lease rate along the City’s Broadwa y Avenue, another comm ercial area. Retail sales are also strong within the District, according to Cit y Econom ic Developm ent data, with s ales per square foot generall y ranging from $300 to $800+ per square foot. Further, there were a few new buildings constructed in the downtown around the tim e of form ation of the District and several m ajor rem odels of existing buildings to accomm odate new retail uses generall y lim ited to tenant im provem ents. Given this alread y existing strong econom ic activity presence throughout the District, as well as the potential for propert y to further develop and enhance their econom ic presence, each propert y within the District is assigned one-half (0.50) benefit point for the econom ic activit y benefits received from the District Im provem ent Project. The following table provides a summ ary of the special benefit points assigned to each parcel within the District. Parcel L and Use Classification Aesthetic Benefit Point Assignment Safety Benefit Point Assignment Economic Activity Benefit Point Assignment All District Parcels 1.00 1.00 0.50 Parcel Factors T he m ethod of apportioning the benefit to the parcels within the District reflects the proportional special benefit assigned to each propert y from the District Im provem ent Project based upon the various propert y characteristics for each parcel as com pared to other properties within the District. As part of the special benefit analys is, various propert y characteristics were analyzed including parcel size, street frontage, building size, land use, trip generation etc. Given that the special benefits provided b y the District Im provem ent Project focuses on aesthetic benefit, safety benefit, and econom ic activity benefits it was determ ined that linear frontage and lot s quare footage are the m ost appropriate parcel factors. Each parcel’s linear frontage and lot square footage have been used as the prim ary assessm ent variables for the calculation and assignm ent of parcel factors. By adjusting the assigned s pecial benefit points set forth above b y parcel factors, a m ore com plete picture of the proportional special benefits received b y each parcel from the District Im provem ent Project is presented. T herefore, linear and lot parcel factors were calculated for each parcel in the District according to the form ulas below: Linear Factor Pursuant to Section 25.32.050 of the City’s Zoning Code for the Burlingam e Avenue Comm ercial District, each lot shall have a street frontage of at least 50 feet. Utilizing the prescribed street frontage as set forth in the City’s Zoning code, a linear factor is calculated for each parcel based upon the assigned linear frontage for the parcel divided b y 50.00: Linear Factor = Parcel’s Assigned Linear Street Frontage / 50.00 There are several parcels located at street intersections within the District. The District Im provem ent Project partiall y extends along the side streets at these intersections with Burlingam e Avenue. To account for the partial extension of the District Im provem ent Project at each street intersec tion, the side street linear frontage of the im provem ent has been added to eac h corner parcel to account for this increased linear frontage adjacent to the District Im provem ent Project. Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 5-7 Lot Factor Pursuant to Section 25.32.050 of the City’s Zoning Code for the Burlingam e Avenue Comm ercial District, each lot shall have an area of at least 5,000 square feet. Utilizing the prescribed lot square footage as set forth in the City’s Zoning code, a lot factor is calculated for each parcel based upon the assigned lot square footage for the parcel divided b y 5,000: Lot Factor = Parcel’s Assigned Lot Square Footage / 5,000 Total Special Benefit Point Calculation Parcel’s T otal Special Benefit Points = Parcel’s Total Aesthetics Points + Parcel’s Total Safety Points + Parcel’s Total Economic Activit y Points Parcel’s T otal Aesthetic Points The District Im provem ent Project, as well as the store and property fronts that are adjacent to those linear im provem ents provide an enhanced level of interest and “curb appeal” that add to the overall experience along Burlingam e Avenue. Since the im provem ents and furnishings are uniform throughout the District, the “curb appeal” is consis tent for the front of each parcel located within the District. Additionall y, the uniform landscaping aids in softening the surrounding edges of each parcel’s front exposure to the District Im provem ent Project b y adding life, color, and texture to the property’s appearance, and overall pedestrian experience. Given the linear nature of the aesthetic benefits provided by the District Im provem ent Project, the aesthetic benefit that each propert y receives is also perceived on a linear basis. To appropriately quantif y and assign the aesthetic benefit received b y each parcel within the District, the aesthetic benefit point is further adjusted according to the form ula below: Parcel’s Total Aesthetic Points = Aesthetic Benefit Points Assigned x Linear Factor Parcel’s T otal Safety Points The District Im provem ent Project provides enhanced lines of travel and sight along Burlingam e Avenue, which increases the level of safety by m itigating potential accidents and crim e by having the additional exposure to property and tr affic. The lighting im provem ents also increase the visual sight line b y providing additional exposure to property fronts, espec iall y during the evening hours. This additional exposure reduces the potential for crim e and vandalism to the front of propert y throughout the District. Further, the sidewalk and park ing zone along Burlingam e Avenue provides a buffer for traffic and the property frontage. Again, given the linear nature of the safet y benefits provided by the District Im provem ent Project, the safet y benefit that each propert y receives is also perceived on a linear basis. To appropriately quantif y and assign the safety benefit received by each parcel within the District, the safet y benefit point is further adjusted according to the form ula below: Parcel’s Total Safety Points = Safety Benefit Points Assigned x Linear Factor Parcel’s T otal Econom ic Activit y Points The District Im provem ent Project creates a m ore pedestrian friendly and inviting Burlingam e Avenue environm ent that supports and encourages additional comm erce activity throughout the District. The im provem ents allow parcels within the District to develop and redevelop to their highest and best use in accordance with City zoning and developm ent regulations. However, the one lim iting propert y characteristic that constrains a parcel from developing to the highest and best use is the size of the parcel itself. T he size of a parcel lim its the am ount of developm ent and redevelopm ent that m ay occur on the footprint of the parcel. Lar ger parcels allow for greater area to develop and redevelop than do sm aller Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 5-8 parcels, which corresponds to larger parcels receiving proportionally greater econom ic activity benefit when com pared to sm aller parcels within the District. Therefore, the econom ic activit y benefit for parcels in the District is in direct proportion to the size of the parcel. Since the econom ic activity benefits are in direct relation to the size of a parcel, then the econom ic activit y benefits provided by the District Im provem ent Project is also perceived on a parcel size basis. To appropriately quantif y and assign the econom ic activity benefit received by each parcel within the District, the econom ic activit y benefit point is further adjusted according to the form ula below: Parcel’s T otal Econom ic Activit y Points = Econom ic Activity Benefit Points Assigned x Lot Factor Data Considerations and Parcel Changes The use of the latest San Mateo Count y Assessor’s Secured Roll inform ation served as the basis in determ ining each parcel’s linear frontage and lot square footage, unless better data was available to the Cit y. In addition, if any parcel within the District is identified by the San Mateo Count y Auditor/Controller to be an invalid parcel num ber, the linear frontage and lot square footage of the subsequent valid parcel shall be the basis for assigning the future total special benefit points. If a single parcel subdivides into m ultiple parcels, the total special benefit points shall be apportioned based on the linear frontage and lot square footage of the newl y created parcels. Total Special Benefit Points The total special benefit points assigned to the parcels at form ation of the District were 183.28. The following table provides a break down of the total special benefit point assignm ent for each parcel in the District: Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – City of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 5-9 Assessor’s Parcel Number ID Aesthetic Benefit Points Safety Benefit Points Economic Activit y Benefit Points Linear Frontage Linear Factor Lot Square Footage Lot Factor Total Aesthetic Benefit Points Total Safety Benefit Points Total Economic Activit y Benefit Points Total Special Benefit Points 029-122-190 1* 1.00 1.00 0.50 70.00 1.40 2,123 0.42 1.40 1.40 0.21 3.01 029-122-220 2 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.50 1.01 10,776 2.16 1.01 1.01 1.08 3.10 029-122-230 3 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 10,286 2.06 1.00 1.00 1.03 3.03 029-122-240 4 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 9,791 1.96 1.00 1.00 0.98 2.98 029-122-250 5 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 9,971 1.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 029-122-260 6 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.10 1.00 6,195 1.24 1.00 1.00 0.62 2.62 029-122-270 7 1.00 1.00 0.50 49.90 1.00 13,897 2.78 1.00 1.00 1.39 3.39 029-122-280 8 1.00 1.00 0.50 55.00 1.10 10,879 2.18 1.10 1.10 1.09 3.29 029-122-330 9 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 6,829 1.37 1.00 1.00 0.69 2.69 029-122-360 10 1.00 1.00 0.50 116.00 2.32 16,786 3.36 2.32 2.32 1.68 6.32 029-122-999 11 1.00 1.00 0.50 147.00 2.94 28,296 5.66 2.94 2.94 2.83 8.71 029-152-110 12 1.00 1.00 0.50 80.00 1.60 5,748 1.15 1.60 1.60 0.58 3.78 029-152-120 13 1.00 1.00 0.50 25.00 0.50 2,853 0.57 0.50 0.50 0.29 1.29 029-152-160 14 1.00 1.00 0.50 60.00 1.20 9,596 1.92 1.20 1.20 0.96 3.36 029-152-190 15* 1.00 1.00 0.50 65.00 1.30 8,134 1.63 1.30 1.30 0.82 3.42 029-152-200 16 1.00 1.00 0.50 65.82 1.32 8,237 1.65 1.32 1.32 0.83 3.47 029-152-210 17 1.00 1.00 0.50 60.00 1.20 7,200 1.44 1.20 1.20 0.72 3.12 029-152-220 18 1.00 1.00 0.50 41.57 0.83 4,988 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.50 2.16 029-152-230 19 1.00 1.00 0.50 65.00 1.30 6,000 1.20 1.30 1.30 0.60 3.20 029-152-270 20 1.00 1.00 0.50 60.00 1.20 7,508 1.50 1.20 1.20 0.75 3.15 029-152-310 21* 1.00 1.00 0.50 60.00 1.20 8,322 1.66 1.20 1.20 0.83 3.23 029-152-320 22 1.00 1.00 0.50 104.58 2.09 27,590 5.52 2.09 2.09 2.76 6.94 029-152-330 23 1.00 1.00 0.50 75.00 1.50 8,572 1.71 1.50 1.50 0.86 3.86 029-153-090 24 1.00 1.00 0.50 91.50 1.83 3,726 0.75 1.83 1.83 0.38 4.04 029-153-120 25 1.00 1.00 0.50 88.33 1.77 3,781 0.76 1.77 1.77 0.38 3.92 029-153-150 26 1.00 1.00 0.50 95.50 1.91 10,347 2.07 1.91 1.91 1.04 4.86 029-201-030 27 1.00 1.00 0.50 40.00 0.80 5,000 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.50 2.10 029-201-040 28 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 6,250 1.25 1.00 1.00 0.63 2.63 029-201-060 29 1.00 1.00 0.50 108.08 2.16 14,823 2.96 2.16 2.16 1.48 5.80 029-201-070 30* 1.00 1.00 0.50 54.00 1.08 9,069 1.81 1.08 1.08 0.91 3.07 029-201-080 31 1.00 1.00 0.50 54.08 1.08 9,643 1.93 1.08 1.08 0.97 3.13 029-201-100 32 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 3,750 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.38 2.38 029-201-110 33 1.00 1.00 0.50 86.00 1.72 3,750 0.75 1.72 1.72 0.38 3.82 029-201-320 34 1.00 1.00 0.50 159.39 3.19 13,316 2.66 3.19 3.19 1.33 7.71 029-201-360 35 1.00 1.00 0.50 100.00 2.00 18,000 3.60 2.00 2.00 1.80 5.80 029-201-370 36 1.00 1.00 0.50 25.00 0.50 3,125 0.63 0.50 0.50 0.32 1.32 029-201-380 37 1.00 1.00 0.50 25.00 0.50 3,125 0.63 0.50 0.50 0.32 1.32 029-202-010 38 1.00 1.00 0.50 136.00 2.72 12,675 2.54 2.72 2.72 1.27 6.71 029-202-020 39 1.00 1.00 0.50 60.50 1.21 7,086 1.42 1.21 1.21 0.71 3.13 Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – City of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 5-10 Assessor’s Parcel Number ID Aesthetic Benefit Points Safety Benefit Points Economic Activit y Benefit Points Linear Frontage Linear Factor Lot Square Footage Lot Factor Total Aesthetic Benefit Points Total Safety Benefit Points Total Economic Activit y Benefit Points Total Special Benefit Points 029-202-030 40* 1.00 1.00 0.50 25.00 0.50 2,552 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.26 1.26 029-202-040 41 1.00 1.00 0.50 25.00 0.50 2,403 0.48 0.50 0.50 0.24 1.24 029-202-080 42 1.00 1.00 0.50 75.06 1.50 4,453 0.89 1.50 1.50 0.45 3.45 029-202-090 43 1.00 1.00 0.50 51.24 1.02 4,770 0.95 1.02 1.02 0.48 2.52 029-204-030 44 1.00 1.00 0.50 55.00 1.10 5,500 1.10 1.10 1.10 0.55 2.75 029-204-040 45 1.00 1.00 0.50 45.00 0.90 4,500 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.45 2.25 029-204-050 46 1.00 1.00 0.50 45.00 0.90 4,500 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.45 2.25 029-204-060 47 1.00 1.00 0.50 94.00 1.88 5,850 1.17 1.88 1.88 0.59 4.35 029-204-270 48 1.00 1.00 0.50 116.50 2.33 8,100 1.62 2.33 2.33 0.81 5.47 029-211-010 49 1.00 1.00 0.50 103.33 2.07 4,417 0.88 2.07 2.07 0.44 4.58 029-211-260 50 1.00 1.00 0.50 169.00 3.38 15,400 3.08 3.38 3.38 1.54 8.30 Totals: 50.00 50.00 25.00 3,527.93 70.56 420,488 84.13 70.56 70.56 42.16 183.28 * Indicates assessm ent has been prepaid. Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 6-1 6. METHOD ASSESSMENT 6.1. Assessment Budget In order to assess the parcels within the District for the special benefits received from the District Im provem ent Project, the general and special benefits m ust be separated. As previously quantified in Section 5.4 of this Engineer’s Report, the general benefit received from the District Im provem ent Project is 28.85%. Accordingl y, 71.15% of the benefits from the District Im provem ent Project are considered to provide special benefits to the properties within the District and thus could be subject to assessment therein. However, as shown below, because of contributions from various funds available to the City, including the sewer, water, and park ing enterprise funds, Measure A funds, and grant funds, only 53.11% of the District Im provem ent Project c osts are being speciall y assessed. Reducing the District Im provem ent Project costs by thes e contributions, the total District Im provem ent Project costs to be specially assessed are as follows: Description Amount T otal Net District Im provem ent Project Costs $11,227,015 Less: General Benefit Contribution (28.85%) (3,238,994) Subtotal – Portion of Budget Assessable for Special Benefit $7,988,021 Less: Sewer and W ater Enterprise Fund Contribution ($922,000) Less: T LC Grant (301,000) Less: Additional Contribution from Park ing Enterprise Fund (782,432) Less: Additional City Contribution (20,195) T otal District Improvement Project Costs Assessed for Special Benefit(1) $5,962,394 T otal Amount Pre-Paid During 30 Day Collection Period $341,582 Annual Assessable Budget: Average Annual Debt Service Pa ym ent for District Im provem ent Project Costs $310,156 T otal Annual Assessable Budget $310,156 (1) $5,620,812 of the District Improvement Project c osts have been financed over a period of 30 years. T he City issued bonds for the total District Im provem ent Project costs assessed for special benefit and will use the assessm ent revenues to repa y the bonds, over a period of 30 years, for the District’s portion of that cost, $5,620,812, plus the Cit y’s estim ated financing and interest costs. Section 6.3 of this Engineer’s Report provides the basis of the average annual debt service pa ym ent used to establish the annual assessm ents. Assessm ent Rate per Spec ial Benefit Point The assessment rate per special benefit point is calculated b y dividing the total annual assessable budget by the total special benefit points assigned to the parc els in the District. The following form ula provides the assessm ent rate per special benefit point calculation: Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 6-2 (A) (B) (C) = Parcel’s Total + Parcel’s Total + Parcel’s Total Econom ic Aesthetics Points Safety Points Activit y Points Total Annual Assessable Budget / Total Special Benefit Points = Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point $310,156 / 169.29 = $1,832.10 T he total am ount of financed District Im provem ent Project costs, which has been determ ined to provide special benefit to parcels within the District, will be assessed over a period of 30 years. The individual assessm ents are shown on the assessm ent roll in Section 8 of this Engineer’s Report. 6.2. Method of Assessment Spread The m ethod of assessm ent is based upon a form ula that assigns the special benefit to each parcel, with special benefit points being adjusted b y parcel linear and lot factors. The form ulas below provide a summ ary of the annual ass essm ent calculation for eac h parcel in the District. (A) Parcel’s T otal Aesthetic Points (B) Parcel’s T otal Safety Points = Parcel’s Assigned Aesthetic Benefit Points (1.00) = Parcel’s Assigned Safety Benefit Points (1.00) x (D) Linear Factor x (D) Linear Factor (C) Parcel’s Total Economic Activit y Points = Parcel’s Assigned Econom ic Activit y Benefit Points (0.50) x (E) Lot Factor (D) Linear Factor = (E) Lot Factor = Parcel’s Assigned Linear Frontage / 50.00 Parcel’s Assigned Lot Square Footage / 5,000 (F) Parcel’s Total Special Benefit Points Parcel’s Annual Assessm ent = Assessm ent Rate: $1,832.10 x (F) Parcel’s Total Special Benefit Points 6.3. District Improvement Project Debt Financing The $5,620,812 portion of District Im provem ent Project costs assessed to property within the District has been financed over a period of 30 years. In addition to the am ount of financed District Im provem ent Project costs, an y financing costs related to the issuance of debt such as the cost of issuance, original issue discount, and contingencies were included as part of the total am ount financed. The Cit y has calculated the annual assessm ent based on its costs of financing the District’s portion of the District Im provem ent Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 6-3 ( Project assessed for special benefit costs over a 30 year period, and has determ ined that it requires an annual assessm ent am ount of $310,156 from the District. The difference between the original estim ated financing costs and the actual financing costs will not affect the annual assessm ents shown in this Engineer’s Report. 