Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - CC - 2020.01.21
City of Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL Agw\ City 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Meeting Agenda - Final City Council Tuesday, January 21, 2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers STUDY SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Council Chambers a. 220 Park Road (Former Post Office) — Application Update Attachments: Staff Report Note: Public comment is permitted on all action items as noted on the agenda below and in the non -agenda public comment provided for in item 7. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Mayor may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. All votes are unanimous unless separately noted for the record. 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION 5. UPCOMING EVENTS 6. PRESENTATIONS a. Update from Youth Advisory Committee ("YAC") b. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Project Update Attachments: Presentation 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. City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 111612020 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final January 21, 2020 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. a. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for December 2, 2019 Attachments: Meetinq Minutes b. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for December 4, 2019 Attachments: Meeting Minutes C. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for January 6, 2020 Attachments: Meeting Minutes d. Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapters 13.24.010 and 13.24.015 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Reduce the Posted Speed Limit on California Drive between Oak Grove Avenue and Peninsula Avenue to 25 MPH Attachments: Staff Report Ordinance BMC Update e. Adoption of an Ordinance to Amend Chapters 13.36.030, 13.36.040, and 13.40.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Extend the Parking Time Limit from One Hour to Two Hours, and Increase the Parking Meter Rate on Broadway from El Camino Real to California Drive Attachments: Staff Report Ordinance BMC Update Broadway BID Letter f. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Citv Manaqer to Execute an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Frever & Laureta for the Neighborhood Storm Drain Project #12, City Project No. 85600 in the Amount of $31,150 Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Contract Amendment Exhibit A to Amendment Original Agreement Project Location Map City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 111612020 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final January 21, 2020 g. Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution Approvinq an Interfund Loan Policy for the City of Burlingame Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Interfund Loan Policy h. Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Bay Trail Fitness Equipment Project at the Cost of $205,576.89, City Project No. 85440 Attachments: Staff Report Resolution i. Adoption of a Resolution Directing Staff to Notify the California Community Housing Agency that the City Will Not Become an Additional Member of the Agency Attachments: Staff Report Resolution December 2 Staff Report 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment) 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) a. Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Parks Master Plan Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Draft Parks Master Plan b. Discussion of Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Operational and Governance Options Administrative Draft Report Attachments: Staff Report Supervisor Pine Transmittal Letter Administrative Draft Report 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements. a. Councilmember Colson's Committee Report Attachments: Committee Report 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 1/1612020 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final January 21, 2020 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at (650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next regular City Council Meeting Monday, February 3, 2020 City Council Goal Setting Session - Saturday, January 25, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. in the Lane Room 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. City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 111612020 BURLINGAME AGENDA NO: Study Session STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: January 21, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 21, 2020 From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director — (650) 558-7253 Subject: 220 Park Road (Former Post Office) — Application Update RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council receive an update from the applicant proposing an adaptive re -use development project involving the former United States Post Office at 220 Park Road. BACKGROUND The United States Postal Service (USPS) sold the former Burlingame Main Post Office, located at 220 Park Road, in 2014. The property is now privately held. The City of Burlingame entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with property owner Burlingame Park Square LLC in 2015 for a development proposal that would encompass both the Post Office property and the adjacent City -owned Parking Lot E. The ENA expired in September 2019, and the previous development proposal has become inactive. Since then, the property owner of the former Post Office has engaged developer Sares Regis on a new development proposal for adaptive reuse of the Post Office site. In this study session, representatives from Sares Regis will present an update to the City Council on potential uses and development concepts for the former Post Office property. DISCUSSION The following items are relevant to the current discussion of potential adaptive re -use of the former Post Office: Zoning and General Plan Designations: 220 Park Road is located within the Howard Mixed Use (HMU) zoning district of the Downtown Specific Plan. The HMU zone allows a range of uses including retail, restaurants and services on the ground floor, and housing, offices and hotels on upper floors. Historic Preservation Covenant: The Historic Resources Inventory prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan identified the building as being potentially eligible for listing on a state or national register under Criteria A (events) and C (design/construction). In anticipation of the disposition of the post office, the USPS commissioned a historic resource evaluation to identify potentially 1 220 Park Road (Former Post Office) - Application Update January 21, 2020 historic or character -defining elements of the property. Those elements include the lobby (both interior and exterior), the primary building facade facing Park Road, and the exterior artwork including the bronze relief over the entrance doors. As a condition of the sale, USPS placed a preservation covenant on the property to ensure preservation of those character defining elements of the property. Any adaptive re -use of the building must retain and incorporate these elements. Town Square/Community Open Space: Concurrent with the proposal for the Post Office property, the City will pursuing the design and development of a town square/community open space on the adjacent city -owned Parking Lot E. A "signature open space" was a key element of the Downtown Specific Plan, envisioned to be in the heart of Downtown in the vicinity of the former Post Office. The previous development proposal had combined the City's parking lot and the Post Office property into a single development site to be developed jointly; the direction going forward will be to coordinate the two efforts so they are complementary, but they will not necessarily be combined together into a single development project. On January 6, 2020 the City Council approved a professional services agreement with the urban design firm Urban Field Studio to work with the community to develop conceptual design options for a public plaza on Parking Lot E. This work will include public participation and the development of design concepts for the public plaza, which is intended to become a community amenity. The study will consider the relationship of the public plaza to the adjacent buildings facing (and backing onto) Lot E, as well as coordination with the proposed development of the Post Office site. Downtown Specific Plan Development Capacity: The Downtown Specific Plan was adopted in 2010. The environmental review (Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration) evaluated a build -out involving up to 1,232 new residential units, up to 248,702 square feet of new office space, and up to 183,843 square feet of new retail space. The General Plan Update, adopted in January 2019, incorporated these same figures into the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). To date, 443 new residential units (371 net, accounting for existing units being replaced) and 107,789 square feet of new office space (all new space; no existing office space has been replaced) have been built or approved since the adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan. Retail space has decreased slightly (by a net 4,470 square feet) as some existing commercial retail buildings were replaced with new mixed use buildings that included a smaller amount of retail space than had existed previously. Community Input. Any adaptive re -use of the Post Office is subject to Planning Commission review, including public hearings. Review will also include study of potential environmental impacts, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The design of the town square will include a separate series of community meetings intended to determine the design and programming of the open space. The Planning Division maintains an informational page on the former Post Office property at www.burlingame.org/220park. The page includes Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), and will include project updates as they become available. 2 220 Park Road (Former Post Office) - Application Update January 21, 2020 FISCAL IMPACT None. 3 CITY 4 a PORATED v cItcl y,;:+�,, '� • PLANNING + DESIGN Introduction Approach Public Engagement Needs Analysis Next Steps: Preliminary Draft Recommendations TSPC #1 rproject Kick-off BPAC #1 Y 4 2018 DEC 2019A Goals, Policies & E)asting Conditions Pop-up #2 IrSP�, jBPAC #3P Workshop #j Walk + Bi (Workshop #2 City Council' BPAC #2)"M Tou Needs Recommendations Assessment Workshop 93 TSPC #3 ICityCouncil BPAC #4 i Draft Plan F V. • BPAC Meetings (x2) • Farmer's Market Pop-up Booth (xI) • Community Workshop (x2) • School Map Surveys (xI 00) • Bicycle Tour (xI) • Online Engagement uingarca cn�: yan 0. au` rr Butting— City Poa1a Hall � aa�lnaam. Clq clan ... QBaMmaamrClNMall � 6a]a✓z ano batsman Mauer qan vbrrsmp NomaTI.city or euninnamemn me pmcezzmupaxing ns &cycle aM Amur nia qm xsli mrus rn ennaw� &uxgane's �tl µaesnPiannnerxva, indmng mstreer dke mules. Bay Trait xeeiaBurnngame mnneceos pedes�nisilmc, ana street anprgimay oossiigs Cdnmerls neswems ae ro�nea ro oaer nqn rW"V me uas�er n�ae ana wem vAN rtle fic�ecr rtai:�al a�u'ak rrtrkslropan Wetlneetla',r. Ppa]IN NEeoz 6 Evuas Cirywitle Petlestnan antl Birycle Plan Public Input Map S Snrvey Cwn�y lun;� er I�:�miry In. ma, Icfnne IM4 aIq A06 anam Yar Nm aazg your more 3 Months 452 online comments Comment Type I ; N Barrier That 76 119 Deters me Route that I to ke 169 80 • Network expansion Crossing concerns • Separation from vehicles School safety • Wayfinding 0 Vehicle speeds • Signal timing 0 Signalization • Facility maintenance 0 Facility improvements • Pedestrian experience NEEDS ANALYSIS Demand Connectivity Accessibility Safety Crosstown networks/ residential streets Access to Downtown and Major Destinations Safe Routes to Schools • Reduce stress level on Encourage bike and ped • Maximize on major corridors travel with facility residential network enhancements • Utilize residential connecting to DT, • Reduce stress level streets to create route Bayshore, and major network near links and alternatives destinations schools Commute Travel and Safe Routes to Transit • Prioritize access and connectivity to major transit Safety Where do people in Burlingame live, work, play, shop, go to school, and access transit? Where do people in Burlingame live, work, play, shop, go to school, and access transit? - Schools - Downtown Districts - Parks and Recreation - Transit - Employment Centers 4 11 �. � r7 k po �1 a1, Lag un dy e ' � Ray 11 ac, fiarx a Po Na C ern y reatioraW CID m TipTF 4 �� +ifs -N k V- 4 Park O O f Cuernavaca P }o,. .0 .0 4 Ate , # ��� { IV6 6 ° A Dark ` � p P T, QuOL a .3P � 11s,� -1 g, }� � p I'Po * Pershing f Parer r L ti 2 Y* Bike Walk WFH Other 0.3% Carpool 8% 2% 6% Transi 15% 9 Drive Alone 68% 1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2016 American Community Survey Demand Connectivity • Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress • Pedestrian crossings 11 g \Tw .- ._ } Accessibility Safety BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS 1! -, rm r 00, LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 All Ages and Abilities terested but Concerned Enthused and Confident Strong and Fearless DD� Par ADD p`• . D 'V h y Park Co'/�` d Laguna-., 4 4 ark 4, at b `� 4eoo ¢tip Q „ ac,P: fly`' 4. �R 9- AN JO'* y �1 p,Wp,�R aR q' Canyon t emavac Park N� a Pa400 lit two / K rk �y f ayside Park 5A � Ah• I Level 1 Trail (All Ages) Level 1 Residential All Ages) Level 2 (Average Adult) Level 3 (Confident Adult) Level 4 (Fearless Adult) HAY-1g1- Rec ? p C; PC; �04�❑ yO� 'P/ c'l� Gov < 1+ 9,l,Ro�P�,T'SY4 S& MAR'QO5? ❑�o� ATWATE R DR 'SG�T O❑Q Crosswalk Type Location LTS 3 & 4 Crossings LTS 3 & 4 Corridors O Hi -Viz crosswalks Level 3 (Confident Adult) ® Many crosswalks Level 4 (Fearless Adult) o Some crosswalks BLI0 " wy, C. US HIGRWAY 101 p�������aPJ,y�°SWAY C �9�� . V �OFL C Q OPr� �0� J c o � f�C ❑P� �� ":.:. .. �`{'ram ��� �r�t. 'L,P� � F .o 0 �_ Demand Accessibility • Access to parks • Access to schools • Access to transit • Access to shopping Q Pam¢ ¢q °(o� High ¢°9ysti0Accessibility . ��•�,�'(s� ���'�¢¢� Low �Ro d Accessibility -4 �4 sylcy� v�gM0 ai c DP Rf F�Rd -off �k, N CqR A�v � q o p �QY P �Cq side Park QG�S 4� DLO �'-Qr...�O¢ �'4�• �v~ P lt��`� _ AtRpaRiBL�D dYQr 44 Ra r. a.k FN/G - L �� Coyote � Paint County CQ�f� Recreational Area R A�� �1�1q yVp'� 'PT�� 4 A.'SfiSWAY C5 0 `� �� 4 4� O4 �f Qy _ �L /cq� cy�c lF v pq cL °'P 04� naf O�sp L��� ((°�Lfi P �I NOS O¢ QP \' day 519 'yi'Lr,R0'- 1 Ir kr �� d{° DER O �4 �iAv� ��RfGs T°�Lt� G �p °4 ARIA p� 4 R4(Q p 'Ld d d PJ yf tiG arka ca M►11 4f �NfpQ as�Lfi F 41.E9RG�4'�in�fi! °�R Jti,P Q fi Np d Q Canyo 4d 4 P q! Park 4b �Q� G Gr d 0-0 s � A. N� /01 nC, �d . - i� ' ¢� p0 0 v Gr�� Gov ¢ li s High Accessibility Low Accessibility <, a a QR GS �rG Vage k �o by Op 1, AIRPORT BLVD WGQr'q ! o� sRRp �` aka Np�RO 6ayside A�V� UP L qN Park S y�G �vv Laguna Par �F �D �Qt' a Ray 'S'iy �` Park 9y$� c9A C`,1R Co ate Point( creatiar 4 yl" 9 G Area 'QL� L� per ��F � "q J� a _� � �pQ 5p pQ `y ... t' L Q ` Q �Q 41r tv� sp4 �� 1 �,,� �1 WA pJ r 5� pt7 ry p4 q �r 4 P �a L p9Q C'QGL O¢ �� CAP C. 11, C" �t�¢ P��V C ❑� C4{G�I�sQ �'� 4L� d¢ate �[�''� Q'V9 pQ OPT Washington �`)4 �1Cy �y,P G A1ATR bp Mills N ��4i Q�'P�a GsgL� vR ��Q�.a� Park {oa�tt`�� s Cuerna Ua ca .y qL r •y ti, y�fiT0,,, Parke¢ 4 Cp kn �L' 'TQQL� o f��� `}�pA ��U��� F�$T ���. �{ fp F'�b 9.yr� 'p¢ d 4 yf'� �UfiV Py A'Pr 4jpO Piles �Q Qsfi ryiMGi�� J "PA Pershing Park L Oyu' High 040 Accessibility ppv� R-¢q'P Low �� Accessibility s� Ap 9 Ro •pd O yC. �c 0�,A s�'M village k ��>o> Q O AIRPORT 6LV0 GQi O,� Sayside � Q �4QQ- Rp Park GFSDRay Park �y Laguna Pa �r QP - O � •4� _Y Co t Paint 4 RAYVV' C � p SQO 'O c ` Rp eatiana ,4< F c�A �p�� , t� � Misr �N� �1 �ea WAY q v� Q G 4y G t� 4�, 14 -9� 4 r� Ar ��p P•1 L C`P' �Qp ANI q� �� q �`�'C' 2 c'`'yN ` ��� �F`P, d }lx Pt` C' r['> p� C+ QGG kp p 4 I QPQ p, m x AI-WAf br? P Q� QGS �L� ti0 9�y q�� �`�7 Was ingtan �`,y G I PJ G Mills V 4G O {' Q a y� �0 '$> s s Cuerna ►•a ca � A F Q Ar P �> q a Park q¢ Canyon �v 'L� d `fig 9 'A p Park f4�i >TQ ��Z` LLq{ A ��`� �� Pia p�1P -Av � r1 P� �p�L p��p�P¢P 4 v 2 ��O : i Pershing Park , p`�� � A�W�,ER DR Cuernavaca mills \os ark¢°4Canyon Park G'Qa- �❑ pC CPS �w� �� �ysti �`�� °v� 4❑ OAF v � fiCL fia vR�i-4 .. Gs y 1 p¢ �STM Village' k 9�110 1 SfiQGp fCa� hRO �c,RO QGA.qL P°Cp fi Laguna C 4N S ° ly Q A* �vv y Park tr, 1O, �r4s4Q Ray Park y�q y 4 v� �4 � A °1v 1A�`� w� �fi�'� �`°moo "•�G ��_n,-� C UP 2w °44 CIO CQ'QT �QA a ¢ p� °z- Pq ❑ GSOT Lfi y f �Pi �F °q fi4Q O� r�c� q 0 High Accessibility Low Accessibility AIRPORT BLVD �? 6ayrside �-v0 �•+ Park TO q�•s�� 4 fi� 9y J 'Pr WAY IV 9C�QP Washington goo Park 47 '7,p O r 'r„` �' G;,p{ rfi�d �40 7 C fi pPers#ing Park `tiNS Paint C �reatiar Area F/ i Accessibility What does historical safety data say about the areas of focus for bicyclists and pedestrians in Burlingame? 4D 4�,, �a y T- d% Ij 3- El Camino Real "� `} (Caltrans ROW) �i � � �� Lag errs 4.1,�, qy 6L parker Ray k r fia x q u a .00 in t Co ern ty a California Drive .e�?tion � m AT W ATc- q 0.9 mitts s k k f 4 park - 0 O O ` ' cam o �' # A ,� � f Cuernavaca Pam4 46 1., 'Dark` p TL 11s, Downtown Area f Parer i r L ti�M1 2 Y* 5 Year SWITRS Data AREA OF FOCUS 'Opp (PEDESTRIANS) Y-4h FRANCYSCO El Camino Real/Murchison RA Y (Caltrans ROW) Burlingamey Broadway Station Area y La Un 4-1� DO Intermediate School ,�a,,���� Pa�.mint Co ern ty reationw -C Area ,,, Downtown Area AT%U Tc � � park El Camino Real/Broadway = , Cuernavaca {` # D �� ! 6 C ., Park' (Caltrans ROW)-0 co, lee "Po z 5 Year SWITRS Data Crosstown networks/ residential streets Access to Downtown and Major Destinations Safe Routes to Schools • Reduce stress level on Encourage bike and ped • Maximize on major corridors travel with facility residential network enhancements • Utilize residential connecting to DT, • Reduce stress level streets to create route Bayshore, and major network near links and alternatives destinations schools Commute Travel and Safe Routes to Transit • Prioritize access and connectivity to major transit =C �` it 1 o •� -- �:' "k �'. � •`• � : � ,� 5 ..Tye D D blilil I I , I wlj�lil 0 0 0 1 a aviviel N rod N Race] LIVA I LIVA I a Ll I Class I shared use path — is an off-street paved bikeways. They are separated from vehicle traffic, but are almost always shared with pedestrians. Class 11 standard bike lane - is a portion of road reserved for the preferential or exclusive use of people biking, indicated by road markings. Those riding in a bike lane should always be aware of driveways, mixing zones, car doors and vehicles such as taxis or paratransit that may temporarily occupy the lane. Class 111 shared lane - is typically wide travel lanes shared by bicyclists and vehicles. They are commonly marked with the standard or greenback sharrows and wayfinding signs to indicate shared use. The sharrow symbol is a bicycle silhouette with two chevrons above it indicating the proper direction of travel. Those riding a bike should be cautious of the door zone, mixing zones and turning lanes. Shared Lane Markings or "sharrows," are road markings used to indicate a shared lane environment for bicycles and automobiles. r, Class IV Separated bikeways - also commonly referred to as cycle tracks or protected bikeways, are bicycle facilities that are separated from traffic by parked cars, safe -hit posts, transit islands or other physical barriers. Always be considerate of slower -moving bicyclists, pedestrians and driveways. Bike Route (Class 3) Buffered Bike Lane (Class 2b) Bike Lane (Class 2) Shared -Use Path (Class 1) 1 Separated Bike Lane (Class 4) Bike Boulevard (Class 3b) Bikeway Class Go�w��� �p Class I Shared -Use Path Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane �P s- �� Class II Bicycle Lane T o Q �9G Class III Bicycle Route �a e M Perk q� Bayside Park �1A B� IcIF op040w v� CgN9�E V � q �O Ray q e0 ' R� Park 4q1, �0 1111111111111<q a vNs ate Point D p cp c A cGN cqR R� us N!c'r-iv AY i�1 Coln ecreational qqL cq<iF °�q� <i� 3 .. • — Area 01VIq WPC°a WA Oy_ n �Gy q q L P� C��O \�� P� C / Xx o�o MAP c0�Washington2 q�Park 9 Mills 0, Canyon TA, O �O Cuernavaca , k p Par1 TO Park��P �O gRgO J J Opx 5� • 7n�s V� OS,it` � �L_ ��, V��Vnn 11V 0 0.3 0.6 0 r- Y� z m A�4 Park /_ rr DRAFT FO O ♦ j r ♦♦♦ • r ♦� ♦ A,, P NCgR < ,♦♦�F�� 72i� �q�Jp�v Park �qL IQ�NIF ♦ D � C'�R� cqA q�q! O'���� � `'� WP- � �q ♦qUF cge���l. F�9LF ST-q '�i�' �i�9+ 1 { may► t,AI c� ♦ Q° o a � s'P� y�'q� �`G2 �F.aGc ; cq�&M, ' o o�,o0 6 �I {p ♦♦♦ ♦� Mills F ♦ c q� F uernavacaoQ OIL, CParkR<�o � 04 � �ark�QP� �/ 4pgr'F���� ♦I�`s� �C'J��� ;�, ♦I� � F IPh • yy <�'Qys MILES0 0.3 0.6 Caltrans Right -of -Way El Camino Real Existing Bikeways Class I Shared -Use Path Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane Class 11 Bicycle Lane Class Ill Bicycle Route Park Proposed Bikeways —• Class 1 Shared -Use Path —° Class 2 Bicycle Lane —• Class 3 Bicycle Route 4 1 2, i us Hlc'rrv�nr i�i Coi WAY STD ♦ � �-��, os� ♦ o� I�� �,�0 P -9 90 P�� ♦� Washingtono< 4 �Q ♦ P� Cy � � 7 2 P hin�'0,10k E YpL{ � a z m{ aP�R q ote Point ecreational Area �G �T \`Po a DRAFT DRAFT PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT TYPES ;+ r i `kv. 00 0.1114. villa. 