6.4. Assessment Prepayment Formula Assessment Prepayment Formula During the 30 Days Following District Formation In the 30 days after the form ation of the District, property owners had the option to prepa y and perm anently satisf y their portion of the total District Im provem ent Project costs assessed for special benefit, without interest, and without financing costs, according to the following form ula: Parcel’s 30 Da y Prepa ym ent Am ount = Total District Im provem ent Project Costs Assessed for Special Benefit Parcel’s Total x ( Special ÷ Benefit Points District’s Total Special ) Benefit Points Parcel’s 30 Da y Prepa ym ent Am ount = $4,475,000 x Parcel’s T otal Special Benefit Points ÷ 183.28 ) Assessment Prepayment Formula After the 30 Day Period Following District Formation Propert y owners within the District m ay prepay and perm anently satisf y their entire portion (no partial prepa ym ents) of the total annual assessm ent of an assessor’s parcel, provided that a prepa ym ent m ay be m ade only if there are no delinquent assessm ents with respect to such assessor’s parcel at the tim e of prepa ym ent. An owner of an assessor’s parcel intending to prepa y the ongoing annual assessm ent obligation shall provide the City with written notice of intent to prepay. W ithin 30 da ys of receipt of such written notice, the Cit y shall notif y suc h owner of the prepa ym ent am ount of such assessor’s parcel. The assessm ent prepa ym ent am ount shall be calculated by the following steps: Step 1: Com pute the special benefit points that could be assigned to the assessor’s parcel prepaying the annual assessm ent obligation in the fiscal year in which the prepaym ent would be received by the City. Step 2: Divide the special benefit points com puted pursuant to Step 1 for such assessor’s parcel b y the total special benefit points that could be assigned in that fiscal year to property in the entire District. Step 3: Multiply the quotient com puted pursuant to Step 2 b y the total annual assessm ent to com pute that portion of the total annual assessm ent to be prepaid (“Parcel’s Annual Assessm ent Am ount”). Step 4: Calculate the revenue stream produced b y the Parcel’s Annual Assessm ent Am ount from the date of prepa ym ent up to and including the m aturity date of the District, June 30, 2042, except that this assum ed final m aturity date m ay be am ended b y the Cit y no later than the tim e of the calculation of the prepa ym ent. Step 5: Calculate the present value of the annual revenue stream determ ined in Step 4. The present value shall be calculated using that discount rate which, when the prepa ym ent is invested in Cit y approved available investm ents earning a rate of interest equal to the discount rate, would produce annual revenues equal to the am ount calculated in Step 4. Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 6-4 Step 6: Determ ine the prepaym ent am ount by adding to the present value calculated in Step 5 any fees or expenses incurred b y the Cit y in connection with the prepaym ent calculation or the application of the proceeds of the prepaym ent. Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 7-1 7. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM An Assessm ent Diagram for the District is shown on the following page. The lines and dim ensions of each lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dim ensions shown on the m aps of the Count y Assessor of the Count y of San Mateo, at the tim e this report was prepared, and are incorporated b y reference herein and m ade part of this Engineer’s Report. 8. ASSESSMENT ROLL The assessm ent roll is a listing of the assessm ent apportioned to each lot or parcel, as shown on the last equalized roll of the Assessor of the Count y of San Mateo. The following table summ arizes the assessm ents for the District for Fiscal Year 2019/20: Propert y Land Use T yp e Parcel Count Total Special Benefit Points Allow able Annual Assessment Total Annual Assessment All Parcels 45 169.29 $1,832.10 per special benefit point $310,156 T otal 45 169.29 $310,156 The assessm ent roll is a listing of the District assessment apportioned to each lot or parcel, as shown on the last equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of San Mateo. The assessm ent roll for the District is listed on the following page. Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e 8-1 Fiscal Year 2019/20 City of Burlingame City of Burlingame Assessment District No. 2012-1 Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project Fiscal Year 2019/20 Assessment Roll Assessor's Parcel Number Assessment ID Site Address Total Special Benefit Points Annual Assessment(1) 029-122-220 2 1420 BURLINGAME AVE 3.10 $5,679.51 029-122-230 3 1426 BURLINGAME AVE 3.03 5,551.26 029-122-240 4 1436 BURLINGAME AVE 2.98 5,459.66 029-122-250 5 1442 BURLINGAME AVE 3.00 5,496.30 029-122-260 6 1448 BURLINGAME AVE 2.62 4,800.10 029-122-270 7 1460 BURLINGAME AVE 3.39 6,210.82 029-122-280 8 1462 BURLINGAME AVE 3.29 6,027.61 029-122-330 9 1408 BURLINGAME AVE 2.69 4,928.35 029-122-360 10 1490 BURLINGAME AVE 6.32 11,578.87 029-122-999 11 1476-80 BURLINGAME AVE 8.71 15,957.59 029-152-110 12 1200 BURLINGAME AVE 3.78 6,925.34 029-152-120 13 1208 BURLINGAME AVE 1.29 2,363.41 029-152-160 14 1232 BURLINGAME AVE 3.36 6,155.86 029-152-200 16 1316 BURLINGAME AVE 3.47 6,357.39 029-152-210 17 1348 BURLINGAME AVE 3.12 5,716.15 029-152-220 18 1354 BURLINGAME AVE 2.16 3,957.34 029-152-230 19 1380 BURLINGAME AVE 3.20 5,862.72 029-152-270 20 1300 BURLINGAME AVE 3.15 5,771.12 029-152-320 22 1218 BURLINGAME AVE 6.94 12,714.77 029-152-330 23 1210 BURLINGAME AVE 3.86 7,071.91 029-153-090 24 1100 BURLINGAME AVE 4.04 7,401.68 029-153-120 25 1150-60 BURLINGAME AVE 3.92 7,181.83 029-153-150 26 1108-18 BURLINGAME AVE 4.86 8,904.01 029-201-030 27 1471 BURLINGAME AVE 2.10 3,847.41 029-201-040 28 1461 BURLINGAME AVE 2.63 4,818.42 029-201-060 29 1435 BURLINGAME AVE 5.80 10,626.18 029-201-080 31 1423 BURLINGAME AVE 3.13 5,734.47 029-201-100 32 1407 BURLINGAME AVE 2.38 4,360.40 029-201-110 33 1401 BURLINGAME AVE 3.82 6,998.62 029-201-320 34 1479-91 BURLINGAME AVE 7.71 14,125.49 029-201-360 35 1417 BURLINGAME AVE 5.80 10,626.18 029-201-370 36 1453 BURLINGAME AVE 1.32 2,418.37 029-201-380 37 1451 BURLINGAME AVE 1.32 2,418.37 029-202-010 38 1375 BURLINGAME AVE 6.71 12,293.39 029-202-020 39 1325 BURLINGAME AVE 3.13 5,734.47 029-202-040 41 1315 BURLINGAME AVE 1.24 2,271.80 029-202-080 42 1301 BURLINGAME AVE 3.45 6,375.71 029-202-090 43 1309 BURLINGAME AVE 2.52 4,561.93 029-204-030 44 1221 BURLINGAME AVE 2.75 5,038.28 029-204-040 45 1213 BURLINGAME AVE 2.25 4,122.23 029-204-050 46 1207 BURLINGAME AVE 2.25 4,122.23 029-204-060 47 1205 BURLINGAME AVE 4.35 7,969.64 029-204-270 48 1227 BURLINGAME AVE 5.47 10,021.59 029-211-010 49 1101 BURLINGAME AVE 4.58 8,391.02 029-211-260 50 1111 BURLINGAME AVE 8.30 15,206.43 TOTALS: 169.29 $310,156.23 (1) Difference due to rounding. Page 1 of 1 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9b MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 20, 2019 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230 Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7263 Subject: Public Hearing to Introduce an Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Add Stop Signs at Various Locations in the City RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council hold a Public Hearing to introduce the attached ordinance amending Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC) to add stop signs at the below listed intersections: • Primrose Road at Douglas Avenue • Primrose Road at Bellevue Avenue • Bayswater Avenue at Lorton Avenue By taking the following actions: 1. Requesting the City Clerk to read the title of the attached ordinance; 2. By motion, waiving further reading and introducing the proposed ordinance; 3. Conducting a public hearing on the proposed ordinance; 4. Discussing the proposed ordinance and determining whether to bring it back for a second reading and adoption; and 5. Directing the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. BACKGROUND The City periodically receives requests for new stop signs to address traffic safety needs. In order to determine the viability of stop signs, a stop sign warrant analysis and associated traffic studies are conducted by staff as required by State laws. The stop sign warrant analysis includes review of traffic counts and reported accident data of the affected intersections. Other factors taken into consideration are the proximity to a school, the traffic controls at adjacent intersections, as well as right-of-way assignment. Staff originally received requests to add stops signs at three street intersections, as listed below: Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Add Stop Signs May 20, 2019 2 • Primrose Road at Douglas Avenue; • Primrose Road at Bellevue Avenue; and • Bayswater Avenue at Lorton Avenue. Staff presented the recommendations to the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) at the April 11, 2019 meeting. Based on the Commission’s discussion and public input received at the meeting, the TSPC concurred with staff’s recommendation to install the permanent stop signs as mentioned above. In addition, the TSPC recommended the installation of marked crosswalks at the Bayswater Avenue/Lorton Avenue intersection. DISCUSSION Multi-way stop controls at the following three intersections are recommended based on the guidance from the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). Primrose Road at Douglas Avenue (City Hall) and Primrose Road at Bellevue (Library) The intersection of Bellevue Avenue, Primrose Road, and Douglas Avenue is a five-way intersection with existing stop controls on three approaches and with no stop controls on the remaining two approaches. There is also a physical traffic island with a pass through for traffic on Bellevue Avenue. The contributing factors are: 1. In a two-year period, there were three collisions in the intersection area, which may be potentially improved through the installation of an all-way stop control. 2. There is a lack of clarification of right-of-way assignments for motorists. 3. There is high pedestrian activity at the crosswalks in the intersection area. There is a need to provide a control mechanism to prevent potential vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes. 4. Where traffic control signal system (or roundabout) is justified, the multi-way stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal. In August 2018, temporary multi-way stops were installed on an interim basis at the intersections of Primrose Road and Douglas Avenue, and at Primrose Road and Bellevue Avenue following a preliminary engineering study. This was done to address the immediate right-of-way concerns. Both intersections are adjacent to City Hall and the Main Library, and also within close proximity to Downtown Burlingame Avenue. All these facilities are high pedestrian generators and significantly contribute to the pedestrian activity and overall traffic operations at these intersections. Stop signs installed at the subject approaches have already made the right-of-way assignments clearer, and have significantly improved both pedestrian and motorists’ safety. Hence, staff recommends that these stop signs be made permanent. Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Add Stop Signs May 20, 2019 3 Bayswater Avenue at Lorton Avenue (All-Way) The intersection of Bayswater Avenue and Lorton Avenue is a four-way intersection with existing stop controls on the two approaches on Lorton Avenue. The contributing factors are: 1. In a two-year period, there were three reported collisions that are potentially susceptible to correction through the installation of an all-way stop control. 2. High density housing units on all-four corners create a high parking demand that compounds visibility issues. Additionally, while reviewing the Burlingame Municipal Code for stop signs, staff discovered that the existing stop signs on Douglas Avenue approaching Primrose Road and Lorton Avenue approaching Bayswater Avenue were not included in the Municipal Code. Staff is recommending adding these existing stop signs to update the Municipal Code. FISCAL IMPACT The costs associated with the installation of stop signs and roadway stop markings are minimal and will be absorbed within the Public Works Department operations budget. Exhibits: • Ordinance • BMC Update ORDINANCE NO. ____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 13.20.010 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD S TOP SIGNS AT THREE INTERSECTIONS IN THE CITY The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME ordains as follows: Section 1. Factual Background and Findings. WHEREAS, the City’s Public Works Department received requests for, and conducted stop sign analysis at the intersections of Primrose Road/Bellevue Avenue, Primrose Road/Douglas Avenue, and Bayswater Avenue/Lorton Avenue; and WHEREAS, as part of the analysis, the three intersections satisfied the criteria for consideration of new stop signs to be installed on a permanent basis; and WHEREAS, staff presented the matter to the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) at the April 11, 2019 meeting; and WHEREAS, based on the TSPC’s deliberation and public input received at the meeting, the TSPC unanimously recommended permanent installation of stop signs at all three locations mentioned above; and WHEREAS, while reviewing the Burlingame Municipal Code, staff discovered that the existing stop signs on Douglas Avenue approaching Primrose Road, and Lorton Avenue approaching Bayswater Avenue were not included in the Code. Staff recommends that the City Council update the Code to include these existing signs. Section 2. The City Council hereby amends Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to add the following intersections for stop signs: “Primrose Road approaching Bellevue Avenue”, “Primrose Road approaching Douglas Avenue”, “Douglas Avenue approaching Primrose Road”, “Bayswater Avenue approaching Lorton Avenue”, “Lorton Avenue approaching Bayswater Avenue”. Section 3. The City Engineer is directed to make the stop signs and stop markings permanent on Primrose Road approaching Bellevue Avenue, Primrose Road approaching Douglas Avenue, Douglas Avenue approaching Primrose Road, Bayswater Avenue approaching Lorton Avenue, and Lorton Avenue approaching Bayswater Avenue. Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Council 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. Section 5. 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. _________________________________ Donna Colson, Mayor I, 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 20th day of May, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: __________________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk 13.20.010 Stop intersections. The operator of any vehicle entering any of the following designated intersections shall bring the vehicle being driven to a full stop: (a) Adeline Drive approaching Alvarado Avenue; Adeline Drive approaching Balboa Avenue; Adeline Drive approaching Bernal Avenue; Adeline Drive approaching Cabrillo Avenue; Adeline Drive approaching Columbus Avenue; Adeline Drive approaching Poppy Drive; Adrian Court approaching Adrian Road; Albermarle Way approaching Ray Drive; Alturas Drive approaching Hillside Drive; Alvarado Avenue approaching Hillside Drive, while travelling south (northern end;) Alvarado Avenue approaching Hillside Drive, while travelling south (southern end); Anita Road approaching Bayswater Avenue; Anita Road approaching Howard Avenue; Arguello Drive approaching Sebastian Drive; Arguello Drive approaching Toledo Avenue; Arundel Road approaching Bayswater Avenue; Arundel Road approaching Howard Avenue; South Ashton Drive approaching Trousdale Drive; Atwater Drive approaching Hunt Drive. (b) Balboa Drive approaching Davis Drive; Balboa Way approaching Ray Drive; Barroilhet Avenue approaching Cypress Avenue; Bayswater Avenue approaching Anita Road; Bayswater Avenue approaching Dwight Road; Bayswater Avenue approaching Arundel Road; Bayswater Avenue approaching Bloomfield Road; Bayswater Avenue approaching Humboldt Road; Bayswater Avenue approaching Lorton Avenue; Bayswater Avenue approaching Park Road; Bellevue Avenue approaching Lorton Avenue; Bellevue Avenue approaching Primrose Road, including City Hall Circle; Bernal Drive approaching Devereux Drive; Bloomfield Road approaching Bayswater Avenue; Broadway approaching Vancouver Avenue; Broadway Avenue approaching Cortez; Burlingame Avenue approaching Anita Road; Burlingame Avenue approaching Bloomfield Road; Burlingame Avenue approaching Carolan Avenue and East Lane; Burlingame Avenue approaching Dwight Road; Burlingame Avenue approaching Lorton Avenue; Burlingame Avenue approaching Park Road. (c) Carmelita Avenue approaching Cortez Avenue; Carmelita Avenue approaching Vancouver Avenue; Canyon Road approaching Easton Drive; Carolan Avenue approaching North Lane; Castenada Drive approaching Trousdale Drive and Martinez Drive; Chula Vista Avenue approaching Majilla Avenue; Clarice Lane approaching Quesada Way; Columbus Avenue approaching Easton Drive; Coronado Drive approaching Davis Drive; Cortez Avenue approaching Carmelita Avenue; Cortez Avenue approaching Hillside Drive; Cortez Avenue approaching Sherman Avenue; Cypress Avenue approaching Barriolhet Avenue. (d) Davis Drive approaching Quesada Drive; Devereux Drive approaching Balboa Way; Douglas Avenue approaching Lorton Avenue; Douglas Avenue approaching Primrose Road. (e) East Lane approaching Burlingame Avenue and Carolan Avenue while traveling west; East Lane approaching North Lane; Easton Drive approaching Canyon Road; Easton Drive approaching Cabrillo Avenue; Easton Drive approaching Columbus Avenue; Easton Drive approaching Cortez Avenue; Easton Drive approaching Montero Avenue; Easton Drive approaching Vancouver Avenue; Edgehill Drive approaching Paloma Drive; El Prado Road approaching Canyon Road; El Prado Road approaching Summit Drive; Escalante Drive approaching Rivera Drive. (f) Fairfield Road approaching Edgehill Drive; Fairfield Road approaching Palm Drive; East Frontage Road of El Camino Real approaching Murchison Drive; East Frontage Road of El Camino Real approaching Trousdale Drive; West Frontage Road of El Camino Real approaching Murchison Drive; West Frontage Road of El Camino Real approaching Trousdale Drive; Frontera Way approaching Sebastian Drive; Frontera Way approaching Loyola Drive. (g) [Reserved for future use]. (h) Hale Drive approaching Columbus Avenue; Highway Road approaching Mills Avenue; Highway Road approaching Oxford Road/Cambridge Road; Hillside Circle approaching Hillside Drive; Hillside Drive approaching Vancouver Avenue; Hillside Drive approaching Alvarado Avenue, while travelling west; Hillside Drive departing Alvarado Avenue, while travelling west; Hillside Drive approaching Cortez Avenue; Hillside Drive approaching Skyline Boulevard; Hillside Lane approaching Skyline Boulevard; Hinckley Road approaching Gilbreth Road; Howard Avenue approaching Anita Road; Howard Avenue approaching Arundel Avenue; Howard Avenue approaching Dwight Road; Howard Avenue approaching Humboldt Street; Howard Avenue approaching Lorton Avenue; Howard Avenue approaching Occidental Avenue; Howard Avenue approaching Primrose Road; Humboldt Street approaching Howard Avenue; Hunt Drive approaching Frontera Way; Hunt Drive approaching Rivera Drive; Hunt Drive approaching Trousdale Drive. (i) [Reserved for future use]. (j) [Reserved for future use]. (k) [Reserved for future use]. (l) La Mesa Drive approaching Hillside Drive; Larkspur Drive approaching Linden Avenue; Lexington Way approaching Bloomfield; Loma Vista Drive approaching Skyline Boulevard; Private Road at the most northerly end of Loma Vista Drive approaching Loma Vista Drive; Lorton Avenue approaching Bayswater Avenue; Lorton Avenue approaching Burlingame Avenue; Los Altos Drive approaching Hillside Drive; Los Montes Drive approaching Hillside Drive; Loyola Drive approaching Trousdale Drive. (m) Magnolia Drive approaching Murchison Drive; Majilla Avenue approaching Chula Vista Avenue; Malcolm Road approaching Gilbreth Road; Marco Polo Way approaching Davis Drive; Marco Polo Way approaching Trousdale Drive; Margarita Avenue approaching Skyline Boulevard; Mariposa Drive approaching Frontera Way; Marsten Road approaching Rollins Road; Martinez Drive approaching Trousdale Drive and Castenada Drive; Mitten Road approaching Gilbreth Road; Montecito Way approaching Frontera Way; Montero Avenue approaching Easton Drive; Murchison Drive approaching California Drive; Murchison Drive approaching Magnolia Drive; Murchison Drive approaching Ogden Drive while traveling east. (n) North Lane approaching Carolan Avenue while traveling west; North Carolan Avenue approaching Rollins Road. (o) Oak Grove both directions approaching Winchester; Occidental Avenue approaching Howard Avenue; Ogden Drive approaching Murchison Drive; Ogden Drive approaching Trousdale Drive. (p) Palm Drive approaching Fairfield Road; Palm Drive approaching Paloma Avenue; Paloma Drive approaching Easton Drive; Paloma Drive approaching Palm Drive; Park Road approaching Burlingame Avenue; Plymouth Way approaching Bloomfield Road; Poppy Drive approaching Columbus Avenue; Primrose Road approaching Bellevue Avenue; Primrose Road approaching Douglas Avenue. (q) Quesada Drive approaching Davis Drive; Quesada Way approaching Ray Drive; Quesada Way approaching Trousdale Drive. (r) Ralston Avenue approaching Pepper Avenue; Ray Drive approaching Balboa Avenue; Ray Drive approaching Davis Drive; Ray Drive approaching Devereux Drive; Rivera Drive approaching Sebastian Drive; Rivera Drive approaching Skyline Boulevard; Rollins Road approaching Marsten Road and North Carolan Avenue; Rollins Road approaching Toyon Drive. (s) Sanchez Avenue approaching Cortez Avenue; Sebastian Drive approaching Arguello Drive; Sebastian Drive approaching Frontera Way; Sebastian Drive approaching Mariposa Drive; Sebastian Drive approaching Trousdale Drive; Sequoia Avenue approaching Murchison Drive; Sequoia Avenue approaching Trousdale Drive; Sherman Avenue approaching Cortez Avenue; Skyline Boulevard approaching Trousdale Drive; Skyview Drive approaching Skyline Boulevard; Stanton Road approaching Gilbreth Road; Summit Drive approaching El Prado Road; Summit Drive approaching Hillside Circle. (t) Toledo Avenue and Court approaching Martinez Drive; Toledo Drive approaching Trousdale Drive; Trousdale Drive approaching California Drive; Trousdale Drive approaching Castenada Drive and Martinez Drive; Trousdale Drive approaching Hunt Drive; Trousdale Drive approaching Loyola Drive while traveling west; Trousdale Drive approaching Marco Polo Drive; Trousdale Drive approaching Ogden Drive; Trousdale Drive approaching Quesada Drive; Trousdale Drive approaching Sebastian Drive; Trousdale Drive approaching Sequoia Avenue; Trousdale Drive approaching Toledo Drive while traveling east. (u) [Reserved for future use]. (v) Vancouver Avenue approaching Broadway; Vancouver Avenue approaching Hillside Drive. (w) Walnut Avenue approaching Willow Avenue; Westmoor Road approaching Rosedale Avenue; Winchester Drive approaching Oak Grove Avenue. 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9c MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 20, 2019 From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253 Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager – (650) 558-7256 Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204 Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Amendments to Title 25, Code Sections 25.32.030 (Burlingame Avenue Commercial District) and 25.70.090 (Off-Street Parking) to Allow Commercial Recreation as a Conditional Use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) District. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council consider proposed amendments to the Burlingame Municipal Code regarding allowing commercial recreation as a Conditional Use in a portion of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) District. In order to do so, the City Council should: 1. Request the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, AMENDING TITLE 25 – CODE SECTIONS 25.32.030 (BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) AND 25.70.090 (OFF-STREET PARKING) TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL RECREATION AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL (BAC) DISTRICT. 2. By motion, waive further reading and introduce the proposed ordinance. 3. Conduct a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. 4. Following closure of the public hearing, discuss the proposed ordinance and provide any direction to staff; if no changes are requested, then direct that the ordinance be placed on the June 3, 2019 City Council Agenda for adoption. 5. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. If so directed by Council, the ordinance along with a resolution verifying that the actions of the City Council are in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be presented for adoption at the June 3, 2019 regular meeting of the City Council. Amendments to Title 25 – Amendment to Burlingame Avenue Commercial District May 20, 2019 and Off-Street Parking Regulations 2 BACKGROUND At its August and October meetings, the City Council’s Economic Development Subcommittee discussed the retail environment in the City’s two main commercial business districts, Downtown Burlingame Avenue and Broadway. The meeting in August included discussion with a commercial broker representing a large vacant storefront on Burlingame Avenue in which she shared her perspective about which uses may be attracted to Burlingame Avenue in general. For the October meeting, property owners were invited to attend and share their perspectives. The August 17, 2018 and October 11, 2018 Economic Development Subcommittee meeting minutes are attached. During the meetings, commercial recreation was discussed as a potential use to add to the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) district. Commercial recreation generally includes uses such as athletic or fitness centers, gymnasiums, art and dance studios, martial arts studios, bowling alleys, billiard halls, museums, performance theaters, and active learning and play centers for children and/or adults. Currently, commercial recreation is allowed as a Conditional Use in the Bayswater Mixed Use (BMU), Howard Mixed Use (HMU), Donnelly Avenue Commercial (DAC), Chapin Avenue Commercial (CAC), and Broadway Commercial Districts. Commercial recreation is not permitted in the BAC district. Since the discussion, staff has been contacted by several other property owners expressing interest in allowing commercial recreation within the Burlingame Avenue Commercial district. As part of “Envision Burlingame,” the Zoning Ordinance including the BAC District will be reviewed and updated. The timeframe for the full update is anticipated to take approximately one year. However, the consideration and potential addition of commercial recreation as a Conditional Use is a focused effort that provides a more immediate benefit. On November 19, 2018, the City Council gave direction to staff to proceed with preparation of amendments to the land use restrictions allowing commercial recreation as a Conditional Use in the BAC District. On April 15, 2019, the City Council introduced the proposed ordinance to amend the BAC District and Off-Street Parking regulations. After discussing the proposed amendments, the Council continued action on the item until further discussions could be held at the Burlingame Talks Shop event on April 17th. This allowed further consultation with the Economic Development Subcommittee on the matter, including a discussion of whether commercial recreation should be limited to particular blocks in the BAC District, and what form the requirement for active retail uses at the front of the space should take (minimum depth, percentage of visibility into space, etc.). Direction provided by the Economic Development Subcommittee at their meeting on May 8, 2019 was to limit commercial recreation uses to the 1400 block of Burlingame Avenue (between Primrose Road and El Camino Real). This block has a number of larger tenant spaces that could accommodate commercial recreation uses, and it is not at the core of the Downtown retail district. The subcommittee also considered whether to require specific dimensions for visible active uses such as retail, waiting/reception, or lounge areas at the front of the space, but ultimately Amendments to Title 25 – Amendment to Burlingame Avenue Commercial District May 20, 2019 and Off-Street Parking Regulations 3 recommended not specifying a specific minimum depth requirement in order to allow flexibility for different situations. Compliance with the active use requirement would be reviewed as part of the Conditional Use Permit within the particular context of each application, with Planning staff providing an initial assessment/recommendation to the Planning Commission in the staff report. DISCUSSION Burlingame Avenue has traditionally been focused on retail, restaurant, and service uses. However, given the evolving nature of all of those uses (particularly retail), many business and shopping districts are finding a need to introduce additional new uses in order to remain vibrant and competitive. Some communities are finding that active commercial recreation uses can be an appropriate addition to their business and shopping districts. In particular, commercial recreation can generate regular “foot traffic”, which can benefit neighboring retailers, restaurants, and services. As noted above, commercial recreation is allowed as a Conditional Use in the areas surrounding Burlingame Avenue (specifically the BMU, HMU, DAC, and CAC Districts), but is not permitted in the BAC District. As a Conditional Use, conditions can be imposed on a business to ensure it is compatible with the surrounding area. Suggestions in the subcommittee meetings included consideration of requiring a retail or food service component at the front of a commercial recreation business, and requiring that storefront windows be maintained clear rather than obscured. The proposed ordinance sets forth text amendments to the City’s existing BAC District regulations to allow commercial recreation as a Conditional Use, limited to tenant spaces with frontages on Burlingame Avenue between Primrose Road and El Camino Real. The proposed ordinance also sets forth text amendments to the Off-Street Parking regulations to exempt commercial recreation uses from providing off-street parking, if located on the first floor and within the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. (Retail, personal service, and food establishment uses located on the first floor and within the parking sector are currently exempt.) Staff has provided a summary of the proposed changes below. Proposed Amendment to Code Section 25.32.030 (BAC District Regulations): Staff has prepared an amendment to the BAC District regulations that allows commercial recreation uses the opportunity to request approval of a Conditional Use Permit, limited to tenant spaces with frontages on Burlingame Avenue between Primrose Road and El Camino Real, and establishes criteria for approval of such requests, including:  Requiring active visible uses such as retail, waiting/reception, or lounge areas associated with the business along the business frontage abutting the sidewalk; and  Maintaining a clear view into the business by not allowing storefront windows or doors to be obscured. Proposed Amendment to Code Section 25.70.090 (Off-Street Parking): Retail, personal, and food establishment uses located on the first floor that are located within the parking sector are currently exempt from off-street parking requirements (Code Section 25.70.090 (a)). The basis for Amendments to Title 25 – Amendment to Burlingame Avenue Commercial District May 20, 2019 and Off-Street Parking Regulations 4 this exemption originated when the City acquired and built public parking lots in the downtown area, by way of assessments (60% of cost) collected from property owners within the Burlingame Avenue Off-street Parking District (created in 1962). The Planning Division previously has determined that for uses located within the parking sector, the net increase calculation for parking should be based on the most intensive use that would otherwise be exempt (in this case food establishments at 1 space per 200 SF of floor area) rather than strictly the existing use. Therefore, commercial recreation uses (parking ratio of 1 space per 200 SF of floor area) would not require any additional parking (or a Parking Variance) based on this determination, since there would be no intensification of use based on the most intensive use permitted. Staff has prepared an amendment to the off-street parking regulations for vehicle parking in the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. The proposed amendment to Code Section 25.70.090 (a) adds commercial recreation as an exempt use from providing off-street parking, if located on the first floor and within the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. This amendment is being proposed in order to facilitate the City Council’s directive of allowing commercial recreation as a Conditional Use in the BAC District by removing Parking Variances and parking in-lieu payment requirements, which would deter commercial recreation type businesses from considering the BAC District as a potential location. The proposed ordinance is provided as an attachment to this report. Text to be added is in bold, and text to be deleted is in strikeout, both in red font. Comparison to Similar Cities: With respect to allowing commercial recreation uses in downtown core areas, Planning staff reviewed regulations in cities with similar downtowns, including the City of San Mateo and City of San Carlos. San Mateo’s downtown core area is larger than Burlingame’s; its primary downtown streets include 3rd Avenue, 4th Avenue, and B Street, which are all under the same zoning district. Commercial recreation uses in San Mateo’s downtown core area are allowed with approval of a Special Use Permit (similar to a Conditional Use Permit). The main street through the downtown core of San Carlos is Laurel Street (approximately three blocks in length within the core). Commercial recreation uses are not permitted in the downtown core along Laurel Street, but are allowed with approval of a Conditional Use Permit in some surrounding zoning districts, primarily in the area north of the downtown core, as well as south of the downtown core along Laurel Street and El Camino Real. Planning Commission Review and Recommendation: The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments at its February 25, 2019 meeting (meeting minutes attached). In their discussion, they noted the following:  Conditional Use Permit process provides the level of protection in case an application presents possible negative impacts. Amendments to Title 25 – Amendment to Burlingame Avenue Commercial District May 20, 2019 and Off-Street Parking Regulations 5  At City Council and subcommittee levels, the issue has been vetted and discussed in regards to the changing face of retail, and the need to open ourselves up in terms of what types of uses are going to continue to make our downtown vibrant. We have to think about how downtowns are going to remain alive with e-commerce. Commercial recreation uses will continue to bring people downtown; don't see a reason not to allow it.  