4 O Park Ray Park Laguna0 Park 4, 0 Cuernavi Park Bayside Park SR2S Improvements O Crossing Improvements Q Signal Improvements OTransit Access Improvements 0 Pedestrian Envs. Improvements Sidewalk Improvements E Washington Park 0 Xg Pershing Park Coyote Pc Recre r RI �E s Mills Canyon Cuernavaca Park Park Pedestrian Corridor Types Arterial Corridor 5i Collector Corridor Local Corridor High Pedestrian Corridor Park - Bayside Ray Park Lag Park Park ID.... wa ON Pershing Park Coyote Point Recreab Area ARTERIAL STREETS Countermeasures Sidewalk Repair Lighting Street Trees Street Furniture Oil Utility Relocation Ped Refuge Island Traffic Calming Rolled Curb Replacement TV M Ex: California Drive Red Curb Management Curb Extensions Crossing Guards Marked Crossings E E r LIMIT 20 Leading Ped Interval Signs and Markings Ped Scrambles Extended Crossing Times Ex: Murchison Drive Sidewalk Repair e Itility Relocation Red Curb Management k Leading Ped Interva Recommended Countermeasures Lighting L.O", Ped Refuge Islan, Curb Extensions Signs and Markings Street Trees Traffic Calming t-11"®r-r- f Crossing Guards Ped Scrambles Street Furniture Rolled Curb Replacement - !-!W Marked Crossings Extended Crossing Times Ex: Coronado Way ti Sidewalk Repair Itility Relocation Red Curb Management k Leading Ped Interva Recommended Countermeasures Lighting Ped Refuge Island Curb Extensions Signs and Markings a Y Street Trees Traffic Calming f Crossing Guards Ped Scrambles i� Street Furniture Rolled Curb Replacement Marked Crossines Extended Crossing Times i Ex: Burlingame Avenue c,ir p%A/alk RPnair Itility Relocation Red Curb Management - �f Leading Ped Interval Recommended Countermeasures Lighting Street Trees ,4 Ped Refuge Island Curb Extensions Signs and Markings Traffic Calming Crossing Guards Ped Scrambles Street Furniture Rolled Curb Replacement Marked Crossings Extended Crossing Times ...................................................................• Bay ail ��za rya Lot Auatefa team e Trenton Park irs h:41'1wa� �Y8U?i I .. 256 � ,ea t '• mile e °n k J 101� Mctoda Pa vowngbn J Lot Playground ✓ Sao �+ 1-22 mile �� •� yez hop a 3 ';e Per i Park San Mateo. TSPC #1 ' Project Kick-off, 41-BPAC Goals, Policies & E)asting Conditions op -up #2 Workshop #J PAC #2, I Pop-up #1 IM Ni ASSE ,TSPC #2 Workshop 43 4,BPAC #3 J Walk +Bi Workshop #2 City Council, SPC#3�CityCouncil Tours (BPAC #4 Continue Gathering online ➢ Work shop 3 feedback Develop Implementation Detailed street level options Strategy • Based on public feedback • Project evaluation and criteria • Additional studies + data • Project funding sources collection Finalize Recommendations 0& • t.e :_. CITY 4 I, 14 a op PORATED v alta PLANNING + DESIGN CIO � �PGO� �o=moo �� Nis: P O�9GF ,,�♦ � i oVi e ��� {% ti� �,0 4► O`R �drkAl SQL LFCOpOLO e ag�ROCgN F 4Y o� p� -s 41 Par1f�J�a Icy► Ray a�FL�J�Par i� CeOgq� I��P G ��91z FZ co �0CI'y �h1e l0 I �L S'T SA I �►a O o � LF sPI ti M AR+; ; �POQ O¢ C q��he�I�O ���FO���F � qL 4L qL +Ip ♦ Mills `� c�� NP Cuernavaca ?jO Pa kn �/TO ,� � �P �. ark o� / RgO17 • ) `"nyS Bike Recommendations Caltrans Right -of -Way El Camino Real sANFRAN( Proposed Bikeways BAY • Class 1 Shared -Use Path Class 2 Bicycle Lane ----• Class 3 Bicycle Route AIRP6R77t7v7'% - - - - - ----� OBaAide Park `4ote Point c �►•� US HIG'MTVA•Y--i�i County Recreational <iFr RO�gN <iNO % ~�— ---+—--1----- • _---- - Area q R ♦ � � I� ✓Cq % � P� WAY J� L ��T,q�R,�♦ �� ,-�,. Oyu � �O-p � ♦ O�O��P 69�O�o 41 090 QP �� Washington Park O?'O T S CI O d P 9L Q\�I A�iO O✓� yC� `ptC� SQI �QO OC) 7 2� Pershin f #&k E DRAFT MILES 0 0.3 0.6 Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 4� CIkyoh WFMM9 ME 9 Mwrm �uw[ ` BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting on December 2, 2019 STUDY SESSION a. DISCUSSION OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS CDD Gardiner began by stating that the purpose of the study session was for the Council to discuss residential short-term rentals and provide direction to staff regarding any future work on the issue. CDD Gardiner stated that currently, the City requires short-term rental operations to have a business license. Additionally, the City's existing transient occupancy tax ("TOT") applies to short-term rentals when they meet the municipal code's definition of hotel. He noted that currently, the City doesn't have a program for monitoring or collecting TOT from short-term rentals and that only approximately 10% of rental operations have acquired business licenses. CDD Gardiner reviewed the perceived community impacts of short-term rentals. He discussed a variety of elements that can affect the impact on the community including: • Whether the short-term rental is a shared bedroom versus an entire unit • Whether the owner is onsite • Whether the unit is 100% dedicated to short-term rental CDD Gardiner discussed neighboring communities' approaches to short-term rentals. He showed a table that listed the different jurisdictions and the requirements that were put on short-term rentals (this information can be found on page 5 of the staff report). He noted that there is no uniform approach. City Attorney Kane discussed the issue of obtaining cooperation from the listing companies, such as Airbnb. She explained that if the listing company perceives the City as being cooperative, the City can obtain data from the company concerning how many listings there are in the city, where they are located, and how frequently they are rented. She noted that listing companies have sued cities for enacting total bans on short- term rentals. City Attorney Kane discussed San Francisco's litigation with Airbnb that had cost the City a lot of money over the course of several years. She stated that San Francisco reached a settlement with Airbnb that included Airbnb giving the City access to their data in exchange for removing some of the limitations the City had imposed. Burlingame City Council December 2, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 City Attorney Kane discussed the recent incident in Orinda in which a shooting occurred at an Airbnb during a house party. She stated that in the wake of this incident, cities looked at restricting large party/retreat rentals by requiring the host to be onsite. She added that another option is to require that the unit be rented for more than one night. City Attorney Kane stated that the City has received very few complaints about short-term rentals. She added that she believes the City has at least 100 listings, with only a few of the owners having business licenses. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the staff report implies that the fiscal impact of collecting TOT from the 100 listings in the City would be the equivalent of one of the City's modest -sized hotels. He explained that he believed this was incorrect, as he didn't believe the short-term rental listings would have the same occupancy rates as the City's hotels. City Attorney Kane replied that staff s calculations were an attempt to give Council a sense of the scale of the fiscal impact. She noted that the impact also depends on whether the City can collect. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that as the Council discusses regulating short-term rentals, he didn't believe the Council should consider the fiscal impact. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the City received any input from the hotels. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative. She explained that the hotels want the short-term rentals to pay TOT. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked about pod -shares (multiple bunkbeds in one room for young professionals) and where they would fall under the regulations. City Attorney Kane replied that short-term rentals are defined as rentals for 30 days or less. Therefore, if you are renting a bunk for less than 30 days, it would be a short-term rental. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked if the City could put a limit on the number of bedrooms that are rented. City Attorney Kane replied that a lot of the legality around short-term rentals is not well -established. Therefore, it would come down to the issue of property rights and the definition of a family. However, she explained that if the City regulates with the purpose of preventing noise and traffic problems, it could steer the City towards a defensible policy on the number of rooms that can be rented. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked if there is State law regarding how many people are allowed in a rental unit. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative. But she noted that under the building code, it is a surprisingly small amount of square footage that is required per person. Vice Mayor Beach asked if the City received a clamoring of people wanting the City to allow short-term rentals. City Attorney Kane replied that most of the people that want to undertake a short-term rental just do it. Vice Mayor Beach asked if staff had a sense of whether the short-term rental properties in Burlingame are 2 Burlingame City Council December 2, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 single-family homes or ADUs. CDD Gardiner replied in the negative. Vice Mayor Beach asked if towns like Atherton and Hillsborough that require short-term rentals to be for longer stays have been sued. City Attorney Kane replied that she would get back to Council with this information. Vice Mayor Beach stated that her sense is that a shorter -term rental has more of an impact on a neighborhood than a longer rental. She noted that what she was hearing from staff is that the more restrictions the City puts on short-term rentals, the greater increase in the risk of litigation from listing companies. Additionally, she stated that if the City puts restrictions on short-term rentals, the listing companies may not share data with the City. City Attorney Kane stated that to get data from the listing companies, the City must be permissive. She noted that the City hasn't had any direct conversation with the listing companies. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran discussed San Francisco's requirements that short-term rentals have business licenses, and hosts must be onsite for all but 90 days a year. City Attorney Kane replied that San Francisco's requirements were hard won, and that San Francisco has a team dedicated to the regulation of short-term rentals. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked if the City was to receive several complaints about a short-term rental, could the City ban the owner from utilizing the property for short-term rentals. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative. She noted that if the City has the cooperation of the listing companies, the listing companies will then remove that property from their website. Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he doesn't believe that the City should ban short-term rentals. He explained that he believed that the City needed a more nuanced approach. He stated that the complaints he has received concern traffic and noise. Therefore, he explained that whatever regulations the City adopts, it should be with the focus on minimizing those issues for the neighbors. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran stated the importance of regulating short-term rentals in a commonsense/empathetic way. She stated that she would like the owners to get a business license and pay TOT, and she would like to require the host to be onsite for most of the time. She voiced concern about owners utilizing their dining rooms, living rooms, and other rooms as bedrooms for short-term rentals. She noted that this usage would increase traffic and noise problems in small neighborhoods. Vice Mayor Beach stated that two of the Council's infrastructure priorities are transportation and housing. She explained that she believed that short-term rentals might detract from achieving those goals. She stated that individuals in a single-family neighborhood didn't sign up to live next to short-term rentals. She noted that if the City approves short-term rentals, the owner must have a business license and pay TOT. Additionally, she requested that the host be onsite, the rental have a minimum stay requirement of a few days, and if the short-term rental receives two strikes, then it is no longer allowed to operate. 3 Burlingame City Council December 2, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Councilmember Brownrigg stated the City needed to be careful not to capture HIP Housing and other similar programs when regulating short-term rentals. He stated that his concern focuses on a single-family home becoming a boarding house. Therefore, he wondered if the City should limit the number of renters allowed at a time. City Attorney Kane stated that she would need to further research this idea and how it would apply to the definition of family. Mayor Colson stated that she reviewed how other cities have regulated short-term rentals. She explained that she agreed that owners should have a business license, the City should collect TOT, and the City should require a two-day rental minimum. She stated that she didn't want to ban short-term rentals. Councilmember Brownrigg asked whether it is the City itself or the listing company that collects the TOT. City Attorney Kane stated that the companies don't directly collect the TOT, but some of their websites provide a mechanism for that payment. Vice Mayor Beach asked if the City imposed a minimum stay requirement, would listing companies allow the City access to their data. City Attorney Kane replied that she would need to get back to Council with this information. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked staff to send Council the San Francisco ordinance. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative and noted that Airbnb's general counsel has stated that Airbnb is not giving other cities the same deal that San Francisco was given. Councilmember Ortiz asked if absent the cooperation from the listing companies, is the City relying on the individual owners to report and collect TOT. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative. She noted that there are third party data miners that the City could hire to obtain more information. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked if the City could implement a fine if the City finds out that the property isn't registered as a short-term rental. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Ortiz stated that it sounded like there was a consensus amongst the Council for the host to be present for a portion of the year. The Council agreed. City Attorney Kane noted that one of the risks of short-term rentals is that it removes units from the market for more permanent residents. She stated that it was her suggestion that any official BMR unit not be available for short-term rental. She explained that in January 2020, there are several new laws concerning ADUs that go into effect. Therefore, she will need to review how these affect short-term rentals. Mayor Colson closed the study session and asked staff to further review Council's concerns. 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. 4 Burlingame City Council December 2, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by Dina from Gatepath. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O'Brien Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Colson reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. PRESENTATION BY GATEPATH Gatepath CEO Bryan Neider stated that Gatepath would be celebrating its 100th year of service to the community in 2020! He explained that Gatepath is one of the largest providers of services to the intellectual and developmental disabilities community in the Bay Area. He noted that Gatepath has 13 locations in Santa Clara and San Mateo County with more than 300 dedicated staff members. Mr. Neider stated that Gatepath reaches about 15,000 families, caregivers, and individuals each year. Moreover, Gatepath's core programs serve more than 1,200 individuals each day. He explained that Gatepath's goal is to provide a lifespan of services including pre-schools, employment programs, and senior programs to the community. Mr. Neider stated that Gatepath's mission is to empower people with special needs to achieve their full potential through innovative, inclusive programs and community partnerships. He added that Gatepath's vision is a world where people of all abilities are fully accepted, respected, and included. Mr. Neider discussed Gatepath's work in the community. He explained that Gatepath operates three locations in Burlingame with more than ten years of City grant funding for children and adult programs. He stated that the Learning Links Pre -School on Marco Polo was the first inclusive preschool in the region. 5 Burlingame City Council December 2, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Mr. Neider discussed the importance of community support from the nonprofit sector including: client and workforce housing, employment opportunities, volunteerism, access to facilities, state and federal funding, voter accessibility, and improved transportation options. Mr. Neider stated that on May 14, 2020, Gatepath will be holding a gala to celebrate its anniversary; Henry Winkler will serve as the MC, and Dr. Temple Grandin will be the keynote speaker. To find out more, go to www.gatepath.org. The Council thanked Gatepath for their hard work in the community and congratulated Gatepath on their 1001h anniversary. b. UPDATE FROM HIP HOUSING HIP Housing Associate Executive Director Laura Fanucchi presented Council with HIP Housing's 2020 calendar. The calendar includes artwork from local students on the importance of home. Burlingame student Simone's artwork was chosen for the month of December, and she wrote that: "My home is very cozy and warm. It is full of love, strength, and creativity. I love my home because I am free to be." Burlingame student Sophie's artwork was chosen for the cover, and she wrote: "Home is home no matter how small, how big, where it is, what the color it is, or the color of the people inside." Ms. Fanucchi thanked Council for their continued support of the affordable housing programs. She noted that HIP Housing has seen a 29% increase in the number of Burlingame residents and employees that are applying to their programs. Mayor Colson thanked HIP Housing and the young artists for their work. c. UPDATE FROM THE SAN MATEO COUNTY MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control District ("District) board member Joe Galligan gave the Council an update on the work that the District has undertaken. He explained that the District exists because 100 years ago, the number one cause of death in California was malaria and mosquito -borne diseases. Mr. Galligan reviewed some of the statistics from the previous year including: • No West Nile virus detected in San Mateo County • District average the same number of service requests as 2018 in Burlingame • District received more calls about wasps and yellow jackets versus mosquitos Mr. Galligan stated that financially, the District is doing very well. He noted that the District has no pension liability. He also discussed the awards that the District has received over the years. 