The 15-foot buffer is a potential retail area, so it will add to the retail feel on Burlingame Avenue. For these reasons the Planning Commission expressed support of the proposed amendments and recommended approval to the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibits:  Proposed Ordinance  Zoning Code Sections 25.32.030 and 25.70.090 – Redlines with Proposed Amendments  April 15, 2019 City Council Minutes  November 19, 2018 City Council Minutes  August 17, 2018 and October 11, 2018 Economic Development Subcommittee Minutes  February 25, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes  Public Hearing Notice – published May 10, 2019 ORDINANCE NO. ____________ 1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, AMENDING TITLE 25 – CODE SECTIONS 25.30.030 (BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) AND 25.70.090 (OFF-STREET PARKING) OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL RECREATION AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL (BAC) DISTRICT The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows: Division 1. Factual Background WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendments would allow commercial recreation uses in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) District, limited to tenant spaces with frontages on Burlingame Avenue between Primrose Road and El Camino Real, through approval of a Conditional Use Permit and established criteria; as reflected in the amendments to Title 25, Chapter 25.30, Code Section 25.32.030; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendments would add commercial recreation as a use that is exempt from providing off-street parking if such use is located on the first floor and within the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan; as reflected in the amendments to Title 25, Chapter 25.70, Code Section 25.70.090; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the zoning code are considered minor alterations to land use limitations, which are Categorically Exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Burlingame on November 19, 2018 directed staff to proceed with preparation of amendments to the land use restrictions allowing commercial recreation as a Conditional Use in the BAC District; and WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on February 25, 2019, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing and recommended to the City Council that it adopt amendments to Title 25 (zoning code) of the Burlingame Municipal Code to amend the BAC District and Off-Street Parking regulations to allow commercial recreation through approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the City Council of the City of Burlingame on April 15, 2019, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing and continued action on the item for further discussions regarding requiring active retail uses at the front of the space and in what form it should be provided. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Division 2. Burlingame Municipal Code Sections 25.32.030 and 25.70.090 are amended and shall be enacted as follows: ORDINANCE NO. ____________ 2 Chapter 25.32 BAC (BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT REGULATIONS 25.32.030 Conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit. The following are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit in the BAC District: (a) Instructional classes incidental to retail or service use; (b) Grocery stores and markets; (c) Schools, above or below the first floor only, which operate outside of peak retail hours only; (d) Above the first floor only: (1) Real estate offices, (2) Health services, (3) Financial institutions; (e) Public utility and public service buildings and facilities; (f) Drive-in services or take-out services associated with permitted uses; (g) Food establishments on certain sites, subject to the criteria established in Section 25.32.070; (h) Any building or structure which is more than thirty-five (35) feet in height, up to a maximum building height of fifty-five (55) feet. (i) Commercial recreation use, limited to tenant spaces with frontages on Burlingame Avenue between Primrose Road and El Camino Real, which meet all of the following criteria: (1) Active visible uses including retail, waiting/reception or lounge areas associated with the business, shall be provided along the business frontage abutting the sidewalk; and (2) Storefront windows or doors shall not be obscured and shall provide a clear view into the business. Chapter 25.70 OFF-STREET PARKING 25.70.090 Vehicle parking in the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, the following shall apply to vehicle parking requirements in the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, as shown on the Parking Sector Boundaries Map, Figure 3-3 of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan: ORDINANCE NO. ____________ 3 (a) Retail, personal service, food establishment, and commercial recreation uses located on the first floor within the parking sector shall be exempt from providing off-street parking. Any other uses on the first floor, and all uses above or below the first floor shall provide off-street parking as required by this chapter. (b) Any new development, except reconstruction because of catastrophe or natural disaster, shall provide on-site parking, except that the first floor of such new development in the parking sector shall be exempt from parking requirements if the first floor is used for retail, personal service or food establishment uses. (c) Buildings reconstructed after catastrophe or natural disaster shall be required to provide parking only for the square footage over and above the square footage existing at the time of the disaster. This parking shall be provided on-site. Division 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Council declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Division 4: This Ordinance 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. _________________________________ Donna Colson, Mayor I, 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 20th day of May, 2019, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ______ day of ___________ 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: __________________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk Proposed Amendments 25.32.030 Conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit. The following are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit in the BAC District: (a) Instructional classes incidental to retail or service use; (b) Grocery stores and markets; (c) Schools, above or below the first floor only, which operate outside of peak retail hours only; (d) Above the first floor only: (1) Real estate offices, (2) Health services, (3) Financial institutions; (e) Public utility and public service buildings and facilities; (f) Drive-in services or take-out services associated with permitted uses; (g) Food establishments on certain sites, subject to the criteria established in Section 25.32.070; (h) Any building or structure which is more than thirty-five (35) feet in height, up to a maximum building height of fifty-five (55) feet. (i) Commercial recreation use, limited to tenant spaces with frontages on Burlingame Avenue between Primrose Road and El Camino Real, which meet all of the following criteria: (1) Active visible uses including retail, waiting/reception or lounge areas associated with the business, shall be provided along the business frontage abutting the sidewalk; and (2) Storefront windows or doors shall not be obscured and shall provide a clear view into the business. 25.70.090 Vehicle parking in the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, the following shall apply to vehicle parking requirements in the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, as shown on the Parking Sector Boundaries Map, Figure 3-3 of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan: (a) Retail, personal service, and food establishment, and commercial recreation uses located on the first floor within the parking sector shall be exempt from providing off- street parking. Any other uses on the first floor, and all uses above or below the first floor shall provide off-street parking as required by this chapter. (b) Any new development, except reconstruction because of catastrophe or natural disaster, shall provide on-site parking, except that the first floor of such new development in the parking sector shall be exempt from parking requirements if the first floor is used for retail, personal service or food establishment uses. (c) Buildings reconstructed after catastrophe or natural disaster shall be required to provide parking only for the square footage over and above the square footage existing at the time of the disaster. This parking shall be provided on-site. Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Approved Minutes 18 protected and their status. She added that her preliminary analysis shows that there are 21 trees that are protected, and 14 of those trees are in poor health. Ms. Merkes stated that the second question asked whether a TDM strategy would be applied to the project. She explained that this is a management plan and would be something that could be added as a goal. Ms. Merkes stated that the third question concerned curb management and utilizing the driveway for drop- offs. She explained that she has been working on creating two drop-off zones. Vice Mayor Colson asked if there is a tree replanting diagram. Ms. Merkes responded in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. b. PROVIDE DIRECTION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO PROCEED WITH A REVIEW AND POTENTIAL MODIFICATION OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL (BAC) ZONING REGULATIONS TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL RECREATION USES CDD Gardiner stated that at the Economic Development Subcommittee’s October meeting, the members discussed the retail environment in the city’s two commercial districts. He explained that commercial recreation was discussed as a potential use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District. Currently, commercial recreation is allowed as a conditional use in the Howard Mixed Use Zone and on Broadway. He stated that staff is requesting that City Council authorize the Planning Commission to review the proposal to allow commercial recreation as a conditional use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial zone. Councilmember Keighran stated that while she agreed that the Planning Commission should look into this, she wasn’t sure if she agreed with allowing commercial recreation businesses on Burlingame Avenue. Councilmember Ortiz stated that this request makes him think of the Pilates studio and how it has increased foot traffic on Broadway. Therefore, he saw how it could be beneficial for a street but was concerned that it might not be appropriate on Burlingame Avenue. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Commercial broker Christina DeRockere discussed the interest she has received from fitness companies to take over the space at Sole Desire. Mayor Brownrigg closed the public comment. City Manager Goldman stated that this discussion occurred at two different Economic Development Subcommittee meetings. At the first meeting, the commercial broker who represents the J Crew space discussed the difficulty of leasing the space because of its size. She stated that at the second meeting, in October, six property owners and others joined the conversation. She explained that they told a compelling Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Approved Minutes 19 story about how it was important to open Burlingame Avenue up to different uses provided there is a retail front. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the property owners, real estate agents, and small business owners told the Subcommittee members that the City needed to rethink programing in the major commercial downtown areas. She discussed the interest of several fitness studios, like SoulCycle, to open on Burlingame Avenue. She stated that her concern is that if the City doesn’t get ahead of this, Burlingame Avenue could end up having several empty storefronts. She added that the State is considering taxing services. Therefore, the City would be able to capture these taxes by incorporating commercial recreation into the downtown commercial areas. Councilmember Beach agreed. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he gets the pressure to try to fill up the spot. He added that while he could get comfortable with allowing fitness studios on Burlingame Avenue, he wouldn’t be okay with fast food or banks. Councilmember Keighran asked if the commercial recreation would include entertainment uses like music venues. City Manager Goldman stated that it wasn’t something that came up at the Subcommittee but the Council can ask the Planning Commission to include entertainment in the study. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the Planning Commission should first look into the commercial recreation uses like fitness as there is immediate need, but could later look into entertainment. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS a. VICE MAYOR COLSON’S COMMITTEE REPORT b. COUNCILMEMBER BEACH’S COMMITTEE REPORT 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no future agenda items. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Parking & Safety Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Brownrigg adjourned meeting at 11:04 p.m. 1 City Council Economic Development Subcommittee MINUTES Conference Room A City Hall, 501 Primrose Road – Burlingame, California Friday, August 17, 2018 – 2:30 p.m. ATTENDANCE Members Present: Council Member (CC) Beach and Vice Mayor (VM) Colson Members Absent: None Staff Present: City Manager (CM) Lisa Goldman, Economic Development Specialist (EDS) Cleese Relihan, Finance Director (FD) Carol Augustine, and Community Development Director (CDD) Kevin Gardiner Also in Attendance: Julie Taylor (Colliers International) and Giselle Marie Hale (Redwood City Planning Commissioner) DISCUSSION ITEMS Fencing Policies for Vacant Lots: EDS Relihan provided an example of vacant lot regulations from the City of San Mateo. He noted that the regulations do not specify the type of fencing, but there are requirements that vacant lots be maintained, and that fencing and landscaping look attractive. A maintenance plan is required to be submitted to the City. CDD Gardiner noted that he spoke to San Mateo staff, and confirmed that staff works with the property owners on the specifications of the fencing as part of the overall maintenance plan that is required. Sometimes this is in conjunction with an early demolition permit. Although desired types of desired fencing are not specified, the regulations do not allow chain link and barbed wire fencing. The Subcommittee suggested that when early demolition permits are issued, part of the approval could be to require a fence of better quality than a chain link fence, and that the fencing segments be tied together to be secured and keep intruders out. The intention would be to have the fencing be secure, but also be aesthetically attractive. The request and coordination could be administered on the staff level, rather than requiring review by the Planning Commission. EDS Relihan asked if there was interest in drafting an ordinance and implementing regulations. CM Goldman cautioned that staff is already currently working on a number of ordinances, so the Subcommittee suggested that the various matters under discussion could be bundled together to be most efficient, and that timing could be flexible given the matter is not of an urgent nature. The items could be combined into a package to discuss with the City Attorney at a future date. There was discussion on the distinction between vacant properties versus “dormant” or “unoccupied” properties, and also a distinction between fencing during construction and fencing of vacant or unoccupied properties where construction is not ongoing. Cyclone/chain link fencing could be appropriate with active construction projects, and can be combined with screen graphics depicting the project under construction. Subcommittee members suggested EDS Relihan speak to developers of recent projects to get a sense of what may be practical for unoccupied/vacant properties compared to projects that are under construction. 2 City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes August 17, 2018 Alternatively, the matter could be discussed in the October Subcommittee meeting involving landlords. CM Goldman suggested there may be a timing consideration and distinction between properties unoccupied and vacant for an extended period, versus projects where construction is imminent. She noted the paragraph in the San Mateo regulations describing maintenance requirements, and suggested those may be more important than fencing. Fencing may be less important if a vacant lot is otherwise clear of weeds and debris, but if the property owner chooses fencing to secure the property, the fencing should be good quality. CDD Gardiner noted that construction fencing could be specified as a condition of approval, and would not need to wait for an ordinance. The Subcommittee agreed with this approach. Decals for Available Commercial Spaces: Julie Taylor, Executive Vice President of Colliers International, joined the meeting. EDS Relihan introduced the item and noted that while the State provides guidance on the posting of real estate signs, it does not address marketing graphics such as window decals or appliques. He checked San Mateo and San Francisco regulations, and it does not appear either requires that the windows of vacant commercial spaces be covered in graphics. Stores with such graphics would most likely be the result of the brokers or property owners initiating the placement themselves. Taylor cautioned against obscuring storefronts, since the view out of the space towards the sidewalk can be important for marketing to prospective tenants. She emphasized the importance of being able to see the foot traffic, natural light, and co-tenancies from inside the space. A medium-ground would be vinyl banners across just the bottom of the storefront, but it is important to maintain views out of the space and allow natural light into the space. She mentioned an approach at the Salesforce Transit Center which engaged local artists to paint portions of the storefronts. The Subcommittee mentioned they want to dissuade storefronts from being obscured with butcher paper since they can become dilapidated, and noted the Charmelle 28 space on Burlingame Avenue is an example where graphics have been applied nicely. The Subcommittee suggested there may be a range of acceptable alternatives, including clean and maintained unobscured windows, decal graphics, or artwork. If the windows are unobstructed, the interior of the space should be clear and presentable. CM Goldman suggested this matter may be combined with the vacant property maintenance provisions discussed earlier, and that different options could be provided. Taylor suggested that obscured windows may be desired during active construction, but if the space is vacant and not under construction, the maintenance provisions would otherwise apply. Typically when construction is underway, trade dress-up will be applied. CDD Gardiner suggested initially these options could be presented as guidelines for property owners, as an interim measure rather than waiting to be codified in an ordinance. EDS Relihan agreed that it would present a positive message, and offered to have suggested guidelines to share with landlords in the October Subcommittee meeting. CM Goldman agreed with this approach, as it would be a collaborative effort with the property owners. Taylor suggested there be a handout or slides to show examples, and offered to share some examples. Burlingame Avenue Use Opportunities: Giselle Marie Hale of the Redwood City Planning Commission joined the meeting. 3 City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes August 17, 2018 Taylor mentioned that retail spaces are taking longer to lease. Retailers are typically taking smaller spaces than they used to lease. Onsite retail has become particularly hard for heavy goods, as customers will come to stores to browse but then order online so they can ship to home. Too many companies are contracting, not expanding. However, a presence of some stores is necessary to support online commerce, as seeing stores keep brands “top of mind” with customers. Taylor continued that the area of growth is “fitness and food.” There is a great deal of interest among tenants in being located near fitness and food, which is a change from past practices. Tenants get excited if they see an assortment of hot restaurants and a tenant like Soul Cycle or Rumble boxing, because they see energy and repeat visits. These uses generate more traffic on the street than retail alone. She encouraged broadening options, but cautioned against uses such as banks that offer limited foot traffic. Taylor also suggested uses such as WeWork for their potential to generate foot traffic, provided there is retail at the front such as a café. This could be useful for spaces on side streets, such as the former Anthropologie space. Day spas could also be good for side streets, but do not have the same volume of traffic as a recreational use. The Subcommittee suggested uses such as WeWork could be classified as a service rather than an office if it were available to be used by the public. Taylor noted that it can be expensive for owners to subdivide space, as they need to build demising walls, install HVAC systems, etc. This would require capital or credit, which can be challenging for some owners. Conversion to food uses can also be very expensive, and ideally food spaces would be square rather than narrow and deep. “L-around” configurations can work for dividing a space, but they require a strong tenant for the “L” portion because if that tenants leaves, it can be difficult to re-lease the space. The Subcommittee inquired how uses are regulated on Burlingame Avenue and downtown, and CDD Gardiner mentioned that uses are either “Permitted,” “Conditional” (requiring Planning Commission approval), or “Prohibited.” Allowing fitness uses on Burlingame Avenue would require amending the allowed uses, as currently Commercial Recreation is allowed on side streets with a Conditional Use Permit, but not on Burlingame Avenue itself. Taylor cautioned that if rules are changed, there should be thought on encouraging the type of uses that will generate foot traffic and be complementary to retail uses. A private Pilates studio, for example, will not create a lot of foot traffic. The Conditional Use Permit mechanism may be the best option for ensuring compatibility. There can be a requirement that there be merchandised space in the first 12 or 15 feet of the storefront. EDS Relihan mentioned that there are hybrid approaches that combine electronic displays with online ordering. Taylor mentioned that such pioneering concepts first go into San Francisco or somewhere like Santana Row, where there is significant foot traffic and co-tenancy. Some are test concepts. The Subcommittee inquired how a code amendment to allowed uses would be approached. As part of the General Plan Update and Zoning Ordinance Update, the zoning update should prioritize Burlingame Avenue and Broadway. CDD Gardiner noted that the timeframe for the zoning update is approximately one year beyond the General Plan adoption, but a more focused code amendment could be initiated by the City Council, or could be initiated by an applicant in conjunction with a permit application. The Subcommittee emphasized that Burlingame Avenue offers a “lifestyle.” Taylor suggested that people should be able to feel like they can get everything that they need. The Subcommittee mentioned that rising rents have created vacancies. Taylor said it c an be hard to readjust people’s expectations when the market is changing. Rents have rolled back, because they are 4 City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes August 17, 2018 directly tied to tenants’ sales volumes. A healthy ratio is 10% occupancy cost for retail (including pass through), 8% for restaurants. New tenants will want to factor their projections more conservatively, whereas a renewal may be able to be more aggressive than 10 percent. EDS Relihan noted that the Downtown Business Improvement District (DBID) has had challenges finding space for events. There have been logistical challenges with obtaining permission from Public Works. Taylor noted that farmers’ markets and food truck events can be effective at attracting people, but there may not be enough surrounding density to sustain some events. The Subcommittee members remarked on the conflict between people being opposed to increasing density and development downtown, but also lamenting the loss of retail. Taylor suggested that density can help fill the gap from online sales, and that the city-owned parking lots offer opportunities to add density. She suggested that in the development of parking lots, ground leases would be preferable for the City to retain the asset. Taylor emphasized that the process for applicants needs to be clear, and that prospective businesses are sensitive to barriers to entry. The formula retail conditional use permit process in San Francisco has resulted in vacancies, since retailers fear the risk and unpredictability. Retailers will pursue easier, more predictable alternatives. EDS Relihan noted that he has created materials to clarify the conditional use permit process for prospective applicants. He noted he has received inquiries to allow offices in basement spaces and suggested it should be considered. Subcommittee members inquired about the loss of sales taxes from retail changing to services. Taylor said the taxes captured locally by online sales that would have otherwise been collected in other jurisdictions needs to be factored. Giselle Marie Hale noted that Redwood City is getting increased density, but doesn’t have a retail base. Taylor suggested that new buildings need to be designed to accommodate a range of uses, including ventilation shafts and cooking infrastructure, and ceiling heights of 11 feet clear or higher. Spaces in new buildings are sometimes too deep or the ceilings are too low, and the developers do not finish the shells. It is better to have less retail space, but space that is leasable, rather than a large amount of retail space that is not configured correctly. The Subcommittee concluded that these issues will be further discussed in a retail summit next spring. Taylor suggested that the City invite district managers of the corporate stores, since they have a relationship with the community. She added that even in a healthy retail economy, filling vacancies can take some time because companies take time to make decisions; it can take a year or more for a retailer to make all the decisions to enter a market. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no further public comments. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS  Potential city tools and incentives for businesses attraction  Succession planning for businesses looking to sell ADJOURNMENT 5 City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes August 17, 2018 Meeting adjourned at 4:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kevin Gardiner Community Development Director City Council Economic Development Subcommittee MINUTES Conference Room A City Hall, 501 Primrose Road – Burlingame, California Thursday, October 11, 2018 – 2:30 p.m. 1 ATTENDANCE Members Present: Council Member (CC) Beach and Vice Mayor (VM) Colson Members Absent: None Staff Present: City Manager (CM) Lisa Goldman, Parks and Recreation Director (PRD) Margaret Glomstad, Economic Development Specialist (EDS) Cleese Relihan, Finance Director (FD) Carol Augustine, and Community Development Director (CDD) Kevin Gardiner Members of the Public Present: Chris Blom, John Britton, Nick Delis, Stephanie Delis, Clark Funkhouser, Ryan Guibara, Ron Karp, Riyad Salma, Julie Taylor, Silvia Wong, and Vierra Wong DISCUSSION ITEMS Burlingame Avenue Downtown Zoning: EDS Relihan introduced the item. He said the interest originates from inquiries he and Planning staff have received for various businesses that would not be allowed under current zoning regulations. Given the changing nature of retail and commercial uses in downtown districts, it seemed appropriate to consider the range of uses desired for Burlingame Avenue and Broadway, and determine if amendments to the zoning regulations would be appropriate to accommodate uses that might not be allowed currently. Commercial property owners were invited to this meeting to provide input, including identifying potential tenants that may have inquired about leasing space that may or may not be able to be accommodated under current zoning. Vice Mayor Colson provided further introduction, noting that the vacancy of the large J. Crew space on Burlingame Avenue had been part of the impetus for the discussion. Retail consultant Julie Taylor had been invited to the August 17, 2018 Economic Development Subcommittee meeting to share her thoughts on the issue. Ms. Colson noted that there will be further conversations in the community on this topic in the coming year. She added that commercial recreation and co-working businesses have been suggested as new uses not currently allowed on Burlingame Avenue. Property owners in attendance had a number of observations and suggestions including:  Suggestion to review the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) zoning chapter to look at which uses are permitted and not permitted, and how those fit with the 21st century. The current zoning lists a number of outmoded uses such as variety stores, drug stores, and travel agencies.  The nature of banks has changed from decades ago; they should be allowed.  There has been interest in commercial recreation, but it is not allowed in the BAC zone.  There is a provision in the zoning that states that anything that is not listed is therefore prohibited. The property owners suggest changing this provision to allow more flexibility in the future.  Does not need to have three different types of food service uses. City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes October 11, 2018 2  Should consider the goal of Burlingame Avenue downtown retail and Broadway retail. The current regulations are very restrictive. Set a broad goal, a vision statement.  The “retail” use is really restrictive downtown, and what is allowed varies from block to block. Different retail criteria for different locations, zoning is disparate.  The CUP process does not work for leasing, creates risk for landlords. Needs a faster process for getting a decision. For example, staff-level review with a 48-hour turnaround, which could be appealed if there was disagreement with the decision.  Soul Cycle or other commercial recreation would be a good tenant for Burlingame Avenue. It brings a lot of energy, particularly with the right instructor. It is a better location than Howard Avenue.  There is still high demand for retail.  Could consider allowing office on the ground floor provided the first 15 or 20 feet is retail. Could have office space behind, accessed through a hallway.  Education uses bring foot traffic, and eating and shopping. Parents have to drop off kids and pick them up, and will shop and eat in the meantime.  There appears to be increased foot traffic on Burlingame Avenue at the lunch hour. There needs to be more eating establishments. Young people with disposable income are coming to Burlingame, and they want to eat, but want to get in and out quickly. Needs more flexibility for a wider spectrum in restaurants. Subcommittee members showed concern with the process to obtain permits and wanted to ensure they do not impose undue constraints on prospective businesses. Julie Taylor, Colliers International, provided comments on retail environments in general. She said that every category of retail property is trying to figure out how to replace the lost soft-good tenants. Shopping centers are replacing retail space with food; for example a Macy’s converted into an Eataly in Los Angeles. She suggested making the zoning as broad as possible to allow multiple types of uses. She said there should still be retail on the ground floor, but the City could expand the zoning to include fitness provided it has a retail component at the front. It is reasonable to tell a recreation use that it cannot obscure its windows, and must instead have an entry vestibule, perhaps with apparel, that is welcome and open during regular business hours. She also suggested co-working could be considered if it has a café presence at the front, particularly since co-working brings more businesspeople, which then brings better lunchtime traffic and cocktail hour traffic. On larger frontages, an option could be to have a significant portion of the frontage be occupied by retail, but have co-working occupy just 20 feet in front with a “throat entrance” leading to a larger space behind. However, she also suggested being cognizant that a single use such as co-working not dominate an entire block. She noted that the laws of supply and demand need to be recognized; some cities try to regulate the mix of uses through zoning, but it results in vacancies. The important consideration is how uses (whether they be commercial recreation or co-working) activate the window line, and how much window line do they have. Property owners provided further remarks:  It is a challenge to find a tenant for an old-style “bowling alley” storefront that is 35 feet in the front but extends 100 or 150 feet back.  Ability to pay higher rents varies by type of tenant, as well as position of a tenant in their category. For example, Salt & Straw can afford a $16,000 per month lease because it is a leader in the category, and can cover the lease cost with volume.  There is less demand for table service restaurants. City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes October 11, 2018 3 Ms. Taylor added that restaurants can have a hard time expanding in the Bay Area because they cannot hire enough employees. The employees cannot afford the cost of living, and the wages are higher. Counter service lowers labor costs. Subcommittee members inquired about providing housing downtown as a contributor to the commercial environment. There are plans for both market-rate and below-market units in Downtown Burlingame. However it can be hard to have conversations about housing in the community, given concerns over amount of building, parking, etc. The hope is that transit-oriented development can help the commercial environment. Property owner comments:  Development is helpful to the commercial environment. Restaurants need people during the day, as well as at night for dinner and happy hours.  There is a parking issue because there is so much demand from people to be Downtown. In that sense it is a “high class problem,” or otherwise an indicator of success. Parking should not be required for retail uses.  There needs to be speedier review of applications. It costs a lot of money to carry a project over time. Subcommittee members asked those in attendance about their perspectives on the future of brick-and- mortar retail. It is important to Downtown, and in particular with the post office project having a sizab le retail component. CDD Gardiner mentioned that the post office project proposes about 18,000 square feet of retail. Property owner comments:  18,000 square feet of new retail is a lot of space to support. There is a risk of too much retail; they believe it will be a detriment to the project. Ms. Taylor remarked that retail will survive, but only on the best blocks with the best architecture and streetscapes, and on the closest feeder streets. She cautioned against creating tertiary retail, where retail is required at the ground floor regardless of demand. The situation is compounded when floorplates are too large, ceilings are too low, spaces are too deep, and there are no provisions for venting. Attractive brownstones and stoops would be preferable to vacant storefronts. Property owner comments:  Office on the ground floor would also be preferable to vacant retail.  Bay Meadows has had a hard time leasing the retail space, despite all the new housing.  There is 300,000 square feet of office space in downtown Burlingame, which is a relatively small amount to support retail. Ms. Taylor mentioned that there are different types of offices. Some offices are very private and have a fortress quality, but others have more of a presence such as graphics firms, architects, medical, or co- working which allow engagement. If it has to be a private office, it can be situated behind a throat entrance with retail in the front. Property owner comments:  Office on the ground floor has been taboo in Burlingame since the “dotcom,” but office on the ground floor with the kinds of qualities being described would be desirable.  Could consider overnight hotels for animals, or doggie daycare.  There have been a lot of inquiries for commercial childcare. City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes October 11, 2018 4  Should not try to cherry-pick where the market is going. Will always be playing catchup. The City needs to think of the overarching goal, together with flexibility and predictability.  