6 Burlingame City Council December 2, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Councilmember Brownrigg asked how the District is financed. Mr. Galligan stated that the District is funded by property taxes. The Council thanked Mr. Galligan for his work with the District. d. INFORMATION ON THE UPCOMING US CENSUS US Census recruiting assistant Pat Belding shared with Council information about the upcoming census. He stated that every ten years, the United States federal government undertakes a census that helps to allocate future funding on the state, county, and local levels. He noted that anyone over 18 years old is eligible to work for the US Census. He reviewed the positions that are available and stated that the pay starts at $24 an hour. Mr. Belding asked the Council for any suggestions on advertising US Census job opportunities. Councilmember Brownrigg asked when the jobs start. Mr. Belding stated that the positions last for eight weeks and can be renewed. He explained that if an individual puts an application in now, they should hear within two months. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked if the City could put this in the e-newsletter. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked if Mr. Belding has approached the community colleges in the County. Mr. Belding replied in the affirmative. Mayor Colson suggested that Mr. Belding work with the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce to get a table at the farmer's market. She also suggested that he work with the parent groups at Burlingame High School and Mercy High School. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT Burlingame resident Matt Hilliard discussed SB 13 that concerns ADUs. He asked that Council review the legislation and its implications for Burlingame. 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 adopt the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember O'Brien Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 7 Burlingame City Council December 2, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 18, 2019 City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes for November 18, 2019. Vice Mayor Beach noted that the titles of the veterans that were recognized needed to be updated. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE 1740 ROLLINS ROAD AND 842 COWAN ROAD PUMP STATIONS REPAIRS, CITY PROJECT NO.85830 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 148-2019. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING GRANT FUNDS FROM THE CALIFORNIA LIABRARIES CULTIVATING RACE, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION INITIATIVE GRANT PROGRAM City Librarian McCulley requested Council adopt Resolution Number 149-2019. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING GRANT FUNDS FROM THE BURLINGAME LIBRARY FOUNDATION FOR COMMUNITY ROOM UPGRADES City Librarian McCulley requested Council adopt Resolution Number 150-2019. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND LEVYING 2020 SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS ON HOTEL BUSINESSES WITH THE DISTRICT Finance Director Augustine stated that the Council has overseen the annual re -authorization hearing of the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District ("TBID") assessments for almost 20 years. Since the formation of the TBID, the City's finance department has administered the bills and payments for the assessments. Finance Director Augustine stated that the TBID includes 14 cities and more than 171 member hotels. Finance Director Augustine asked the City Clerk if any protests had been received. City Clerk Hassel - Shearer replied in the negative. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the Council received an email from Palo Alto stating that the City was considering withdrawing from the TBID. Burlingame City Council December 2, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 City Attorney Kane stated that for a City to be removed from TBID, their City Council must request this action from Burlingame. She explained that she discussed this timeframe with Palo Alto in July. San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Convention Bureau Director of Sales Teipo Brown stated that Palo Alto is currently voting on whether to remove itself from the TBID. City Attorney Kane stated that Palo Alto's decision would not affect the current decision before the Council on whether to approve the levying of assessments in 2020. Mayor Colson opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Vice Mayor Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 151-2019; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 10. STAFF REPORTS a. "SEA CHANGE BURLINGAME" SUMMARY PRESENTATION Mayor Colson stated that during the 2019 Goal Setting Session, the Council established five main infrastructure priorities. She explained that one of the priorities was Sea Level Rise Shoreline Protection and that she and Councilmember Brownrigg were assigned this priority. Sustainability and Climate Management Fellow Andrea Pappajohn stated that Burlingame's Bayshore presents a unique and significant risk to the city. She explained that it is important to understand the magnitude of sea level rise that will happen in the future. Therefore, she worked with Sustainability Coordinator Sigalle Michael to provide the Council with some of the factors that should be considered when discussing sea level rise: • The Burlingame Bayshore is approximately 2.5 miles long • There are four main creeks (most likely pathways for significant flooding) • There are 12 hotels with 3,700 hotel rooms that employ 3,000 people, and the TOT they generate makes up 40% of the City's General Fund budget Ms. Pappajohn stated that the City was awarded a grant from the San Mateo County Office of Sustainability in November 2018 to study the Bayshore. She explained that the City hired Environmental Science Associates ("ESA") to undertake the study and introduced ESA representatives Ari Frink and Dane Behrens to discuss the findings from the study. Mr. Frink stated that ESA's overall strategy for the study was to develop and identify strategies for the Bayshore to adapt to sea level rise. He explained that ESA established the following steps: 1. Identify the vulnerabilities on the Bayshore 2. Develop goals and objectives on what to protect and where 3. Develop strategies to protect those objectives 4. Evaluate the strategies for their environmental and economic benefits and impacts 9 Burlingame City Council December 2, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Mr. Frink stated that ESA began the study in February 2019. He explained that since February, ESA has developed six memorandums and conducted four presentations to the technical advisory committee and community stakeholders. He stated that the risk and vulnerability assessment was completed in June 2019, and the identifying adaptation strategies memorandum will be presented at this meeting. Mr. Frink discussed the main takeaways from the study: 1. Burlingame's shoreline is at risk from sea level rise, particularly starting at 100-year/1% flood 2. Burlingame will need to decide what to protect and to what level 3. Adaptation strategies recommended for Burlingame include raising levees at low points, managing creeks and sediment, and maintaining flood walls 4. Next steps include feasibility and hydrology studies to develop more fine-tuned understandings of how to implement solutions Mr. Behrens reviewed the vulnerability assessment conclusions. He stated that ESA utilized mostly publicly available information and talked with City staff to get an idea of the main flood pathways and what the key flood variables are throughout the city. He showed pictures of raised levees, sheet pile floodwalls, tide gates and active barriers, and nature -based solutions for the community to give Council a better understanding of what these strategies would look like. Mr. Behrens stated that ESA first determined what the key vulnerabilities are for the City on the Bayshore. He explained that ESA broke the shoreline into five reaches because there is a variability of conditions along the shoreline. He stated that the City's priority will be on the two reaches between the boundary line with Millbrae and Broadway. He explained that this is because the new FEMA floodplain from April shows a fair amount of the city being flooded under the 100-year flood event. Therefore, there is a lot of focus on this area in the study. Mr. Behrens reviewed Reach 1, which covers from the City's northern border to Benihana. He stated that this segment experiences a lot of flooding in the FEMA 100-year event. He explained that ESA's suggestion is to bolster the existing shoreline in the areas where the City has opportunities to do so now. He stated that in some locations, there is room to raise the levy without losing any of the aesthetics of that area. However, where there are existing hotels or other developments, the City would need to raise the existing flood walls. Mr. Behrens reviewed Reach 2, which covers from Benihana to Broadway. He stated that this reach has similar challenges to Reach 1. He noted that one of the things that the vulnerability study flagged was that with sea level rise, the creeks become major vulnerability points for flooding above Highway 101. He discussed the option of tide gates and the need to raise the shorelines of the creeks. He stated that the City could utilize the nature -based approach of constructing a beach backed by a fortified shoreline in this area. Mr. Behrens reviewed Reach 3, which covers the area in front of the lagoon. This area of the shoreline is higher but also experiences some flood risk because it's no longer behind the SFO wave shadow. He noted the location of the wastewater treatment facility and stated that ESA recommends that protecting this area be studied in the short-term in order to make sure the facility is flood proof. 10 Burlingame City Council December 2, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Mr. Behrens reviewed Reach 4, which covers the interior shoreline of the lagoon. He stated that there are opportunities for nature -based approaches in this reach. Mr. Behrens reviewed Reach 5, which covers Burlingame Point. He explained that ESA's approach for this reach would be to raise the shoreline and keep tabs on ongoing development in the area. Mr. Behrens summarized with the following key points: • Raising the shoreline in Reaches 1 and 2 (from Millbrae to Broadway) would have substantial benefits • In the short-term, raising the shoreline will likely require a combination of raising or building new levees and improving existing flood walls • Aesthetic and recreational impacts of raising the shoreline can be mitigated by integrating the Bay Trail on the improved shoreline • Raising the shoreline should be combined with a similar effort in raising low-lying portions of the banks of El Portal, Mills, and Easton Creeks • Just offshore along parts of Reaches 2, 3, and 5, there are opportunities to create or enhance Bay habitats (e.g. living shorelines), and where feasible, they should be combined with an improved flood barrier system along the shoreline Mr. Frink discussed San Mateo County's creation of the Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District that is leading the nation. He stated that Burlingame should take advantage of these conversations and partner with other groups. Mr. Frink highlighted the work that is to be done in the next five years For 2020: • Complete background studies for feasibility study • Leverage existing and emerging resources and key topic areas For 2021: • Complete feasibility study • Cost -benefit analysis • Craft and sign MOU with operational landscape unit partners (Millbrae, SFO, FSLRRD) • Begin public and stakeholder outreach For 2022: • Complete any final gap studies that were not studied regionally For 2023: • Begin design • Decide on design criteria • Determine funding source • Continue MOU agreement coordination • Continue public and stakeholder outreach For 2024: 11 Burlingame City Council December 2, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Continue design Begin environmental compliance Continue public and stakeholder outreach Mr. Frink discussed the work that would be done after 2024, including implementation of the adaptation strategy. Councilmember Brownrigg stressed the importance of starting to work on sea level rise now. He stated that he didn't want the Council to leave a mess for City leaders 30 years from now. He explained that he felt an urgency to have a plan costed out at least at 30% engineering design. He stated that the City would be tapping different sources and agencies for assistance, but it is important to have a number in mind. Mayor Colson stated that the City could start setting aside funds without knowing the exact number. She discussed the different sources that could assist the City in paying for the different adaptation strategies including federal, state, county, and private landowners. DPW Murtuza stated that the next steps will provide a better detail of cost estimates. Councilmember Brownrigg stressed the importance of making progress and asked if the different adaptations could be pieced together or if they had to have one strategy. City Manager Goldman explained that the City would be focusing on Reach 1 and 2 to begin with and that different strategies would be implemented within each reach. She noted that in conversations with the consultants, more work needs to be done to obtain a better estimate of the cost of the projects. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked if the City would need to do things differently if neighboring cities don't proceed at the same pace as the City. Mayor Colson stated that the County's newly established district would assist with Councilmember O'Brien Keighran's concern. CDD Gardiner added that staff has been working with Millbrae to ensure that the two cities are talking to each other about their findings and proposed strategies. Vice Mayor Beach discussed the value of undertaking the smaller more manageable projects now while the larger approach is refined and finalized. Councilmember Ortiz stated that the City doesn't have time to wait for other cities to act as there is currently flooding happening in some of the reaches. He explained that he was in favor of creating a fund now for sea level rise. Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. Michael Barber from Supervisor Dave Pine's office discussed the different types of levees and what is considered a FEMA certified levee. 12 Burlingame City Council December 2, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked if there are major differences between certified levees and non - certified levees. Mr. Barber stated that to obtain FEMA certification, the levee must reach a higher engineering standard. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that at a community meeting, Supervisor Pine noted that BCDC is beginning to rethink its absolute ban on encroaching on the Bay. He explained that this is relevant for Burlingame parcels that are near the Bay. He asked that Supervisor Pine's office let the City know how to approach those conversations with BCDC. Mr. Barber stated that as the City approves new projects on the Bay, the City should make sure that the project is allowing for enough space between the development and the Bay. Mayor Colson closed public comment. Mayor Colson thanked staff and ESA for the presentation. b. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE OF CALIFORNIA DRIVE FROM LINCOLN AVENUE TO MURCHISON DRIVE FOR BIKE LANE SAFETY Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad discussed the challenges that the City is having in maintaining the landscape on California Drive from Lincoln Avenue to Murchison Drive. She explained that in the past, the maintenance activities occurred on a bi-annual basis and required 220 staff hours to complete. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad explained that recently, the Public Works department installed a dedicated bike lane on California Drive and requested that the Parks Division increase the landscaping frequency to four times per year. She stated that this would help to ensure a clear bike path by preventing vegetation encroachment into the bike lane while still maintaining the visual screen for the residents along California Drive. She explained that this increase in work for the Parks Division would result in negative impacts to other areas under the purview of the Parks Division. Therefore, staff issued a proposal requesting bids for the maintenance work. She explained that the City only received one bid in the amount of $65,000 per maintenance trimming. Therefore, while staff had anticipated that the total cost of four trimmings would be $65,000, the actual cost is approximately $260,000. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that staff determined a second option, from the four landscaping trimmings per year, which would be to have the contractor significantly lift and cut back the landscaping along California Drive and perform this maintenance once a year. She explained that the staff conducted a small sample of this method and showed the Council a picture of what it would look like. She noted that the larger cut back would expose more of the train tracks, and at some points create direct access to the tracks. The contractor estimated that the cost of undertaking a lift and large cut back once a year would cost the City $69,000. Councilmember Ortiz asked what the height of the lift would be. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad replied that it would be five feet. 13 Burlingame City Council December 2, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Councilmember Ortiz stated that financially, the larger cut back makes more sense, but the concern is the aesthetic look of the cutback. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked if the neighbors knew about the potential lift and cut back. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad replied in the negative. She noted that it would affect about 33 homes near Lincoln Avenue. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked if the major cut back would be done on a yearly basis. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that City Arborist Disco thought it could be done once every two years. She added that staff would undertake smaller trims as necessary. Vice Mayor Beach stated that she was trying to think of other options that wouldn't affect the aesthetics as much as a large cut back. She asked if instead of hiring the contractor or spending 440 staff hours to trim the landscape on a bi-annual basis, if staff considered hiring another park staff member. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad replied in the affirmative. However, she noted that the maintenance of California Drive takes staff off-line for two days and that this has a negative effect on the City's parks. Vice Mayor Beach asked if there are certain months where there is a more intense growing period that would allow for the cutting to only be done three times a year versus four. City Arborist Disco stated that the biggest impact is in the spring and the summer. Vice Mayor Beach stated that the City's trees are a sensitive subject in the city and many people in the community will be upset about a deep cut. She explained that the City should be prepared for more than the 33 homes being upset with the change. DPW Murtuza stated that staff could try three times a year instead of four to see how it goes and then report back to Council. Councilmember Ortiz stated that the initial extensive cut will be the worst, and then the greenery will grow in. City Arborist Disco replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that three years ago when the City built the bike lane, he had hoped that the City would buy land from Caltrain in order to create a more robust treescape behind the lane. He stated that he thought the City should be more intentional about planting a treescape to future proof the Caltrain tracks. He explained that he believed that the City should undertake a deep cut and that people would get used to the aesthetics. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that staff could work with the contractor on which areas to go deeper based on what is behind the trees. Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Manito Velasco stated that he believed the cut back was not just for bicycle safety but also to ensure a clear line of sight for drivers. 14 Burlingame City Council December 2, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Mayor Colson closed public comment. Mayor Colson stated that her suggestion was to undertake Option 2, a significant lift and cut back, under the supervision of City Arborist Disco. She asked that all the homes between Lincoln Avenue and Murchison Drive on California Drive be noticed prior to the start of work. Additionally, she asked that staff contact Caltrain about the need for a fence between the tracks as more of the train tracks would be exposed during the cut back. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran concurred with Mayor Colson. Vice Mayor Beach stated that she knew Caltrain's vision is to have fencing along the tracks. She explained that she wished there was a more surgical approach that could be taken to maintain the landscape. Mayor Colson thanked staff for their work on this matter. c. DISCUSSION OF PROGRAMS TO ASSIST RENTERS FACING NO -CAUSE EVICTIONS AND AUTHORIZIATION TO PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING TO SAMARITAN HOUSE FOR THIS PURPOSE City Manager Goldman stated that in November 2019, the Council held a public hearing on whether to adopt an urgency ordinance that would prevent no-fault evictions during the interim period between when AB 1482 was adopted and when it became effective on January 1, 2020. She explained that Council determined that instead of adopting an urgency ordinance, that the City should create an emergency fund to assist renters that were facing no-fault evictions during the interim period. City Manager Goldman explained that staff determined that in order to prevent a gift of public funds issue, the City should utilize Samaritan House to distribute funds. She stated that the staff report suggests giving Samaritan House $15,000 to be utilized for Burlingame renters to assist with their relocation and security deposit costs. She explained that this would be similar to CAA Tri-County's Housing Industry Foundation that was started 30 years ago to assist families facing unforeseen circumstances that jeopardize their housing stability. She added that SAMCAR has an informal program to assist renters. Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Eileen voiced her support for the proposal. Mayor Colson closed public comment. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to provide $15,000 in supplemental funding to Samaritan House for the purpose of assisting Burlingame renters facing no -cause evictions; seconded by Councilmember O'Brien Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 15 Burlingame City Council December 2, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 d. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO BECOME A NONCHARTER ADDITIONAL MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY HOUSING AGENCY (CALCHA) Councilmember Brownrigg thanked the Council for agendizing this matter on short notice. He noted that usually the City wouldn't contemplate a matter of this nature without study sessions and more time. He explained that the reason the Council is discussing it is because there is a once in a decade opportunity for the City that requires the government to move quickly. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he believes the housing crisis will be solved with two approaches: construction of new housing and preservation. He explained that tonight's discussion will focus on preserving housing stock. CDD Gardiner stated that the California Community Housing Agency ("Ca1CHA") has provided the City with the opportunity to become a noncharter additional member. He explained that Ca1CHA has undertaken an innovative new program that advances moderate income housing opportunities. CDD Gardiner explained that Ca1CHA was formed pursuant to a joint exercise of powers agreement between Kings County and the Housing Authority of Kings County. He stated that under a Joint Powers Agreement ("JPA"), multi -family developments are acquired through public bond financing. The bonds are issued with a 30-year term, with amortization beginning in year 15. He noted that under Ca1CHA's program, the property taxes on the multi -family development would not be collected and instead would be utilized to maintain a reduction of rents for moderate income households in the development. CDD Gardiner stated that there is no cost to the City to participate. CDD Gardiner stated that after year 15, the City has the option to acquire or take over the project for the outstanding bond obligations. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that there are a lot of programs that are designed to create affordable housing for people that make up to 60% of AMI. He discussed the starting salary for teachers in Burlingame (approximately $55,000) and stated that from the start, most teachers are priced out of affordable housing. He explained that Ca1CHA's program aims at preserving housing for that missing middle with three tiers of affordability: • 60% to 80% of AMI • 80% to 100% of AMI • 100% to 120% of AMI He noted that this would assist families with annual household incomes between $60,000 and $115,000. He added that the median salary of a Burlingame teacher is $78,000, and, therefore, most teachers would qualify. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that to be able to protect 100 units of affordable housing for the missing middle is a profound opportunity. 16 Burlingame City Council December 2, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Councilmember Brownrigg stated that by signing on, the City would lose $160,000 a year in property taxes but that one Summerhill project will put twice that amount of property tax in the City's coffers. He added that in 30 years, the City would be handed a $100 million purchased multi -family development that with escalation would be worth $200 to $300 million for the City. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked if the City is involved in any JPA where it does not have voting rights. City Attorney Kane replied in the negative. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran stated that it concerned her to be involved in a JPA where the City doesn't have voting rights. City Attorney Kane stated that staff struggled a bit with this item due partially to the compressed timeframe but also because staff hasn't seen documentation of some of the program's elements that have been discussed. She gave the example of the notion that the City gets title of the property at the end of the bond term. However, she was unable to find anything that says that or that would require that to be so in 30 years. She explained that the only document that she could see that governs with a mandate is the JPA agreement itself. City Attorney Kane discussed the bonds that would be used to purchase the property and stated that in order to issue the bonds, there are several requirements. However, staff has been unable to review those documents or bond documents from a previous deal. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked if Ca1CHA was able to purchase the desired property in Burlingame, would any of the "missing middle" units count towards the City's RHNA numbers. Mayor Colson replied in the negative. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran stated that because of AB 1482, she was unclear how much the City would really benefit from this project. She noted that under AB 1482, even the new stock would be under rent control after 15 years. CDD Gardiner stated that the way the project works is that the rents are set at a moderate -income threshold, and when new renters move in, the rents would continue to be set at a moderate -income level. He noted that the maximum that the rent would be increased is 4%. AB 1482 allows for 5% plus CPI. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran stated that even if the City joins the JPA, there is no guarantee that the building will be sold to Ca1CHA. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. City Attorney Kane stated that if the City becomes a noncharter additional member of the JPA, the mechanism would then exist for the JPA to acquire other properties in Burlingame. She added that one of the questions she has is that in the description of the program, there is a current policy of the board not to acquire properties without the City's approval; however, no such restriction exists in the JPA. 17 Burlingame City Council December 2, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Vice Mayor Beach asked about the City's residential impact fee ordinances and whether developers were choosing to pay the impact fees or build affordable units. CDD Gardiner stated that almost all the developers are choosing to build affordable units versus paying the fee. He noted that it would be a while before these units are move -in ready. He added that staff was surprised that some of the developers are going into the lower income category rather than moderate. Vice Mayor Beach discussed the option under the JPA for the City to acquire the propriety in year 15. She asked if there was an estimate of what this would cost. Mayor Colson replied to Vice Mayor Beach's question in the negative. She stated that during the first 15 years, only interest on the bond would be paid, and no principal would be paid down. Therefore, if the bond was issued at $100 million, and the City decided to purchase the building in 15 years, the City would owe $100 million. She stated that during the next 15 years (15 to 30 year period), the bond is amortized with both interest and principal. Mr. Jordan Moss, founder of the Catalyst Housing Group that is Ca1CHA's asset manager, replied in the negative. He explained that a cash sweep, also known as turbo amortization, is built into the process. He stated that what this means is that all excess cash is being fed into amortization as soon as that cash is available. Mayor Colson asked if the turbo amortization begins after 15 years. Mr. Moss replied in the negative and stated that the turbo amortization begins on day one. Mr. Moss stated that one of the hard things in talking about this program is that every asset is different. He gave the example of a development that CaICHA purchased in Fairfield. He stated that because the development was in Fairfield, CaICHA was able to get a much better initial yield then what they would expect to get in Burlingame. He explained that the spread between their financing cost and the initial yield is what allows them to start feeding money into the amortization. He noted that by no means is there some restriction within the bond documents that states that CaICHA can only make interest payments for 15 years. He cautioned that CaICHA ensures that they give themselves enough wiggle room so that if there is a massive downturn in the economy, they won't be in a position of default. He explained that this can only be done by requiring them to make interest -only payments for the first 15 years. He noted that the goal of CaICHA is to feed excess funds into amortization from the beginning. Mayor Colson asked if Catalyst Housing Group, as the asset manager, makes the determination on when to start paying the principal. Mr. Moss replied in the negative. He explained that there is a bond trustee in place. He noted earlier comments about staff not being able to review bond documents. He stated that he is happy to share bond documents from a prior deal. He added that one of the documents is a bond indenture, which is standard for any municipal offering. He explained that it outlines exactly how the flow of funds works. He stated that one of the funds is an Excess Revenue Fund that goes directly into the debt service fund to pay amortization on the bonds. Mr. Moss discussed the annual HUD increases. He stated that there is a fallacy in the housing world that affordable housing rent grows by 2% a year. He explained that if you go back over and look at any 30 to 40 year period of time, the annual HUD allowable increases are closer to 3.5% to 3.7% annually. Therefore, if 18 Burlingame City Council December 2, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 this is compounded, its growth is significant over time. He noted that this growth with turbo amortization will create significant equity that accrues to the City in year 15. He stated that Catalyst Housing Group believes there will be around $75 million of equity by year 15. Mayor Colson stated that if the City chooses to take over the property between years 15 and 30, the City would have to pay off the outstanding debt. Mr. Moss replied that the City is never forced to take title. Mayor Colson asked if there was a default on the bonds, would the bonds be recoursed to the property. Mr. Moss replied that the bonds are solely backed by the project revenues. Mayor Colson stated that she believed Catalyst Housing Group's model showed it taking 30 to 34 years for full amortization. Mr. Moss stated that it would depend on the pricing of the specific asset. However, he believed that the Burlingame property will reach full amortization during the 30-year bond period. Councilmember Brownrigg compared the bond repayment to a housing mortgage. He stated that you pay more interest at the front end, and there are flat payments. He noted that by year 25, there will be $20 to 30 million of debt that needs to be paid off. However, at that point you will have a significant amount of equity, so that if you wanted to refinance, you could do that, and have the asset for whatever is the remainder of the debt. Councilmember Ortiz asked if he was correct that if the City joined the JPA, it would allow Ca1CHA to purchase other properties in Burlingame without the City's approval. Mr. Moss replied in the negative. Councilmember Ortiz asked how it would work if the City joins the JPA, and Ca1CHA finds another property it wishes to purchase in Burlingame. Mr. Moss stated that part of what the JPA is trying to avoid is the scenario in the future, where they are asking local governments to move at the speed of commerce. He explained that under the JPA, the City would delegate to the City Manager the ability to enter into purchase option agreements on a per deal basis. He stated that Ca1CHA would work with the City Manager on each asset. City Attorney Kane asked where in the JPA documents is the JPA restricted from purchasing additional properties in Burlingame without the approval of the City/City Manager. Mr. Moss stated that Orrick, bond counsel to CaICHA, must issue a clean opinion that municipal bonds are being properly issued and utilized. He explained that Orrick would not issue this opinion without approval from the underlying jurisdiction. Councilmember Ortiz and City Attorney Kane discussed language in Orrick's letter attached to the staff report that would require approval from the City for future property purchases. City Attorney Kane and City Manager Goldman noted that because this language is not in the JPA, Ca1CHA could change its policy and allow for purchases without City approval. Mr. Moss stated that within the resolution it states that "Whereas, subsequent to becoming a non -charter Additional Member of Ca1CHA, any existing rental housing within City limits which Ca1CHA intends to acquire and finance with tax-exempt bonds must receive support and approval from the City." 19 Burlingame City Council December 2, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 City Attorney Kane stated that the resolution is language of the City but that it doesn't guarantee that outcome as it is not in the JPA governing documents. Mr. Moss stated that Ca1CHA would have no problem signing a side letter that states that Ca1CHA needs approval from the City to acquire and finance tax-exempt bonds for other properties in the city. City Attorney Kane noted that the JPA could be amended so that it is clear to all parties that they need the approval of the City. Mayor Colson stated that the problem is that this is a 30-year agreement, and chances are none of the Council are going to be here in 30 years. Therefore, at the City level, things need to be clear, so that future Councils have a definitive understanding of the agreement. Mayor Colson discussed how the City's investment would be future property tax dollars. She stated that she checked with BSD and learned that they have no clear path to becoming a basic aid district. She explained that as a result, the decrease in property taxes would impact the State level funding for schools. Mayor Colson asked about the establishment of Ca1CHA. Mr. Moss stated that GPM Municipal Advisors, staff to Ca1CHA, serves as staff to another JPA called Ca1PFA. He explained that the initial intent was to utilize Ca1PFA. However, as conversations continued, it became clear that they needed to set up a separate entity whose sole focus was the missing middle. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that with respect to the veto power of the City on allowing Ca1CHA to purchase additional properties in Burlingame, the City can negotiate a side letter with the JPA that makes it clear that the City must first approve. Mr. Moss replied in the affirmative. He added that the City could also just leave the JPA. Mayor Colson asked if the City leaves the JPA, would the City still get title to the property. Mr. Moss replied in the affirmative. He added that once the bonds have been repaid, all the equity will accrue to the City. He explained that included in Orrick's opinion is that these bonds must be purchased for a public benefit and the benefit here is twofold: 1) provide affordable housing and 2) any of the equity that builds up is granted to the City. Mr. Moss gave the example of if the City went dark for thirty years and didn't take phone calls from Ca1CHA. If the property is sold at the end of 30 years, the money would be wired to the City. Mayor Colson stated that if the market tanks and the bonds are unable to be paid resulting in the bondholders foreclosing on the property, the property would be sold and liquidated. She explained that the bondholders would then be paid their pro -rated share. Therefore, in the worst -case scenario, there is no recourse back to the City. 20 Burlingame City Council December 2, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Councilmember Brownrigg asked Mr. Moss to explain how CaICHA envisions moving from the current rents in the building to the three affordable rent levels. Mr. Moss stated that the building that CaICHA is trying to acquire has one, two, and three -bedroom units. He discussed the current rates versus what the rates would be at 80% AMI: Number of Bedrooms Current Rent 80% AMI One Bedroom $3,400 $2,867 Two Bedroom $3,950 $3,224 Three Bedroom $5,250 $3,582 He noted that the 80% AMI cap is $90,000. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that because it is based on AMI, whoever moves in next might see a rent reduction. He explained that under CalCHA's proposal, two-thirds of the units would be under 100% AMI. Mayor Colson noted that the tax exemption doesn't just impact the City, but it also impacts the County and schools. She discussed the property that Stanford bought in Redwood City that was taken off the tax roll. She stated that her biggest concern is not the one project, it is the broader situation where the City is getting a lot of new housing units, and if those come off the property tax rolls, it could create issues for the County and schools. She stressed the importance of the City being able to veto a property from becoming tax exempt. Vice Mayor Beach asked if CaICHA pitched this project to any other city in San Mateo County. Mr. Moss stated that the current members of CaICHA are: Santa Rosa, Fairfield, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Marin County, and the City of Larkspur. Vice Mayor Beach asked what the incentive is to pay market value and not above market value for a property. Mr. Moss stated that there is a point where the numbers don't make sense. He explained that the property that they are looking to acquire is a value -add asset where the business plan of the individual that buys it is to significantly renovate the property. He noted that this makes it a challenging opportunity in terms of preserving the housing for the missing middle. Vice Mayor Beach asked if staff had enough time to review the JPA agreement. City Attorney Kane stated that the JPA agreement it is very straightforward. She noted that the questions she still has are about documents she has been unable to review. Mayor Colson stated that the JPA documents mention that it can expand its membership to include more voting members. She asked if the JPA would be amenable to expanding the board. Mr. Moss stated that he has no insight into how the expansion of the board would work. Mayor Colson asked what would happen if the JPA decided to remove Catalyst Housing Group and utilize another asset manager. Mr. Moss stated that he isn't hired by the JPA. He explained that GPM Municipal Advisors is staff to the JPA. 21 Burlingame City Council December 2, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Mayor Colson asked if the JPA could terminate GPM. Mr. Moss replied in the affirmative. He stated that he spent two years putting the group together and creating a financial model that would address the missing middle. He added that he doesn't have a contract with CaICHA or GPM. He explained that he brings opportunities to the JPA through GPM, and then they jointly underwrite and make decisions on property management. He noted that as the asset manager, he can be replaced by the JPA. Mayor Colson asked if Mr. Moss would be building out his organization as the program grows. Mr. Moss replied that they have built their team in order to allow for growth. He stated that they have taken on advisors and three full-time employees. Mayor Colson asked if an offer is made on the property and they acquire it, who finances the purchase between the point of sale and when the bonds are issued. Mr. Moss replied that Catalyst Housing Group puts up the earnest money deposit, negotiates the purchase and sale agreement, and handles the due diligence. He stated that everything is assigned to the JPA at the time of closing. Councilmember Ortiz asked how much of the asset will be amortized during the first 15 years. Mr. Moss stated that every asset is different, and he doesn't know where the bonds will price. He stated that if he had to guess, it will be about 25% amortized. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the repayment of the bonds is a flat amount. Mr. Moss stated that the required debt payment is flat. Mayor Colson asked if it is variable rate loan. Mr. Moss replied in the affirmative and added that it is a fixed rate loan. Mayor Colson stated that if the Council enters the JPA, the City would want to receive thorough reporting. Mr. Moss stated that this could be done. Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he has a lot of questions about the proposal. He expressed his intrigue about the opportunity and preserving affordable housing in the city. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked if the decision had to be made tonight. City Manager Goldman stated that the City had been told that the property will be placed on the market around December 9. Therefore, to allow Ca1CHA the opportunity to participate in that sale, a decision needed to be made at the meeting. Vice Mayor Beach thanked colleagues, especially Mayor Colson and Councilmember Brownrigg, for undertaking a deep dive into this matter. She stated that it sounded like a brilliant structure. However, she stated that she wished it had come to the Council earlier so that the City had more time to review the proposal. She explained that she was concerned that staff didn't have enough time to study the matter and 22 Burlingame City Council December 2, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 that some of Council's concerns went unanswered. She stated that she would like staff to be able to review a pro forma from Ca1CHA. Vice Mayor Beach stated that it makes her concerned to make decisions this quickly. She stated that she believed there would be a lot more opportunities to undertake a project of this nature in Burlingame. Mayor Colson stated that there might not be more opportunities. She explained that there are economies of scale that are required to issue these bonds. Therefore, it needs to be at least a 100 to 150 unit multi -family development. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran stated that she doesn't like jumping into a JPA where the City doesn't have voting rights. She expressed her concern that this item was being rushed, and a policy was being built so that one building could be purchased in the city. She explained that she believed the City was doing a good job on creating affordable housing. She added that it concerns her that the City Attorney is asking a lot of questions and doesn't have all the documentation she wants. She noted that the City would be making decisions that decrease property tax for the County and schools, and neither party is involved in these conversations. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he is worried that Council will spend a lot of time and political capital getting developers to build new units in the city. He explained that if the City moves forward with the JPA, the City would give up $5 million in property taxes over 30 years. He stated that he called Summerhill to see how much it would cost to build 17 affordable units. He was told it would cost $6 million. He stated that for $5 million over 30 years, the City can guarantee that over 100 units stay affordable. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he isn't too worried about not the City not having a seat on the JPA as this will probably be the only property in Burlingame where this financing model works. He explained that the JPA is a warehouse for bond payments. He noted that the key underlying feature is not the JPA, but who is managing the property and ensuring that maintenance is done, and rents are paid. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the reason to sign on to the JPA was to preserve affordable housing for people in the community. Mayor Colson asked if Mr. Moss had made the same proposal to Redwood City. Mr. Moss replied in the affirmative. He stated that Redwood City was understaffed at the time, and that the plan was to circle back. Councilmember Ortiz asked Mr. Moss to describe the process by which the market rate tenants are replaced with below market rate tenants. Mr. Moss explained that Ca1CHA has a non -displacement clause. He stated that when existing leases roll, they reach out to the tenant and state that before they renew their lease, they'd like to know the tenant's household size and household income. He stated that if they qualify within one of the affordable tiers, the tenant receives a reduction in rent. But, for tenants that are above the three tiers, they are asked to continue paying market rate. He stated that tenant turnover is approximately 50% annually, and that even with rent control, places like San Francisco continue to see turnover. 23 Burlingame City Council December 2, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Councilmember Ortiz asked if the market rate tenants will see rent increases in accordance with AB 1482. Mr. Moss replied in the affirmative. He noted that Ca1CHA has not yet created a policy on how to handle AB 1482, but Ca1CHA does have an existing policy that doesn't allow a double-digit increase. Vice Mayor Beach asked if Ca1CHA needed the building to be in the 100-unit range for the economics to work. Mr. Moss stated they focus on the total transaction size versus the number of units. He explained that they focus on $100 million and more transactions. Vice Mayor Beach stated that it sounds like the opportunity before the Council is one that doesn't come along often. Mayor Colson asked if there was time for the staff to gather further information this week so that everyone would be comfortable with entering the JPA. City Attorney Kane stated that some of the structural issues about the JPA can't be cured in a week. She explained that it might be a fruitful conversation with the JPA to say that additional members would be more comfortable if there were explicit restraints. She stated that fundamentally, the policy question is whether the Council wants to take this opportunity in the timeframe in which it is available with the understanding that there are uncertainties attached. City Attorney Kane stated that the risks that she sees that she can't nail down are: 1. constraints on the JPA's activities going forward (including buying new property and administering the properties that they already have), 2. the option agreement at the end of 30 years, and 3. not necessarily what the JPA intends to do, but what they are restrained from doing City Attorney Kane stated that to the degree that there are constraints in bonding law that she is unfamiliar with, these things could be clarified in the coming days. She explained that if requested, she could engage in further discussions with Mr. Moss and Orrick. She stated that another thing to keep in mind is that the Kings County Board of Supervisors, as the Ca1CHA board, has to accept the City's decision to join as an additional member of the JPA before it becomes effective. Mr. Moss stated that the Kings County Board of Supervisors can call a special meeting and can hold telephonic meetings. Vice Mayor Beach stated that for her to be comfortable with this proposal, she would need to know the different levels of risk and what the worst -case scenario is. City Attorney Kane stated that she believed it was clear that the obligations of the JPA in terms of the bond financing do not become the obligations of the City. Vice Mayor Beach asked if the City really gets the asset at the end of 30 years. City Attorney Kane stated that she hasn't seen a piece of paper that outlines this requirement. 24 Burlingame City Council December 2, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Vice Mayor Beach stated that she wanted it to be clear to staff that the City gets the building at the end of 30 years. Vice Mayor Beach stated that she would also like to understand how Catalyst Housing Group makes its money on the deal. Mr. Moss stated that Catalyst Housing gets a fee at closing and is paid for managing the asset. Additionally, he stated that Catalyst Housing Group becomes a bondholder, and so they retain a small subordinate position. Mayor Colson asked how long the City would need to notice a meeting to bring this matter back to Council. City Attorney Kane stated that if it is a special meeting, the noticing requirement is 24 hours. Councilmember Ortiz stated that it is a shame that the City has to do this so rushed. He explained that when he looks at the downside, the risk is limited and therefore, he would like to push forward with the proposal. Mayor Colson asked if there are other JPAs that function in a similar fashion. Mr. Moss stated that there are no other JPAs that are providing middle income housing. He added that there are other JPAs in the housing space, most of which are considered conduit issuers. The Council discussed how best to proceed and what questions could be answered in a limited time and whether those questions would affect the decision of the Council. City Attorney Kane suggested that Council could adjourn the meeting to another time. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adjourn the meeting to Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 7:30 p.m. in order to allow time to provide the Council answers to their questions including where it is explicit that the City has veto rights over any additional projects and how the asset is transferred, as well as to provide the Council with a pro -forma; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCMENTS Mayor Colson asked that the Council submit a year-end committee report to the City Clerk by December 9, 2019. Council agreed. a. MAYOR COLSON'S COMMITTEE REPORT 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no future agenda items. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 25 Burlingame City Council December 2, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 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. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Colson adjourned the meeting at 11:26 p.m. until December 4, 2019 at 7:30 p.m. in Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk 26 Burlingame City Council December 2, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 �� CITY G BURLJNGAME 4 N�TLD JYNL 6. BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes December 2, 2019 Meeting that was Adjourned to December 4, 2019 at 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER On December 2, 2019, Council adjourned their meeting to December 4, 2019 in order to allow for more discussion on Agenda Item 1 Od. The meeting was called back to order at 7:30 p.m. on December 4, 2019. 2. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O'Brien Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 3. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATION a. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO BECOME AN ADDITIONAL MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY HOUSING AGENCY (CALCHA) Mayor Colson stated that the December 2, 2019 meeting was adjourned to December 4, 2019 at 7:30 p.m. to allow the City Attorney time to obtain answers to some of Council's questions on Agenda Item 1 Od. She noted that this decision was made because the City needed to decide whether it should become an additional member of the California Community Housing Agency ("Ca1CHA") by the end of the week. City Attorney Kane explained that at the December 2, 2019 meeting, Council and staff had questions about how the program works and what guarantees were in place for the City. She noted that at the start of the meeting on December 2, there was a lot of documentation that staff had not seen nor had the chance to review that dealt with those questions. Accordingly, at the December 2 meeting, Council asked that Jordan Moss, the CEO of Catalyst Housing Group, and Ca1CHA work with the City Attorney so that she could report back to Council on December 4. City Attorney Kane explained that she had a lengthy discussion with Ca1CHA's bond counsel, Justin Cooper, of Orrick. She discussed Mr. Cooper's expertise in the field and stated that he had been integral in setting up CaICHA. Burlingame City Council December 4, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 City Attorney Kane stated that part of Mr. Moss's presentation was that CaICHA would not acquire properties within the city's boundaries without the approval of the City. She explained that at the December 2 meeting, it was discussed that staff had not seen any documentation that this was an enforceable rule. She discussed her conversation with Mr. Cooper on this issue. She explained that Ca1CHA has no written formal policy that requires the JPA to obtain the City's approval before acquiring properties in the city. Instead, she stated that what results in the requirement of obtaining City approval is that in order for the JPA to use public bond financing, the bond counsel has to sign off on the appropriateness of the offering. She noted that the bond counsel would require the City's approval to sign off on the appropriateness of the offering. City Attorney Kane stated that the Council should keep in mind that obtaining City approval is not a requirement under the JPA. She noted that both Mr. Moss and Mr. Cooper stated that a side letter could be signed outlining this requirement. City Attorney Kane stated that Council had also voiced concerns about what happens at the end of the 30- year bond term. She explained that at the December 2 meeting, there was conflicting information about whether there was immediate amortization of the bonds (turbo amortization) or if amortization starts at year 15. City Attorney Kane stated that Mr. Cooper had informed her that each offering is different. She explained that the investment managers will decide on the amortization schedule based on the characteristics of the asset and what the bond market wants. She noted that some bond purchasing markets don't want bonds to be pre -paid. Instead, they want to know that they have guaranteed interest only payments for a certain amount of time. City Attorney Kane stated that unfortunately, the City won't know if the JPA can start paying on the principle immediately until the bond purchase is set up. Vice Mayor Beach stated that Mr. Moss led Council to believe at Monday night's meeting that if the City chose to do nothing, then at the end of year 30, the asset would be turned over to the City. She asked what happens at the very end. Councilmember Ortiz stated that Mr. Moss told Council that Ca1CHA had a requirement that any surplus funds be used to pay down the bonds. He noted that this didn't seem to be the case based on what the City Attorney had just stated. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he believed that what Mr. Cooper was telling the City Attorney was that depending on what the interest rate and terms are, you can't be sure how much principal remains at year 15. He stated that a lot of factors go into paying down the principal including cash flow and rent prices. City Attorney Kane noted that Ca1CHA may not be able to make payments against the principle prior to year 15 or later. She explained that there are situations where the bond market would prefer a guaranteed 20-year interest payment only term. She added that in this situation, Ca1CHA could create an excess revenues fund that would be utilized once the JPA can pay down the principal. She stated that the sample purchase option 2 Burlingame City Council December 4, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 agreement that staff reviewed from Ca1CHA showed that the excess operating revenues were held in a trust until year 15. City Attorney Kane stated that another statement that was made at the December 2 meeting was that all excess revenues of the asset go to the City. She explained that the statement was consistent with the principle of the sample purchase agreement that staff reviewed. She stated that when she asked Mr. Cooper about this statement, she was informed that it depends on how the bonds are marketed. She added that Mr. Cooper had stated that it is Orrick's opinion that the cities are the appropriate entity to be at the bottom of the waterfall. This is because it is the cities that have the general governmental functions that aren't being subsidized by the property taxes. City Attorney Kane stated that she asked Mr. Cooper if Ca1CHA could be at the bottom of the waterfall, since it is a public entity. - She was informed that there is nothing in law that prevents this from happening. However, it is bond counsel's opinion that this would be inappropriate, and Orrick wouldn't endorse the issuance of the bonds in that situation. City Attorney Kane stressed that there is no legal document that prevents Ca1CHA from being the recipient of the waterfall. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked if there was a way to include language in the agreement that would require the City to be at the bottom of the waterfall. City Attorney Kane stated that the primary agreement is the purchase option, and it ties the City to the issuance of the bond. However, she noted that this gets back to Vice Mayor Beach's question about what happens at year 30 when the bond term is finished. City Attorney Kane stated that she asked Mr. Cooper what would happen if the City doesn't exercise the purchase option between years 15 and 30. Mr. Cooper told her that the intent of the program is that the asset would be liquidated, and the proceeds would go to the City. She asked if there was any document that stated this intent; bond counsel replied in the negative. She asked if there was anything that ensured that this would happen; bond counsel replied in the negative. City Attorney Kane explained that what is structurally odd is that the purchase option agreement is directly tied to the bond term. Therefore, the individuals that have the incentive to ensure that the program is operating as intended during the bond term are the bondholders. However, once the bondholders are paid, Ca1CHA is left holding the title to the asset, and the City's purchase option is over. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked if the City didn't exercise its purchase option, at year 30, could Ca1CHA keep the asset and raise rents to market rate. Additionally, if this happened, would the property remain tax exempt because Ca1CHA is a governmental entity. Mayor Colson stated that for the property to be tax exempt, it had to provide a public benefit: 1) keep rents below market rate, and 2) at the end of the bond term, give the asset to the City. Therefore, she didn't believe the asset would remain tax exempt under Councilmember O'Brien Keighran's example. 3 Burlingame City Council December 4, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 City Attorney Kane stated that for a nonprofit to get the tax-exempt status, they have to show a community benefit. However, she noted that a governmental agency would generally be free from showing the community benefit. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that Council didn't need to approve of the purchase option agreement at the meeting. Instead, he explained that the Council could join the JPA, and then negotiate the terms of the purchase option agreement. He added that it should be explicit in the agreement that the City is at the bottom of the waterfall. City Attorney Kane stated that this could be done. However, she noted that the purchase option runs with the bonds. Therefore, she explained that the question becomes how to bind a future JPA board after the City's option has expired. She stated that this is partly why the discussion relies on the overall intent of the program. City Attorney Kane explained that if under the program the City obtains the asset at the end of year 30, then the purchase agreement doesn't need an expiration date. She added that another concern is how does the City ensure that it is at the bottom of the waterfall and what incentive do the asset managers have to keep up the property if they know they are going to lose it at the end of year 30. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that Catalyst has a sliver of Series B bonds that only get paid off when the Series A bonds are fully redeemed. He stated that this won't happen if they don't maintain the building. He explained that this was Catalyst's incentive to maintain the building. Mayor Colson stated that the City was in a similar situation with the Lots F and N project. She explained that the Lots F and N project is for 55 years, and the City can purchase the asset at the end. She discussed different options the City had for both projects at the end of their terms including: assigning the properties to nonprofits, refinancing with low-income housing bonds, or not exercising their option to purchase. Councilmember Ortiz stated that the City has the option to purchase the property from year 15 to year 30. If the City doesn't exercise the option, there must be a good reason. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran stated that the Council doesn't know who will be on the Council in 30 years and what their priorities will be. She explained that while this is an issue that the Council is relatively in tune with, the City may have a Council in 25 years that may not care until it is too late. She stated that the more the City can get guaranteed in writing, the better off the City is. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran stated that one of her concerns is the general upkeep of the building, because as she understands it, the City doesn't have much of a say in the maintenance of the building. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative and stated that she believed this was by design. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked if the City could require annual inspections of the property. She also asked what monitors are in place to ensure that the AMI levels promised are maintained. Lastly, she asked what rights the City has if things aren't being handled as promised. 4 Burlingame City Council December 4, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Mayor Colson stated that at the December 2 meeting, Mr. Moss stated that Ca1CHA would provide an annual report on the AMI tiers in the building. City Manager Goldman stated that Mr. Moss sent Council the documents that were used for the property Ca1CHA acquired in Fairfield. She noted that in those documents, there was a guarantee of establishing the three AMI tiers with an equal number in each tier. City Attorney Kane stated that bond counsel noted that the specifics of the AMI mix could be established with Council's input if it creates a range that pencils out for the economics of the project. City Attorney Kane stated that another question she had answered was what happens if the City decides to leave the JPA during the term of the bond. She explained that the answer is nothing. Vice Mayor Beach asked if the City leaves the JPA, would the City still have the option to purchase the property between years 15 and 30. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative and explained that the option is a contract that the City enters into in year one and is valid through year 30. City Attorney Kane stated that the last question Council raised at the December 2 meeting was a question of timing. She explained that when Ca1CHA acquires a property, the majority of the current tenants will not qualify for the AMI tiers that are established. She discussed the natural turnover that occurs in multi -family developments that will allow CaICHA to make the property 100% affordable. She noted that the property would be tax exempt from day one, whether or not it is 100% affordable. Vice Mayor Beach stated that presumably AB 1482 and other state legislation could slow down tenant turnover and further delay the property from becoming 100% affordable. City Attorney Kane stated that Ca1CHA has committed to not evict tenants in order to achieve their AMI targets. She explained that as a result, it requires the natural evolution of turnover. She noted it is unclear whether AB 1482 will significantly affect turnover. Mayor Colson stated that she believed there were exemptions to AB 1482 where it wouldn't apply to governmental sponsored housing. She noted that Legal Aid's website states that government subsidized or below market rate housing that is set based on income levels is excluded from AB 1482. City Attorney Kane replied that the current tenants in the property would be market rate tenants, and therefore AB 1482 would still apply to them. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed where CalCHA's fiduciary responsibility lies. He noted that out of the gate, Ca1CHA's fiduciary responsibility is to the bondholders, but somewhere down the line, the fiduciary responsibility switches to the City. He asked how that shift occurs. Mayor Colson asked what would happen if the bonds are paid off in year 28. City Attorney Kane stated that the City would still have two years left on their option. 5 Burlingame City Council December 4, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Vice Mayor Beach discussed the potential political issue of the residents of the building wanting the property to remain affordable, and at year 30 the City deciding not to exercise their purchase option for a variety of reasons. Councilmember Ortiz stated that because the City has the option to buy the property between years 15 and 30, at some point the City could partner with an organization like Mid -Peninsula Housing that would refinance the property and keep it affordable. City Attorney Kane and Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the possibility that CaICHA might try to refinance the property towards the end of the original bond term. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he wanted it to be clear in the agreement that CaICHA can't refinance the property. Vice Mayor Beach stated that to enter the JPA, the City needs to be comfortable with foregoing about $1 million in property taxes to several entities for 30 years. She asked if 25 to 30 years of below market rate housing was worth the loss in property taxes. Mayor Colson agreed that this is the question. City Manager Goldman noted that she had received a call from the County Manager asking what the City is planning to do. He noted that if the City entered the JPA and CaICHA was successful in purchasing the property, there would be a hole in the County's budget that would have to be filled with Measure K funding. Mayor Colson noted that property taxes were rising and that the City had seen an increase of 6%. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked if CaICHA acquires the property and is sued as a result of something happening in the building, would the City be included in the suit. City Attorney Kane stated that the City's defense would be that the JPA can be sued and sue in its own name. However, she noted that it doesn't mean that an individual wouldn't try to include the City in the suit. Mayor Colson discussed the end of the bond term and stated that her suggestion would be for the City to partner with a non-profit organization so that the City doesn't end up managing a multi -family development. Vice Mayor Beach and Mayor Colson discussed the timing of assigning the option to a third party. City Attorney Kane stated that the City would probably want to wait until closer to the option period to see what organization has the ability to purchase the property at that time. Vice Mayor Beach stated that the Kings County Board of Supervisors has ultimate authority, and they are being advised by three private companies that are managing the different aspects of the program. She discussed how the bond documents help to provide the City certain protections, but she wondered if there were any other pitfalls in the governance structure that the Council should discuss. 6 Burlingame City Council December 4, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 City Attorney Kane stated that this is more of a policy question. She explained that if the Council approves the resolution, then the City is signing on to the JPA so that the bonds can get issued. She noted that this is the extent of the City's involvement. She stated that CaICHA has been very clear that they manage the property and control the property. She noted that the JPA agreement is set up to be deliberately broad to allow CaICHA the maximum operating freedom. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he believed that the City should insist in a side letter that there be audited financials, an understanding of the rent profile, and that the City can inspect the property. He explained that much like an heir can review the management of a trust, so should the City be able to review the property. He stated that he believed the City had legal standing to require thorough reporting. City Attorney Kane discussed the enforceability of a side letter. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the City needs to review the purchase option agreement in order to insert language that ensures that CaICHA acts as fiduciaries to the City. City Attorney Kane stated that she agreed with Councilmember Brownrigg. However, the concern she has is that because of the compressed time frame and given that CaICHA has not previously structured their program in this manner, she doesn't know if the City can effectuate that vision. Mayor Colson wondered if the purchase option agreement included language that made it clear that CaICHA were fiduciaries to the City, would it open the City up to liability. The Council further discussed the potential bond payments, how the financing would be structured, and the duties of the bondholders. City Attorney Kane summarized her conversation with Mr. Cooper. She explained that there aren't a lot of guarantees of the kind that the City can enforce. However, she noted that the structure of public bond financing would create some guarantees for the City. City Attorney Kane stated that what she hasn't explored is whether Council contingencies on signing the purchase option agreement would cause CaICHA to refrain from entering an offer. She explained that if there is a question about whether the City would ultimately sign the agreement, it might prevent CaICHA from entering an offer. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he would suggest that if the Council makes a motion, it would be to join the JPA. City Attorney Kane stated that the proposed resolution has the City joining the JPA and gives the City Manager authority to execute the purchase option agreement. Vice Mayor Beach thanked the Mayor and Council for their efforts on researching the program and what it entails. She explained that there is no silver bullet that will solve the housing crisis in the Bay Area. She 7 Burlingame City Council December 4, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 stated that she believes she can support this program but is leery of making this a pattern in the city. She noted that she is more comfortable securing existing affordable units by using the linkage fees versus property tax dollars. Vice Mayor Beach stated that the program presents a unique opportunity to help 100 to 200 Burlingame residents. She added that she wanted the City to strongly consider exercising its option to a nonprofit developer that is an expert in this industry. Councilmember Brownrigg concurred. Mayor Colson discussed the Measure K backfill funds. City Manager Goldman stated that she believed the challenge for the County is if this type of program becomes epidemic and numerous properties are taken off the tax roll. Mayor Colson noted that at Assemblymember Mullin's meeting, it was discussed that there might be future legislation that limits the amount of tax exemption that governmental agencies can have. Councilmember Ortiz stated that the building is going to sell, and therefore two things can happen, either a developer purchases the property, evicts the current tenants, renovates the building, and rents the units at a much higher rate or the City can enter into the JPA and potentially preserve affordable housing. He noted that he is still uneasy about some of the issues, but he stated that he couldn't see allowing the first option to take place. Mayor Colson opened public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran stated that she wasn't in support of entering the JPA. She explained that she liked programs and agreements that were or close to iron -clad, and this program was far from it. She noted that she didn't want to set a precedent and didn't want the City to be in a JPA where the City had no say. She discussed her concerns about the property taxes and how while it might not be an issue now, when the economy takes a downturn, the City might wish it had that money coming in. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the resolution as written gives the City Manager authority to sign future purchase option agreements. He explained that he believes the Council would be wise to make it clear that the City Manager won't sign any future purchase option agreements without first consulting with the Council. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative. City Attorney Kane stated that the resolution could be verbally amended to include the term that the City Manager is authorized upon consultation with the Council. Mayor Colson stated that she didn't believe there was a right or wrong vote on this issue. She noted that a lot of the risks had been assessed. She stated that for her it comes down to the fact that it is hard to build affordable housing. Therefore, if the City can preserve housing for the missing middle, the City should try. 8 Burlingame City Council December 4, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Mayor Colson asked if she was correct that if the City joins the JPA but the immediate acquisition falls through, the Council could bring the item back on a future agenda item and remove themselves from the JPA. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative. Mayor Colson and Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the fact that the County is looking into doing a similar JPA within the County. Councilmember Brownrigg noted that the HEART Executive Director stated that he would like to create a JPA funding mechanism for smaller buildings. Mayor Colson stated that she would like to include in the motion that if the property isn't acquired, that Council would direct staff to remove the City from the JPA. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 152-2019 with the amendment that the City Manager is authorized to sign future purchase option agreements upon consultation with the Council and would note that he would like the City Attorney to follow up with CaICHA for a side letter; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed by voice vote, 4-1 (Councilmember O'Brien Keighran voted against). 