Needs reliable decision-making, focus on the administration of the goal.  The split between service and retail is not productive.  The smaller retail uses benefit from the big retailers bringing in foot traffic. However the small retailers are struggling; they are surviving by putting in their own labor. They cannot provide the same level of service as the big retailers, such as ease of exchanges. Subcommittee members asked for examples of communities that have done a good job of revising regulations. Property owner comments:  San Mateo tried to regulate ground floor office during the “dotcom.” This has been revisited; a property owner believes the requirement is now retail in the first 60 feet, and a percentage of the windowline frontage.  Office on the ground floor still involves people walking.  Ancillary streets such as California Drive are not going to be able to attract retailers. Ms. Taylor mentioned that childcare is a good use since it brings a parent twice a day. It creates repeat traffic that merchants can build upon. She also mentioned that Walnut Creek has created a real downtown with verticality, and residential is in very high demand. People downsize from their large homes and move to Downtown Walnut Creek to be near services. She suggests that Burlingame redevelop some of its parking lots with residential or office, noting that density sustains retail. She also remarked that parking garages are likely to be converted to something else as demand for parking decreases. Property owner comments:  The City needs to reduce parking requirements for residential development.  The hotel parking reduction is an example of allowing something other than unused parking.  Parking will be repurposed over time.  Retailers will always ask for more parking, but that should not drive decisions.  Parking is expensive to build. Does not make sense when it is right next to the train station.  Would not suggest limiting the number of commercial recreation uses. The prior experience with limiting the number of restaurants to 36 allowed a few property owners to control what the restaurant rates were.  There needs to be predictability in the planning approval process.  Water and sewer add to costs, particularly if the tenant is paying for them. CM Goldman asked CDD Gardiner to describe how the zoning ordinance update follows the update of the General Plan. Gardiner commented that the General Plan sets the policy direction and goals, and that the zoning provides the regulations that establish what is allowed and what is not. It will be a complete rewrite of the zoning code, not just tinkering. The new code can have more flexibility as is being discussed. There may also be options for a permit that is less involved than a Conditional Use Permit. It is also an opportunity to revise procedures as well as regulations. CDD Gardiner also said there are nearer-term options to make more limited changes to the existing code, such as adding commercial recreation as an allowed use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial district. CM Goldman suggested the nearer-term items could be presented to the full City Council to provide direction as a work item. City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes October 11, 2018 5 Property owner comments:  Changing the definition of retail may be a faster fix than some of the other concepts being discussed. If things like co-working can be made to fit within current definitions, the City may not be so far behind the curve with these changing types of businesses. CM Goldman suggested to the group that if they have thoughts on what types of changes to make to the definitions, they can be submitted to staff. Staff will then convey the suggestions to the City Council. Subcommittee members mentioned that next spring, there will be a “retail summit” to discuss these issues with the larger community. The subcommittee wanted to talk with property owners in this meeting beforehand to hear their perspectives. The thinking is to follow the “Burlingame Talks Together” format that was utilized for the housing discussions earlier this year. The public, retailers, and property owners will all be invited. Draft Checklist on “How to Maintain Vacant Commercial Spaces” EDS Relihan discussed examples he has collected showing different ways to present and market vacant commercial spaces. The emphasis is on presenting the spaces in a manner that appeals to potential tenants, and is attractive to the surrounding commercial district. EDS Relihan has compiled a list of suggestions to property owners that are intended to help improve the appearance of vacant spaces. They are general strategies to improve the positive “curb appeal” of a property for prospective tenants. CM Goldman said some of the vacant properties on Burlingame Avenue and Broadway are presented well, but others are presented very poorly. Properties are difficult to market when presented poorly, and in turn reflect badly on adjacent properties. The City wants to provide some “helpful hints” for maintaining a property while they are looking for their next tenant. Property owner comments:  Delays in permitting hinder investment in better construction materials. The longer the permitting takes, the fewer resources are available for making improvements. This is particularly difficult for smaller “mom and pop” businesses wanting to come in.  There needs to be collective garbage facilities in the parking lots. It is difficult for the individual older buildings to have room for the bins on their own properties. San Carlos has done a great job with creating shared trash areas that the tenants and landlords pay for.  Appreciates that staff and the City Council are listening to property owners nowadays and engaging in constructive conversations. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no further public comments. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no future agenda topics suggested. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 4:03 p.m. City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes October 11, 2018 6 Respectfully submitted, Kevin Gardiner Community Development Director BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, February 25, 2019 a.Consideration of an Amendment to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, the Zoning Code, to allow commercial recreation as a Conditional Use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) zone within Downtown Burlingame. Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Was there any discussion at the economic development subcommittee level in regards to hours of operation or would that be considered on a case -by-case basis as part of a conditional use permit application? (Hurin: That level of detail was not part of the discussion, however conditions of approval may be added as part of the conditional use permit application.) >Hours of operation for particular businesses could be of concern, such as fitness businesses operating in the early morning hours. (Hurin: Commercial recreation includes a variety of uses . Subcommittee focused on fitness uses, which could create concerns regarding noise; however these concerns could be addressed with conditions of approval limiting the hours of operation.) >What types of uses does commercial recreation include? (Hurin: In general, it includes athletic and fitness centers, gyms, art and dance studios, martial arts studios, bowling alleys, billiard halls, performance theaters, and activity /play centers for children and adults. Staff would evaluate a proposal and determine if it qualifies as a commercial recreation use.) >In the subcommittee meeting minutes, property owners made observations and suggestions including a minimum depth requirement for active retail at the front of the space. How was the 15-foot dimension determined? (Hurin: Staff discussed the different businesses that are interested in opening in Burlingame, felt that 15 feet was an appropriate dimension to provide an active use so that it is visible from the street and to provide enough room for retail display or lounge /reception area. If the dimension is too short, then it will become left over space and not be used well. If the active space is too deep, the tenant may be concerned that it takes away from their primary business activity.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Conditional use permit process provides the level of protection in case an application presents possible negative impacts. Have no objections to the proposed ordinance. >At City Council and subcommittee levels, the issue has been vetted and discussed in regards to the changing face of retail, and the need to open ourselves up in terms of what types of uses are going to continue to make our downtown vibrant. We have to think about how downtowns are going to remain alive with e-commerce. Commercial recreation uses will continue to bring people downtown; don't see a reason not to allow it. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 4/1/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >15-foot buffer is potential retail area, so will add to the retail feel on Burlingame Avenue. In support of proposed change. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to recommend to the City Council that the ordinance and resolution be approved as proposed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Sargent1 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 4/1/2019 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL will hold a public hearing to consider amendments to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, the Zoning Ordinance, to allow commercial recreation as a conditional use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) zone within Downtown Burlingame. The City Council will review the proposed amendments to Sections 25.32.030 and 25.70.090 of the Municipal Code. The hearing will be held on Monday, May 20, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. The staff report for this item and copies of the proposed amendments may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department, Planning Division, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame; and on the City's website at www.burlingame.org. For additional information please call the Planning Division at (650) 558-7250. To be published by Friday, May 10, 2019 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 10a MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 20, 2019 From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253 Cleese Relihan, Economic Development Specialist – (650) 558-7264 Subject: Consideration of a Façade Improvement Pilot Program for the Broadway Commercial District RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council consider the proposed Façade Improvement Pilot Program for the Broadway Commercial District. BACKGROUND As part of a broad consideration of potential initiatives to promote the economic vitality of Burlingame’s commercial districts, the Economic Development Subcommittee of the City Council has been developing a façade improvement grant program to provide assistance with improving the appearance of storefronts in the City’s commercial districts. Over the course of several meetings beginning in the fall of 2018, the Subcommittee provided staff with direction to prepare the various elements of a façade improvement grant program, including project guidelines, selection criteria, and application process. This intent of the program is to provide grants to rehabilitate eligible commercial buildings in order to encourage more shoppers and residents to visit the business district and patronize businesses. While such a program could be beneficial to each of the commercial districts in Burlingame (Broadway, Downtown, California Drive, Burlingame Plaza, and the Bayfront), the Subcommittee suggested that the initial pilot program focus on the Broadway commercial district. The pilot program went through the Economic Development Subcommittee last year under the review of then-Vice Mayor Donna Colson and then-Councilmember Emily Beach, who comprised the Subcommittee at that time. Since then, the Subcommittee has had a rotation of membership; Vice Mayor Beach and Councilmember Ann Keighran are the current members. To avoid Brown Act issues, the current Subcommittee members felt it prudent to bring the program to the full Council for consideration, with a note that the 2018 Subcommittee members recommended the program to the full City Council. DISCUSSION The Broadway Façade Improvement Pilot Program would allow eligible property owners and Façade Improvement Pilot Program May 20, 2019 2 commercial tenants to receive City funding assistance to undertake commercial façade improvements that will enhance the character of the shopping district. The program would be funded by the City's General Fund. During the pilot program phase, only buildings fronting Broadway (whether vacant or occupied) would be eligible for façade grants. Eligible improvements would include signs, awnings, and exterior painting. To be eligible for funding, the applicant must be a property owner or a business tenant who has secured the written consent of the property owner. For projects involving planning and/or building permits, permits must be obtained as required; the cost of permitting fees may be in included in the application. Under the proposal, the City would allocate a total of up to $50,000 for the pilot program, with a maximum of $10,000 in grant funding for any individual project. Applications would be evaluated based on the intended improvements and their relationship to the program goals. A two-month timeframe for the initial application period is suggested, with applications reviewed at the end of the two-month period. Should additional funds be available after the first round of grantees has been selected, additional applications could be reviewed as they are submitted. The program would be structured on a reimbursement basis. Interested applicants would first meet with City staff to review the application, site plan and schematics of the building, and any preliminary designs. Following the meeting, staff may conduct an inspection to document the existing property conditions and record the scope of work. The City would then review the application and either approve or deny the grant proposal, or request additional information. Once the improvements are completed and signed off by City staff, the grantee would submit reimbursement documents to the City, including all paid invoices. Page 4 of the application packet provides detailed information on the application process. To determine eligibility and rank applicants, a scoring sheet has been developed that evaluates how well the project would meet the goals and objectives of the program, the work plan, budget, potential community and economic benefit represented by the project, as well as completeness of the application itself. Demonstration of support or disagreement would also be considered. The scoring sheet is included on page 5 of the application packet. The City Council is being asked to discuss whether to implement the program, and to provide further input as appropriate. FISCAL IMPACT Up to $50,000 would be allocated from the General Fund for the pilot program. Exhibits: • Draft Façade Improvement Pilot Program Application Packet • September 21, 2018 Economic Development Subcommittee Meeting Minutes • November 16, 2018 Economic Development Subcommittee Meeting Minutes • December 21, 2018 Economic Development Subcommittee Meeting Minutes City of Burlingame Broadway Façade Improvement Pilot Program This guide is provided as a reference for Burlingame property owners and commercial businesses interested in applying for funding through the City of Burlingame Broadway Façade Improvement Pilot Program. To apply, call the Community Development Department at 650.558.7250, or visit the City’s website at www.burlingame.org. Check with the City’s Community Development Department before proceeding with the completion of the packet to confirm that you are eligible. If determined eligible, please complete the packet and email to Cleese Relihan at crelihan@burlingame.org, or mail to: City of Burlingame Community Development Department Economic Development Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Your application will be reviewed for completeness and eligibility. Please contact Cleese Relihan at crelihan@burlingame.org or 650.558.7250 if you have any questions regarding this program or application process. Program Guidelines Overview The City of Burlingame Broadway Façade Improvement Pilot Program is a pilot program for property owners and commercial tenants with businesses located in the Broadway Business District. Eligible property owners and commercial tenants can receive City funding assistance to undertake commercial façade improvements that will enhance the character of the shopping district. The program is funded by the City's General Fund. During the pilot program phase, only buildings fronting Broadway—whether vacant or occupied—are eligible for façade grants. Applications open on [date] and close on [date]. Program Goals This program provides grants to rehabilitate eligible commercial buildings in order to encourage more shoppers and residents to visit the business district. This program provides a way for business owners to make their businesses more appealing to downtown visitors and shoppers. Program Area Although the City of Burlingame is dedicated to aiding businesses throughout Burlingame, the Broadway Business District is the initial program area during this pilot period. Properties fronting Broadway are eligible for the program. Eligibility • Eligible improvements include signs, awnings, and exterior painting. • To be eligible for funding, the applicant must be a property owner or a business tenant who has secured the written consent of the property owner. • Modifications to the building may subject the project to City planning or building requirements and to State, and/or Federal environmental and historical preservation requirements. Any permitting expenses and fees should be included in the budgeting section of the application. NOTE: The program is for new façade improvement projects only. Projects in progress or already completed are not eligible. Funding Available The City has set aside up to $50,000 for this program; approved projects will receive a maximum of $10,000 in grant funding. There will be an initial two-month application period, with applications reviewed at the end of the two-month period. Should additional funds be available after the first round of grantees has been selected, additional applications shall be reviewed as they are submitted. Program Process APPLICATION PROCESS 1. Email crelihan@burlingame.org to obtain an application, or visit the City website www.burlingame.org to download a copy of the application. Make sure to schedule an appointment with City staff to review program procedures by calling 650.558.7250 or emailing crelihan@burlingame.org. 2. For the first meeting with City staff, please bring your completed application, site plan and schematics of your building, and any preliminary designs. 3. Following the meeting, the City may need to conduct an inspection to document the existing property conditions and record the scope of work. 4. The City will review the application and either approve or deny the grant proposal, or request additional information. CONTRACT PHASE 1. To finalize the contract process, the City, the applicant, and the property owner shall review the design plans and funding amount one last time to ensure everyone is in agreement. Any work not approved by the City will not be covered by the grant. The tenant or property owner will only be reimbursed up to the agreed amount regardless of changes to the project. 2. The City and the applicant should make sure copies of all contracts match and are available for future review if needed. REIMBURSEMENT PHASE 1. Once the repair and improvements are completed and signed off by City staff, the applicant has 45 days to submit the reimbursement documents to the City, including all paid invoices. 2. Prior to final reimbursement, the City will conduct an on-site inspection to confirm all improvements are complete. Contact Information City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Community Development Phone: 650.558.7250 Fax: 650.696.3790 Economic Development Phone: 650.558.7264 Fax: 650.696.3790 Email: crelihan@burlingame.org Planning Division Phone: 650.558.7250 Fax: 650.696.3790 Building Division Phone: 650.558.7260 Fax: 650.696.7208 Engineering Division Phone: 650.558.7230 Fax: 650.685.9310 Application Instructions and Application Evaluation Applicants should fill out the Application and Landlord Consent form, as applicable. If the tenant’s lease agreement authorizes a tenant to make modifications to the exterior of the building without landlord confirmation needed, tenants may check the “in lieu of” box on the bottom of the Landlord Consent Form instead of including the landlord’s signature. In addition, all applicants should include a site plan that shows property lines, front and side elevations that show building frames, structural calculations, and images of the proposed façade improvement. Preference will be given to property owners and business tenants who have not yet received this grant before. Applications will be scored on six different criteria: goals and objectives, work plan, budget, community and economic benefit, application completeness, and demonstration of support or disagreement. Each of these categories is described in more detail below and on the following page. A. Goals and Objectives Please write a paragraph defining your goals and objectives. Your goals should include what improvements you want to make, how you believe your property will improve, and why you believe you are a good candidate for the grant. If you are a landlord with a vacant property, describe how the improvements can assist in attracting a tenant. If there is an existing tenant, describe how the improvement will benefit the business. Your objectives should include the actions you would take if you received a grant. Actions can include, but are not limited to, repair of awnings, repainting of the exterior, replacing window lighting with LED lighting products, and installation of new business signs. B. Work Plan Summarize in a paragraph how you plan to implement the building improvements, which contractor you plan to work with, and if they have worked on similar building improvement projects. Provide a detailed timeline for the project from setup to finish, and include images and blueprints of the proposed façade design. C. Budget Please include a spreadsheet or table that itemizes the costs of materials, supplies, and equipment that will be used to repair or modify the façade of your building. Please note that the grant will cover up to a maximum of $10,000. D. Community and Economic Benefit Please write a paragraph or two that defines how your proposed project will contribute toward the community. Does your proposed project preserve or enhance the neighborhood identity or image; increase the chances of attracting a new tenant if your space is vacant or retain the business if occupied; or increase foot traffic to your business? Is the property distressed or dilapidated? You may list other benefits you see resulting from your project. E. Application Completeness Please make sure to complete each segment of the application, and ensure that all information requested is included. Incomplete applications will not be considered, and applicants may receive a list of requested items. If you need clarification on what is needed to complete the application, you can contact the Economic Development Specialist at 650.558.7264. F. Demonstration of Support In addition to providing information on your proposal, you can attach copies of letters of support for your proposed façade improvement project. Letters of support can come from property owners, neighbor tenants, and customers of the established business. Exemplary (3 points) Adequate (2 points) Poor (1 point) Inadequate (0 points) Score Comments Goals States clearly why they States in general Goals and objectives No details provided. & Objectives are seeking grant & how grant can improve terms why they are seeking grant but are vague and need lots of clarification. their conditions and could use surrounding area. clarification. Work Plan Provides clear Provides a brief Provides vague No details provided. explanation about how description of how explanation of how they will implement they will implement they plan to building improvements. building implement building Explains how they can improvements but improvements and complete the grant needs clarifications. A not clear how they program within time frame is stated will complete the specified term. but no additional work. details are provided. Budget Provides an itemized Provides an itemized Provides a general No cost analysis or cost breakdown, cost breakdown and summary of costs, itemized breakdown of includes contacts for summary of contractor contact costs provided, no building contractors, estimates with other information is contractor contact and provides estimates documentation. included, limited information or company and other Includes contacts for documentation that information. No additional documentation that building contractors. supports costs stated. documentation to support support the costs costs stated. stated. Community and Will significantly Will provide modest Will provide No details on how Economic Benefit improve the aesthetics, feel, and value of both improvements to the aesthetics, feel, and improvements to the aesthetics of the improvements will impact nearby buildings and the subject building value of both the subject building, but surrounding area, or itself as well as subject building itself negligible impact to potential to have a neighboring buildings as well as nearby nearby buildings and negative impact on the and surrounding area. buildings and the the surrounding area. surrounding area. surrounding area. Application Application is Application is Application is Application is not Completeness thoroughly completed, provides full details of completed correctly but is missing a small completed but has errors and/or is completed and/or has not provided documents. proposed project, and number of needed missing critical all needed documents documents. documents. are included. Demonstration of Positive comments Mostly positive No comments of No support, and negative Support or Disagreement from neighbor tenants, property owners, and/or customers. comments from tenants, property owners, and/or support or disagreements. feedback only. Is there opposition? customers. Total City of Burlingame Business District Façade Improvement Program Application Prior to meeting with City staff, complete this application to the best of your knowledge. Applicant Information Business Name: Business Address: Applicant Name: Applicant Mailing Address: Applicant Telephone: Applicant Email: Are you the owner or tenant of the building? Owner Tenant Describe what improvement(s) you would like to pursue? You may attach additional information to this application. Note: If you are a tenant, you must obtain written consent from your landlord prior to starting any improvement projects. You are responsible for complying with any applicable terms of your lease. Please have your landlord complete the Landlord Consent Form and submit this with your application. Please review the criteria on page 1 to make sure you are eligible to apply. Tenant Signature Date Application Confirmation I certify that all statements on this application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any intentional misstatements will be grounds for disqualification. I authorize City staff to access the property to be improved for the purpose of inspecting or obtaining information for the Business District Façade Improvement Program. I understand that this is a grant agreement with the City and that I will meet my obligations according to the plan agreed upon between the City and me. I further agree to comply with all City ordinances and the design requirements and recommendations of the Planning Division. City of Burlingame Business District Façade Improvement Program Landlord Consent Form Signature Date In lieu of landlord signature, see attached lease agreement that authorizes tenant to make modification to façade or building exterior. Property Owner Name (Mailing Address) Title Phone Number Email As the legal owner of the above property, I hereby grant authorization to complete the improvements indicated on the submitted application. Consent I, the undersigned owner of the existing building located at (address) certifies that (business name) operates or intends to operate a business at this location. The undersigned agrees to permit the applicant and his/her contractors to implement improvements listed on the City of Burlingame Business District Façade Improvement Program. Application dated: . The undersigned agrees to hold the City of Burlingame harmless for any charges, damages, claims, or liens arising out of the applicant’s participation in the Business District Façade Improvement Program. Community Development Department City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 www.burlingame.org 650.558.7250 1 City Council Economic Development Subcommittee MINUTES Conference Room A City Hall, 501 Primrose Road – Burlingame, California Friday, September 21, 2018 – 9:00 a.m. ATTENDANCE Members Present: Council Member (CC) Beach and Vice Mayor (VM) Colson Members Absent: None Staff Present: Economic Development Specialist (EDS) Cleese Relihan, Finance Director Carol Augustine, and Community Development Director (CDD) Kevin Gardiner DISCUSSION ITEMS Potential Tools and Incentives for Business Attraction: EDS Relihan presented information on various programs other communities have implemented to attract businesses. He presented a memo that provides a list of things the City already does to help with business attraction. Subcommittee members suggested that there are larger market forces at work with commercial and retail space, and that providing $5,000-$10,000 incentives to businesses may not make a significant difference, particularly for Burlingame Avenue. However there was interest in the San Leandro Awning, Sign and Paint Program example provided with the memo, with subcommittee members suggesting that such an approach could be useful for Broadway. EDS Relihan mentioned that the Broadway BID provides grants of up to $500 for awning repairs. Subcommittee members agreed new or repaired awnings and paint can be effective, particularly for Broadway. EDS Relihan suggested he could draft a façade improvement program. Subcommittee members recalled that in a previous Economic Development Subcommittee meeting there had been discussion to have the City allocate $50,000 for improvements. Given that a nice sign can cost $10,000, the thinking is $10,000 should be the grant target. The City could issue a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for grant applications for façade improvements, seating, or signage, up to $10,000 per bid. The application would require a budget and schematics of the proposed improvements. Grants could also be considered for major maintenance items such as awning cleanings. The intent would be for the grants to help the businesses, rather than the landlords, and that the availability of funding could help attract and retain businesses. It would be an open bid process with a rating system. Subcommittee members suggested a draft score sheet be developed and reviewed with the full City Council to get consensus and direction. The program should be coming from the whole City Council, rather than the Economic Development Subcommittee. The goal would be to get the program prepared by the end of the year, and implement the NOFA in January. Subcommittee members also suggested the proposal be reviewed by the City Attorney, particularly to ensure fairness and avoid favoritism and conflicts of interest. The direction from the Subcommittee was to summarize application criteria from other examples, and describe how they are scored. The proposal would be for grants to be provided in a reimbursement 2 City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes September 21, 2018 arrangement to ensure the work gets done as promised. The program would be piloted on Broadway, and other areas could be considered in subsequent years if the program is successful. Succession Planning for Businesses Being Sold: EDS Relihan discussed how there have been a number of recent examples of business owners wanting to sell their businesses to others. He noted that his work is more involved with connecting brokers with tenants looking for spaces, rather than finding buyers for business opportunities. In the staff report packet there was an example of a business succession checklist from a municipality in Alberta, Canada. It provides a to-do list for succession planning. Subcommittee members said that they did not think the City should be in the business of succession planning. They provided direction that it would be sufficient if the City just provided a list of resources to businesses interested in succession planning. CDD Gardiner asked if there is a website that allows businesses to list their business opportunities for sale. EDS Relihan noted that websites such as LoopNet typically list spaces for sale or lease, rather than business opportunities. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS  Bring the discussion of commercial recreation uses on Burlingame Avenue to the full City Council for direction.  Interest in considering allowing condominium conversions of small apartment buildings as a means for providing homeownership opportunities to a wider range of incomes. Would like to see what conversion policies other municipalities have. (Per City Manager: This issue would be outside the scope of the Economic Development Subcommittee but could be discussed at the full Council level.)  Consideration of having a discussion of a City-mandated minimum wage. Other communities such as San Mateo, Belmont, and Redwood City have adopted minimum wages. The County may propose a countywide minimum wage, and Burlingame would need to decide whether to opt in or opt out. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:21 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Kevin Gardiner Community Development Director City Council Economic Development Subcommittee MINUTES Conference Room A City Hall, 501 Primrose Road – Burlingame, California Friday, November 16, 2018 – 9:00 a.m. 1 ATTENDANCE Members Present: Council Member (CC) Beach and Vice Mayor (VM) Colson Members Absent: None Staff Present: Economic Development Specialist (EDS) Cleese Relihan and Community Development Director (CDD) Kevin Gardiner Members of the Public Present: None READ AND APPROVE MINUTES FROM OCTOBER MEETING Meeting Minutes approved. DISCUSSION ITEMS Updated Facade Improvement Program Draft: EDS Relihan introduced the item. He noted that the grant application document has been updated to reflect input received from the subcommittee previously. Subcommittee members inquired whether the program would be for loans or grants. EDS Relihan clarified that it would be for grants. Subcommittee members suggested that if the program was extremely successful and grant funding was exhausted in the future, a similar approach could be offered for loans. Subcommittee members asked if the City Manager and City Attorney had reviewed the draft. EDS Relihan replied that they will review the draft once it has been approved by the subcommittee. Subcommittee members said they thought the draft was suitably developed and that it is ready for review by the City Manager and City Attorney. Subcommittee members clarified that the work would be done by the grantee, and then the City would provide reimbursement for the work. The grantee would coordinate the work, and upon completion of the project, the grantee would present receipts for reimbursement. Subcommittee members suggested that the application process section specify that City staff will inspect existing conditions as part of the application process, and that the work will be inspected upon completion to verify that it has been competed as initially proposed. Subcommittee members suggested the following language: “Once the repairs and improvements are complete, the applicant is responsible for submitting reimbursement documentation including all paid invoices.” The intent is to have proof that the invoices have been paid to eliminate the possibility that someone who had worked on the project was not paid and subsequently pursues a claim with the City. The inspection would then verify that the work is indeed complete. City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes November 16, 2018 2 Subcommittee members asked whether the grant applications should be submitted by tenants or property owners. EDS Relihan noted that in prior discussions, subcommittee members were amenable to either the tenant or property owner applying for the grant. The ultimate goal is to create improvements that will benefit the surrounding area, so if a property owner would not otherwise make the improvements, it could still be worthwhile to provide the grant so that the other properties on the street can benefit. Subcommittee members suggested that a loan program could be a consideration in instances where a property owner wants to make improvements to attract a tenant, and could repay the loan once a tenant is secured. The program can be crafted based on who responds to the initial offering. EDS Relihan reviewed the scoring sheet included in the application. He noted that it has been kept general so it can apply to a range of businesses and situations. CDD Gardiner noted the scoring sheet can be useful in justifying to applicants why an application may or may not have been approved. Subcommittee members suggested adding a category of how the project provides broad economic benefit to the business district – a “multiplier effect.” It could help differentiate between a project that would only provide limited benefit to a single property, compared to one that will have an impact beyond the property itself. EDS Relihan asked if letters of support should be a consideration. Subcommittee members agreed with the need to document support, and suggested it be characterized as “demonstrated support from neighboring tenants, property owners and customers” rather than just a letter. The concern with relying on letters alone is that form letters might be submitted that might not be truly representative of local support. Subcommittee members inquired whether there would be projects that could be considered detrimental or harmful to the surroundings. CDD Gardiner replied that the Planning Commission had recently reviewed an application to modify the façade of a downtown storefront, and the Commission was concerned that the project would be detrimental because it would strip architectural detail and character from the building. Subcommittee members suggested that the criteria of whether the application is complete should not be a scale, but rather yes or no. However with further discussion, there were suggestions that there may be a difference between a “bare bones” application and one that is very thorough, with items such as renderings. CDD Gardiner noted this could allow constructive feedback in that an applicant could improve their score if they provide additional documentation to make their case. Subcommittee members suggested that the grant program be prepared to be offered in early 2019. It can be introduced to the City Council as a work item upon review by the City Manager and City Attorney. Latest Trends in Our Business Districts EDS Relihan reviewed a presentation that had originally been provided to the Downtown Business Improvement District by a firm that paints murals on a commercial basis. He noted that the City cannot specify particular vendors, but that the vendor had approached the City and asked to have their marketing material forwarded to the BIDs. City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes November 16, 2018 3 Subcommittee members expressed concern that there be a perception that the murals offered by the vendors were being endorsed by the City, particularly given that the City has a subcommittee focused on public art. Subcommittee members suggested there are some good locations where such murals could be effective, and noted that there is consideration of adding art to the Beautification Commission. Subcommittee members suggested involving the Parks and Recreation Director and the arts committee in the discussions. Subcommittee members also noted that private property owners might be interested in undertaking mural projects on their own, and they may be interested in having a list of potential vendors to consider. Subcommittee members suggested that to be proactive, there could be an effort to identify potential locations for murals, such as large blank walls in the business districts. The public art committee (or Beautification Commission as the case may be) could possibly identify a handful of locations that would be suitable for murals, and then contact the property owners with the suggestion. EDS Relihan next mentioned that there continues to be fitness businesses expressing interest in locating on Burlingame Avenue. CDD Gardiner noted that there is an item on the upcoming City Council agenda authorizing staff to prepare a proposal for allowing Commercial Recreation within the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) district. It would be a relatively straightforward ordinance text amendment provided it is focused on just the Commercial Recreation use. Subcommittee members also asked how daycare could be accommodated in other parts of town. CDD Gardiner suggested there be a review of where daycare is currently allowed, and why it is not allowed in some locations. Subcommittee members noted that Gymboree is entering the daycare market and is looking for locations, and that there is a real need in the community for such services. Potential locations were identified in the Inner Bayshore area, but the zoning does not allow daycare. Subcommittee members suggested that employment locations such as Inner Bayshore could be appropriate for daycare given the proximity of employment and the convenience to employees in the area. Daycare could be a suitable ground floor use on side streets, in the manner of Peninsula Family Services in Downtown San Mateo. Subcommittee members suggested that downtown would be a good location for daycare since it is where people are already living and working, and that the comings and goings of the parents could add vibrancy to an area. In locations where there is interest in having an active use on the ground floor, daycare could be appropriate as an alternate to retail. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Suggested future agenda items include brainstorming EDS goals and projects for 2019, reviewing 2018 EDS minutes, and reviewing past EDS projects still in progress. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:48 a.m. City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes November 16, 2018 4 Respectfully submitted, Kevin Gardiner Community Development Director City Council Economic Development Subcommittee MINUTES Conference Room A City Hall, 501 Primrose Road – Burlingame, California Friday, December 21, 2018 – 9:00 a.m. 1 ATTENDANCE Members Present: Mayor Colson and Council Member Beach Members Absent: None Staff Present: Economic Development Specialist (EDS) Cleese Relihan, Community Development Director (CDD) Kevin Gardiner, City Manager Lisa Goldman (CM) Members of the Public Present: None READ AND APPROVE MINUTES FROM OCTOBER MEETING Meeting Minutes approved. DISCUSSION ITEMS Updated Facade Improvement Program Draft: EDS Relihan introduced the item. He noted that the grant application document has been updated to reflect input received from the subcommittee previously. Subcommittee members suggested the following edits and modifications:  Specifically designate Broadway in the pilot program.  Change reference “vacant and currently filled” to “leased” to prioritize improvements that benefit tenants. The reference to befitting property values should be removed.  There should be a stated opening and closing date for applications, rather than reviewing on a first-come, first-serve basis.  State that funding availability be set aside for up to $50,000 for the program. This would provide a safeguard if submittals were not worthy. Also clarify that individual grants are up to $10,000, which would suggest that smaller grants would also be considered.  Strike “city will provide assistance to the applicant if possible” as it could be misinterpreted as a commitment by City staff beyond what is reasonable.  Clarify that permitting fees need to be reflected in budgets.  Remove the reference of the score from 0 to 18 on the scoring sheet, since it is confusing.  Allow for energy-efficiency upgrades such as installation of LED lights. This could be reflected in the goals and objectives. Subcommittee members noted that the document mentions needing detailed cost estimates with the application, but then instructs the grantee to obtain bids. Suggestion was to allow the grant amount to be a round number, not a precise amount, but then be supported by documentation for reimbursement. The documentation would need to indicate where the costs comes from. If the work exceeds the grant amount, the additional cost would be the responsibility of the grantee; if the work is less than the grant amount, the reimbursement will be only for the documented expenses. City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes December 21, 2018 2 The subcommittee discussed how much detail should be in the application form. The consensus was to keep the application form concise and direct, but offer a more detailed “how to” list of st eps for applicants not as familiar with permitting or building projects. For the landlord consent form, subcommittee members asked if something that is the responsibility of the tenant would still need landlord consent. In some instances it can be difficult to get in touch with landlords who are out of town. In lieu of a landlord signature, a tenant could show a provision in his/her lease agreement referencing ability to do the work. The subcommittee agreed that EDS Relihan will makes the edits to the document as directed, have it reviewed by the City Attorney, and then have one more review by the subcommittee. At that point, EDS Relihan can provide outreach to the Broadway BID, with instruction to let the BID members know the evaluation will be a public process and BID members can weigh in accordingly. EDS Relihan can meet with the BID president and merchants, letting them know what is being proposed and that it will be reviewed by the City Council. If the program is approved by the City Council, EDS Relihan could then come to a BID meeting to roll it out. CM Goldman clarified that the timing depends on staff workloads, particularly the City Attorney given current assignments. Brainstorming 2019 Goals and Objectives EDS Relihan introduced the item. Subcommittee members suggested the following goals and objectives for 2019:  Local minimum wage policies.  Zoning in the Bayfront area, including daycare opportunities.  Entertainment opportunities for downtown and Topgolf.  Strategies to attract co-working spaces to generate activity downtown and revisit idea of first floor use to encourage development for co-working spaces.  “Shop Local” campaign.  Retail Summit – proposed date April 17th, Wednesday, 6:30 pm.  Housing above car dealerships concept.  Façade Improvement Pilot Program finalization and implementation. Subcommittee members suggested the list can be prioritized with the next Economic Development Subcommittee. Prioritization could consider “low-hanging fruit” and staffing availability. The priorities would then be reported out to the City Council. Subcommittee members also indicated interest in transportation as it relates to economic development. However the consensus was that the topic is beyond the scope of the Economic Development Subcommittee, and that it should involve the Public Works Department. Subcommittee members also noted that the subcommittee meetings where members of the public were invited have been very helpful. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. City Council Economic Development Subcommittee – Minutes December 21, 2018 3 FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS EDS Relihan noted that at the beginning of each year he typically invites the General Managers of the hotels to attend an Economic Development Subcommittee meeting and provide feedback on economic matters affecting the hotels. Meetings in the future will be scheduled on the second Wednesday of the month from 8:00-9:30 am. The next meeting will be on January 9, 2019. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:28 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Kevin Gardiner Community Development Director 1 Memorandum AGENDA NO: 11a MEETING DATE: May 20, 2019 To: City Council Date: May 20, 2019 From: Mayor Donna Colson Subject: Committee Report May 6, 2019 Burlingame Hills Economic and Service Delivery Kick-Off Meeting • Number of people and homes • 433 parcels in Burlingame Hills (8 vacant) • Maybe 1,100 people Pockets of Burlingame that are unincorporated • How do we deliver services • How do we make them more efficient • Want to analyze and see what the data is to understand how this would all work and how it would compare to the City of Burlingame Focus on Consultant Richard Berkson to find out what he needs to analyze the data. • Started with five-years, but we do need the information on the infrastructure and determine how much longer than five for especially the streets and sewer repairs. • Looking at variety of options and pros and cons of each and then quantify each and look at the revenues - need to work out sharing of things like property taxes. If annexation were to occur then, there would need to be study on impacts - general funds, fire-fund - SMC For unincorporated area there is pre-prop 13 property tax that goes into that fund and it funds the services for contract with Cal Fire. None of this goes to CCFD and the revenues go to County - to support fire, even though the City does not get funding for this (funds stay at the County). • There will be a draft report and analytics to guide the decision making situation. Who is driving this • Supervisor Pine is driving to get this analysis done and it is similar to the work that LAFCO does and so want to incorporate. Have created a partnership. One important part is - who is driving the costs and how do you balance these and mitigate the impact. Example - to the extent that Burlingame Hills have higher costs for management, then there could be a ZONE created that would create a higher funding or there could be assessments Colson Committee Report May 20, 2019 2 made to individual homeowners who pay to have these capital costs. Minimize impacts on existing city residents and the general fund. City of Hillsborough provides some water to some 6-12 homes so that would have to be considered. Questions for Public Works and Fire • Conditions of streets, pipes and also the fire situation • Sheriff’s Department - What they can provide and calls for service and who responds and agreements for aid • Register of voters to see who votes? (Not sure why this is important) • Ask for RHNA and permitting information from past • Sphere of influence report and look at the annexation history • Will list pros and cons and the mitigations - tax sharing, etc. If there were a consensus that annexation were the way forward and then city would need to do zoning and land use, then if LAFCO approves, if 25% plus one registered voters or can protest as property owners. Then would to the ballot, this is an economic and service analysis. May 7, 2019 McKinley Founders Day Reception SolMateo Event at Barry’s Bootcamp Presentation from Historical Society on the Burlingame Post Office • Great presentation by Jennifer Pfaff and Cathy Baylock on the history of the USPO and it’s employees! May 8, 2019 City Council Budget Study Session May 9, 2019 Bike to Work Day - Spend AM with colleagues speaking with bikers at CalTrain station - also a fun time. May 10, 2019 Kent Awards Recognizing outstanding leadership! • Our own Greg Land presided over the meeting and BIS won two awards for excellent programs - cross over teaching for students with IEP was recognized as top program. May 13, 2019 Peninsula Clean Energy Executive and Finance Committee Meeting EXECUTIVE MEETING • Granted Baa2 investment rating - which will help on our PPA negotiations and cost of capital Colson Committee Report May 20, 2019 3 • Burlingame is the only city that has formally moved forward to adopt the reach codes! Well done Burlingame Community Development team and this will prove important for the Rollins Road conversation. • Working to develop a joint CCA Cost-Sharing Agreement with PCE, MBCP, EBCE, SJCE, SVCE - to work on Resource Adequacy purchasing. Received 5 proposals and selected ACES. PCE is serving as the lead for the five CCAs. We are executing the contract and each CCA is $130,000 and we will need to bring this to the PCE board since we are paying full three-year contract. • Load Stabilization Proposal - Covers about 20 customers right now that are our largest. Customers must meet minimum Eco plus consumption thresholds and the lowest level of discount is at a high level and then there are tiers. Excluding planned renewable generation - the max solar they could apply would not knock them out of applying for a discount. Many benefits to all of our client base. Eco100 does not get any discount on the 1 cent addition, but the base rate does get the discount. • Finance - Implemented one rate change on May 1. Assume one rate change on 1/1/20 reflecting our current expectation of PB&E rates and PCIA changes. • Budget - Have to make an adjustment on the budget to account for changes in the cost of electricity. FINANCE MEETING • Updated information on how we are going to present data to BOD. • Review of financial statements and audit process. • Discussion regarding how we are going to rebid contracts for both accounting and audit services. May 14, 2019 • Chamber Meeting - Provided update on budget, housing, and Burlingame Talks Shop efforts at ED Committee. • Downtown Parking Meeting Mitigation study for Village at Burlingame Project May 15, 2019 C/CAG SMC Resource Management and Climate Protection Committee • Update on equity issues for Water and Energy resources - mainly work that PCE is doing around EV and also PLA for new construction. • Ideas of how to make sure we do not duplicate efforts and programs such as (refrigerator disposal as example). • Reach Codes - Model codes and working with PCE to provide $10,000 incentives for each city to at least learn and consider this upgrade to the Code. Avoid $50,000 total cost to implement because PCE is taking the lead on this.