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Colson adjourned the meeting at 9:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk 9 Burlingame City Council December 4, 2019 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8c Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 �b CITY BURLJHGAME m �AATm JIMC 6. BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting on January 6, 2020 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 7:11 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by Broadway Business Improvement District President John Kevranian. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O'Brien Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (CAL. GOVT. CODE & 54956.9), ONE CASE: POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION AND POLICE SARGEANTS' ASSOCIATION City Attorney Kane reported that direction was given, but no reportable action was taken. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Beach reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. MEASURE I OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE REPORT Measure I Oversight Committee member Joe Galligan stated that the Committee met with Councilmember Ortiz and Councilmember Colson to review the audit report on how Measure I funds were spent. Mr. Galligan reviewed the history of Measure I and explained that in November 2017, voters passed Measure I, approving a quarter cent sales tax. He explained that the role of the Burlingame City Council January 6`h, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8c Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Committee is to ensure that the funds that are collected from the sales tax are used for community needs. He stated that the funds were used to hire an additional police officer and repair streets and sidewalks. In addition, $1 million was set aside to pay the debt service on the future Community Center. Mr. Galligan stated that not all of the Measure I funds that were collected were spent. He explained that it was determined that the additional funds would be put towards street and sidewalk repairs. Mr. Galligan discussed the State's transition to a new accounting system and how it had created a delay in cities receiving their portion of sales tax. Accordingly, the City ended up with more funds than previously anticipated. Mayor Beach thanked the Measure I Oversight Committee for their work. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT James talked about the importance of bicycle lanes in the community. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Beach asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Brownrigg pulled item 8e. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to approve items 8a, 8b, 8c, 8S, and 8f; seconded by Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes of December 16, 2019. b. CONFIRMATION OF THE MAYOR'S COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS FOR 2020 City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve of the Mayor's Council Assignments for 2020. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH URBAN FIELD STUDIO FOR CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS FOR A PUBLIC PLAZA ON CITY PARKING LOT E AND COORDINATION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AT 220 PARK ROAD (FORMER POST OFFICE SITE) CDD Gardner requested Council adopt Resolution Number 001-2020. 2 Burlingame City Council January 6, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8c Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 d. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL TWO VACANCIES ON THE MEASURE I CITIZENS' OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE City Manager Goldman requested that the nomination period be opened to fill two vacancies on the Measure I Citizens' Oversight Committee. e. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL ONE VACANCY ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION City Manager Goldman stated that there is a vacancy on the Planning Commission due to the vacated seat of Brenden Kelley. She noted that the deadline to apply for this seat was Friday, January 31, 2020. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that it was unfortunate that the City didn't let Commissioner Kelley know ahead of time that he was at risk of losing his position on the Planning Commission. Not directly stated at the meeting but for background information: The City Council has a long- standing policy regarding Commissioner attendance at Board and Commission meetings. The relevant section of the policy states: If a Board of Commission member is absent from one third (1/3rd) of the regular meetings held by the particular board or commission during a twelve (12) month period, or is absent from four consecutive regular meetings held by the particular board or commission, the office of that commissioner becomes automatically vacant from the end of the last regular meeting that the board or commission member attended. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the consensus was that Commissioner Kelley had done a great job when he attended meetings. He noted that unfortunately Commissioner Kelley had to miss meetings because he is a CCFD firefighter. Councilmember Brownrigg asked that the City implement a process that would give commissioners and board members a heads up if they are at risk of violating the attendance policy. He noted that he wasn't disputing that the City should have this policy, just that the individuals should be given fair warning. City Manager Goldman concurred and stated that while staff and department heads had been unaware of this policy since it was adopted long ago, they had worked quickly to put a process in place to warn future commissioners and board members. Councilmember Colson explained that the Planning Commission was having trouble reaching a quorum for their meetings because of absences. She discussed how this creates issues for staff, homeowners, and local businesses. She noted that the fact that an individual would even get close to missing one third of the meetings is a problem. Therefore, she stated that the individuals should be notified, but the City should enforce the policy. Burlingame City Council January 6'e, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8c Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she had specifically asked Commissioner Kelley how he planned to balance his work schedule with the duties of the Planning Commission during the interviews. She noted that he had replied that it wouldn't be an issue. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he agreed with his colleagues. He discussed the potential for new issues or comments to come up on a project if a commissioner misses a meeting but is present the next time the project is reviewed. He explained that it could cause problems and unfairly delay projects. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. Planning Commission Chair Comaroto stated that she agreed with Council that there needed to be consistency on the Planning Commission. She noted that it was a pleasure to serve with Commissioner Kelley and that he had served on a lot of the subcommittees. She asked that the commission and board members receive fair warning in the future. Mayor Beach closed public comment. Mayor Beach stated that she spoke with the City Manager about what processes should be put in place to ensure that commission and board members receive a fair warning in the future. She explained that they discussed having the Department Heads remind the commissioners and adding language to the application. Mayor Beach stated that Commissioner Kelley was excellent on the Planning Commission. She noted that he added value to the Commission as he was both thoughtful and open-minded. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to open the nomination period to fill one vacancy on the Planning Commission; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. Councilmember Colson suggested putting an attendance record in the back of the commission and board members' binders. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she liked that the attendance requirement would be put on the application and asked that the application be amended prior to individuals applying for this seat. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that they should specify the maximum allowable absences per commission and board in the application. Councilmember Colson asked about commissioners that are out for health reasons. City Manager Goldman stated that she would need to review the language. But she believed that prior to her, there was a Planning Commissioner who was absent due to significant health issues and the policy stated that the individual would be removed but could reapply. City Attorney Kane stated that the City Manager and she had discussed bringing back a staff report that would clarify some of the questions in the existing policy. 4 Burlingame City Council January 6i°, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8c Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if a commissioner or board member attending the meeting via phone would count as being present. City Attorney Kane stated that the City has made some accommodations, but there are limitations due to the Brown Act. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. f. APPROVAL OF LIBRARY STAFF OUT OF STATE TRAVEL City Librarian McCulley requested approval for out-of-state travel for Library staff. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 13.36.030, 13.36.040, AND 13.40.010 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXTEND THE PARKING TIME LIMIT FROM ONE HOUR TO TWO HOURS AND INCREASE THE PARKING METER RATE ON BROADWAY FROM EL CAMINO REAL TO CALIFORNIA DRIVE DPW Murtuza stated that in 2018, the TSPC reviewed a request from the Broadway Business Improvement District ("BID") to increase the parking duration along Broadway between El Camino Real and California Drive from one to two hours. He explained that TSPC recommended that the Council create a six-month pilot program in which meters on the 1100 and 1400 blocks of Broadway would be converted to two-hour meters, while those on the other blocks would remain one -hour meters. DPW Murtuza stated that after reviewing TSPC's recommendation, the Council recommended increasing the wayfinding parking signage and other improvements to assist individuals in finding the two-hour parking lots. He explained that the Council determined that the City should revisit the matter after the signage improvements were complete. DPW Murtuza stated that at the November 13, 2019 Economic Development Subcommittee meeting, members of the Broadway BID advocated for changing the meters on Broadway to two hours and noted that their businesses were suffering with the one -hour meters. He added that BID representatives also approved changing the parking meter rates from $0.50 per hour to $1.00 per hour. He noted that the staff also reviewed adding one more 24-minute meter on the 1400 block. DPW Murtuza stated that staff found the requests consistent with the meter times on Burlingame Avenue. He added that the public's concern about lack of turnover of parking spaces would be mitigated by the meter rate increase. DPW Murtuza stated that at the December 12, 2019 TSPC meeting, the Commission reviewed the BID's request. He noted that while TSPC voted down the proposal as presented, the commission did indicate support for a more comprehensive plan and studies to be done prior to implementing the two-hour time limit change. Burlingame City Council January 6'6, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8c Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 DPW Murtuza stated that TSPC recommended extending parking enforcement beyond 6:00 p.m., which was previously studied by the City Council in 2012. He noted that in 2012, the Council determined that it wouldn't benefit the community. DPW Murtuza stated that after further review, staff recommends changing the parking time limit from one hour to two hours on Broadway and increasing the parking meter rate from $0.50 to $1 per hour. He noted that staff also recommends adding a 24-minute spot in the 1400 block. Lastly, he explained that during the Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Project, the City had changed parking restrictions on Burlingame Avenue from one hour to two hours but that the code had not been updated. Therefore, appropriate language is included in the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Colson asked about TSPC's recommendation to reduce the red curbing on Broadway to allow for additional spaces. Senior Engineer Andy Wong replied that staff was not recommending reducing red curbing on Broadway. Mayor Beach asked if the proposed meter rates for Broadway were consistent with the rates on Burlingame Avenue. DPW Murtuza replied that the pricing was consistent for the first hour. However, he explained that Burlingame Avenue has smart meters, and to encourage turnover on the Avenue, the second hour costs $2. Mayor Beach asked if the increased pricing for the second hour was considered for Broadway. DPW Murtuza explained that Broadway's meters currently do not have the technology necessary to undertake this task. He added that the parking needs and demands of Broadway are different from those of Burlingame Avenue. Mayor Beach stated that the City's last comprehensive parking study was done in 2012. She asked if staff had given any thought to when the next comprehensive business district parking/rate study would occur and what Would be included in the study. DPW Murtuza replied that there have been a lot of changes since 2012. He discussed the need to wait for the parking garage to be completed prior to undertaking a study. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if the suggestion was to include both Broadway and Burlingame Avenue in the comprehensive study. She explained that last time the Council discussed this idea, the Council asked for a study on Broadway. DPW Murtuza replied that Council directed staff to research wayfinding signage. City Manager Goldman stated that the City should study both business districts at the same time. However, she noted that the City needed to first get some history with the parking garage prior to conducting a study. Mayor Beach asked the City Clerk to read the title of the ordinance. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer read the title. 6 Burlingame City Council January 6', 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8c Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Mayor Beach opened the public hearing. Broadway BID President Kevranian voiced his support for the ordinance. Councilmember Ortiz stated that the last time the Council discussed parking limits and meter rates on Broadway, there were merchants who voiced strong dissent against any changes. Mr, Kevranian stated that the merchants are now in support of the ordinance. Councilmember Ortiz asked if Mr. Kevranian believed that the increase in rates would encourage turnover. He added that he believed it could affect the employees that park on Broadway. Mr. Kevranian replied that the merchants encourage their employees to not park on Broadway. He added that he didn't believe they would because if they make minimum wage, the increased rate amounts to approximately 9% of their hourly wage. Councilmember Ortiz asked if the BID was advocating for parking enforcement beyond 6:00 p.m. Mr. Kevranian replied in the negative. Mayor Beach closed the public hearing. Councilmember Brownrigg and Councilmember Ortiz voiced their support for the proposed ordinance. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that when this came before the Council the first time, she voted against it. She explained that she voted against it because she believed that what was needed on Broadway was better signage for the parking lots. However, she stated that because the BID had reached a consensus, she could support the ordinance. Mayor Beach noted that this was an important issue for the BID, and she was happy to see that they reached a consensus. She stated that while she wished the proposed ordinance was being considered after the electronic wayfinding signage was installed and studied, what she was hearing was that this is a customer service matter. Mayor Beach thanked staff, the Broadway BID, and the TSPC for their work on this matter. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to bring the ordinance back at the next meeting for adoption; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 7 Burlingame City Council January 6', 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8c Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 b. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 13.24.010 AND 13.24.015 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO REDUCE THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT ON CALIFORNIA DRIVE BETWEEN OAK GROVE AND PENINSULA AVENUES TO 25 MPH DPW Murtuza stated that the California Drive Roundabout project was completed in spring 2019. He noted that the project has significantly improved pedestrian access and safety along California Drive, while reducing potential conflicts for all modes of transportation. He explained that staff continues to monitor the intersection and make small changes to further enhance the safety, including: • Enhancing the pedestrian Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons • Installing driver feedback signs • Deploying changeable message signs • Implementing a pilot program with a 25 MPH speed limit on the California Drive approaches to the roundabout. DPW Murtuza explained that the roundabout was designed with a 15 MPH advisory speed limit. This advisory speed limit is in place to prepare vehicles approaching the roundabout to yield to pedestrians near the crosswalks and vehicles already in the roundabout. He explained that staff has observed that not all vehicles were entering the roundabout at 15 MPH, which led to vehicles already in the roundabout stopping to avoid a potential collision. DPW Murtuza stated that under the City's Municipal Code, California Drive from Oak Grove Avenue to Burlingame Avenue has a posted speed limit of 35 MPH. Therefore, staff believes that part of the reason some vehicles don't comply with the 15 MPH advisory speed is because of the need to rapidly decelerate from 35 MPH to 15 MPH in a short distance. DPW Murtuza stated that under the California limited to the following: • Business districts • Residential districts • Near schools • Near senior centers Vehicle Code, 25 MPH speed limit zones are He noted that California Drive between Oak Grove and Peninsula Avenue would qualify for a speed limit reduction because it is within a business district. DPW Murtuza stated that staff presented this proposal to TSPC at their November 14, 2019 meeting. He noted that TSPC supported the reduction with a vote of 4-1. Councilmember Colson asked why the one commissioner voted against the reduction. DPW Murtuza replied that the commissioner felt that vehicles exiting the roundabout in the northbound direction don't have to have the same speed as the vehicle entering the intersection. He noted that staff recommended decreasing the speed limit to 25 MPH in both directions to ensure consistency and the public's understanding. 8 Burlingame City Council January 6', 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8c Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he was concerned that vehicles in the northbound lane that doesn't enter the circle are going to end up going too fast and feeling unfairly ticketed. He asked how fast vehicles are currently driving in that lane and if staff has conducted radar checks. DPW Murtuza replied that he would have to get back to Council with that data. He stated that staffls main concern is the speed with which vehicles enter and exit the roundabout, especially as the result of the pedestrian crosswalks. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he agreed that people needed to slow down going southbound on California Drive. He asked if staff had considered rumble strips to slow vehicles down. DPW Murtuza replied that the latest round of incremental improvements at the roundabout included additional flashing beacons. He stated that staff would review rumble strips. Councilmember Brownrigg asked for staff to provide the Council with data on how the roundabout has improved pedestrian safety. DPW Murtuza replied that in order to obtain solid findings, the City would need to wait a few years. He added that he would get back to Council with the data that he currently has. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he believed the City's Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan would help make the streets safer for all forms of transportation. He asked that if the proposed ordinance is adopted, that the Police Department spend a solid amount of time warning and educating the public on the change in speed prior to ticketing. Mayor Beach asked what staff s plan was to educate the public on the reduced speed limit. DPW Murtuza stated that staff will be using the eNews, electronic signage, and warnings. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran suggested that staff provide information about the reduced speed limit on residents' water bills. Mayor Beach asked the City Clerk to read the title of the ordinance. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer read the title of the ordinance. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Beach opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Mayor Beach thanked staff for their work on this matter and noted that a roundabout forces drivers and pedestrians to pay attention when entering the intersection. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to bring the proposed ordinance back at the next meeting for consideration of adoption; seconded by Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 9 Burlingame City Council January 6', 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8c Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 10. STAFF REPORTS a. CONSIDERATION OF AN ENHANCED PROGRAM TO ADDRESS ILLEGAL DUMPING City Attorney Kane stated that illegal dumping is a chronic problem not only in Burlingame but throughout the Peninsula. She explained that in Burlingame, the dumping pattern that is most noticeable to residents occurs when tenants move out of multi -family units. She noted that illegal dumping encompasses a lot more than mattresses, TVs, and other household items disposed of after a tenant moves, but this is what is most visible to the public and what the City receives the most calls about. She added that most of the calls the City receives are about items being dumped on El Camino Real and Rollins. City Attorney Kane stated that the City is a member of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority ("SBWMA"), which has a franchise agreement with Recology. She explained that under the agreement, Recology provides a maximum of 30 abandoned pickups per service day. She noted that the maximum of 30 encompasses all 12 public agencies in the SBWMA service area. She added that San Mateo tends to grab a disproportionate share of the 30 pickups because it is a larger city, and it has an automated system. She stated that the demand for pickups is greatest at the beginning of the month. City Attorney Kane stated that the Public Works Department has dedicated staff to handle illegal dumping calls. However, when staff receives these calls, crews are diverted from their primary duties in order to respond. City Attorney Kane explained that staff created a list of suggestions to assist in the matter. She noted that in her experience in prior jurisdictions, the security cameras are very effective when you have an identified hot spot. The list of suggestions is outlined in the staff report and includes: • Public Outreach — educate the public on the pickup options through the eNews and social media accounts • Annual Service Contract — contract with a trash hauler for on -call trash removal when Recology is unavailable, with an estimated annual cost of $25,000 to $50,000 • Leasing of four security cameras to monitor dumping "hot spots" • Enhanced information on illegal dumping on the City's website • Report it! Reward! Program Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that the City's agreement with Recology includes one free pickup for the public per year. She asked if the one free pickup for multi -family developments is per unit or per property. City Attorney Kane stated that it was per rate payer. Councilmember Ortiz asked if a resident already used their one free pickup, could they pay for an additional pickup. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that SBWMA is trying to schedule more pickups as part of the contract with Recology. 10 Burlingame City Council January 6"', 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8c Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Councilmember Colson asked if the City had a fine structure in place that could be used when they are able to identify the owner of illegally dumped items. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative. She added that Code Compliance Officer Rachel Norwitt goes through the illegal dump sites looking for incriminating information. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that the landlord might know who is moving out, but unless they see their former tenant illegally dumping items there is nothing that can be done. However, she stated that if the landlord knew who dumped the items, they could take the cost of removal out of the tenant's security deposit. Councilmember Brownrigg voiced support for increased public outreach on the matter. He stated that there is potential State legislation that will allow SBWMA to fine homeowners if their trash gets into storm drains. Therefore, he felt that the City should conduct broader outreach so that the public understands the level of scrutiny that the State is considering. Councilmember Ortiz asked if the City installed cameras in hot spots, who would monitor the cameras. City Attorney Kane stated that the City would be monitoring the cameras. She noted that the City would need to be careful about people's right to privacy and the Public Records Act. She stated that as a base principle, if you are on a public street, you don't have a technical right to privacy. She noted that the City would ensure that the cameras were directed solely at the hot spots and not into homes, and the images would only be held if they included illegal dumping. Mayor Beach asked if most of the illegal dumping is in front of multi -family developments, in abandoned areas, or in front of residential units at the end of cul de sacs. City Attorney Kane stated that most of the illegal dumping is along El Camino Real. She noted that there are two locations on Rollins where items are regularly dumped, and that staff believes that these sites are a result of individuals outside of Burlingame. Councilmember Colson stated that it would be beneficial if the City could negotiate a bulk rate for the landlords so that when items are dumped, they could get them removed at a more cost friendly price. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the potential problem that if the City makes it too easy and cleans up too quickly, the City will invite more dumping. Councilmember Brownrigg asked about the cameras being portable. City Attorney Kane explained that the City could reposition the camera along the corridor as needed. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he is concerned about fixed cameras on Rollins Road. He noted that this part of the city is composed of less economically advantaged individuals versus other areas of the city. Therefore, he explained that he would be concerned that having security cameras in that area could send the wrong message. He stated that the City must be sensitive to the notion of government cameras. 11 Burlingame City Council January 6', 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8c Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Mayor Beach concurred with Councilmember Brownrigg. She noted that the cameras are also more expensive than staff s suggestion to contract with trash haulers. City Attorney Kane stated that the flipside to Councilmember Brownrigg's point about Rollins Road is that the less economically advantaged individuals deserve a nice neighborhood. She noted that the City needs to conduct outreach on the matter and strike a balance. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he has privacy issues with governmental cameras, but they are used everywhere. He noted that these cameras would act as deterrent for illegal dumping, and therefore he could support their installation. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she thought the cameras would be a good deterrent. She asked if the City had seen an uptick in illegal dumping. DPW Murtuza replied in the negative and added that the numbers were consistent with previous years. Councilmember Colson discussed purchasing multiple mobile cameras that could be moved throughout the different sections of the city. She noted that then the public could then let the City know where the cameras should be positioned. City Attorney Kane stated that staff needed to do more research on utilizing cameras and draft a policy. She explained that she believed the first step was to enter into a contract with a trash hauler. Council Brownrigg noted that the City charges franchise fees to Recology, and therefore the City has an income stream dedicated to cleanup. Accordingly, these funds could be utilized for this matter. Mayor Beach stated that there was a consensus that staff should conduct further research on cameras and that the City should enter into a service contract for on -call trash removal. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF THE CITY MANAGER'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE A SALARY INCREASE, AND ADOPTING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PAY RATES AND RANGES (SALARY SCHEDULE) Finance Director Augustine stated that on December 4, 2019, the Council met in closed session to conduct the City Manager's annual performance evaluation. She explained that in recognition of her positive performance evaluation, Council approved a 3% salary increase. She noted that this is the same increase provided to the City Department Heads and Unrepresented unit. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. The Council thanked City Manager Goldman for her hard work and dedication to the City. 12 Burlingame City Council January 6", 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8c Meeting Date: 01/21/2020 Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 002-2020; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCMENTS a. MAYOR BEACH'S COMMITTEE REPORT 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no future agenda items. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Mayor Beach presented a gavel plaque to Councilmember Colson in recognition of her 2019 mayorship. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Beach adjourned meeting at 9:01 p.m. in memory of Lee Mendelson Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk 13 Burlingame City Council January 6', 2020 Unapproved Minutes SURLINGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8d MEETING DATE: January 21, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 21, 2020 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Kathleen Kane, City Attorney — (650) 558-7263 Andrew Wong, Senior Civil Engineer — (650) 558-7237 Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapters 13.24.010 and 13.24.015 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Reduce the Posted Speed Limit on California Drive between Oak Grove Avenue and Peninsula Avenue to 25 MPH RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapters 13.24.010 and 13.24.015 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to reduce the posted speed limit on California Drive between Oak Grove Avenue and Peninsula Avenue to 25 MPH. In its action, the City Council should, by motion: 1. Adopt the proposed ordinance; and 2. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. DISCUSSION The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing and discussed the proposed ordinance at its regular meeting on January 6, 2020. No changes to the proposed ordinance were requested; therefore, the ordinance is presented to the City Council for adoption at its regular meeting of January 21, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT The costs associated with changing the posted speed limit signs are minimal and will be absorbed within the Public Works Department operating budget. Exhibits: • Ordinance • BMC Update 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTERS 13.24.010 AND 13.24.015 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO REDUCE THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT ON CALIFORNIA DRIVE BETWEEN OAK GROVE AVENUE AND PENINSULA AVENUE The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME ordains as follows: Section 1. Factual Background and Findings. WHEREAS, the California Drive Roundabout Project was designed with a 15 MPH advisory speed limit. This advisory speed limit was in place to prepare vehicles approaching the roundabout to yield to pedestrians near the crosswalks and vehicles already in the roundabout; and WHEREAS, City staff observed that not all vehicles were entering the roundabout at the posted advisory 15 MPH speed limit, which contributed to some vehicles already in the roundabout stopping to avoid a potential collision; and WHEREAS, per the City's Municipal Code, the portion of California Drive from Oak Grove Avenue to Burlingame Avenue has a posted speed limit of 35 MPH, while the posted speed limit from Burlingame Avenue to Peninsula Avenue is 30 MPH; and WHEREAS, part of the reason for some vehicles not complying with the 15 MPH advisory speed can be attributed to the rapid deceleration from 35 MPH to 15 MPH in a relatively short distance; and WHEREAS, being within a business district, California Drive from Oak Grove Avenue to Peninsula Avenue meets one of the criteria for a 25 MPH default speed limit as identified in the California Vehicle Code. NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME HEREBY ORDAINS TO REDUCE THE SPEED LIMIT ON CALIFORNIA DRIVE FROM OAK GROVE AVENUE TO PENINSULA AVENUE TO 25 MPH BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: DIVISION 1: Section 2. The City Council hereby amends Section 4 of Chapter 13.24.010 thirty five miles per hour of the Burlingame Municipal Code to read as follows: "(4) California Drive between Oak Grove Avenue and Murchison Drive" Section 3. The City Council hereby amends Section 1 of Chapter 13.24.015 thirty miles per hour of the Burlingame Municipal Code to remove the following: "(1) California Drive between Peninsula Avenue and Burlingame Avenue" 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. Emily Beach, 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 61h day of January, 2020, by the following vote, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 21st day of Janua , 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk 13.24.010 Thirty-five miles per hour. (a) No person shall drive a vehicle upon any of the following designated streets at a speed greater than thirty-five (35) miles per hour; it is determined that the speed limitation hereby established is most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and safe: (1) Airport Boulevard between Old Bayshore Highway and Lang Road; (2) Adrian Road between Millbrae city limits and David Road; (3) Old Bayshore Highway; (4) California Drive between Oak Grove Avenue and Murchison Drive; (5) Carolan Avenue between Broadway and Oak Grove Avenue; (6) Peninsula Avenue between California Drive and Humboldt Road; (7) Rollins Road between southern city limits to northern city limits; (8) Skyline Boulevard from six hundred (600) feet north of Rivera Drive south to the city limits; and 13.24.015 Thirty miles per hour. (a) No person shall drive a vehicle upon any of the following designated streets at a speed greater than thirty (30) miles per hour; it is determined that the speed limitation hereby established is most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and safe: (1) California DAve between Peninsula A -venue and urneumtaut; (2) Peninsula Avenue between El Camino Real and California Drive; and (3) Hillside Drive between Alvarado Avenue and El Camino Real. BURLINGAME AGENDA NO: 8e STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: January 21, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 21, 2020 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Kathleen Kane, City Attorney — (650) 558-7263 Andrew Wong, Senior Civil Engineer — (650) 558-7237 Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance to Amend Chapters 13.36.030, 13.36.040, and 13.40.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Extend the Parking Time Limit from One Hour to Two Hours, and Increase the Parking Meter Rate on Broadway from El Camino Real to California Drive RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapters 13.36.030, 13.36.040, and 13.40.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC) to change the parking time limit from one hour to two hours on Broadway from El Camino Real to California Drive, and increase the parking meter rate from $0.50/hour to $1.00/hour. In its action, the City Council should, by motion: 1. Adopt the proposed ordinance; and 2. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. DISCUSSION The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing and discussed the proposed ordinance at its regular meeting on January 6, 2020. No changes to the proposed ordinance were requested; therefore, the ordinance is presented to the City Council for adoption at its regular meeting of January 21, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT The costs associated with preparing and installing signage for these meter changes are minimal and will be absorbed within the Public Works Department operating budget. Exhibits: • Ordinance • BMC Update • Broadway BID Letter 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTERS 13.36.030, 13.36.040, AND 13.40.010 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXTEND THE PARKING TIME LIMIT FROM ONE HOUR TO TWO HOURS AND INCREASE THE PARKING METER RATE ON BROADWAY FROM EL CAMINO REAL TO CALIFORNIA DRIVE The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME ordains as follows: Section 1. Factual Background and Findings. WHEREAS, at its November 21, 2019 meeting, the Broadway Business Improvement District (BID) unanimously supported increasing the parking time limit from one hour to two hours on Broadway, adding an additional 24-minute meter at the 1400 block, and increasing meter rates from $0.50 per hour to $1.00 per hour; and WHEREAS, staff has reviewed and supports the above proposal; and WHEREAS, at its December 12, 2019 TSPC meeting, the Traffic, Safety, and Parking Commission (TSPC) did not support the proposal, and instead sought a more comprehensive approach to address parking along Broadway; and WHEREAS, while the TSPC did not support the proposal as presented, they indicated support for a more comprehensive plan and studies to be done prior to implementing the two-hour time limit change; and WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the recommendations made by the TSPC and will implement them separately as feasible; and WHEREAS, staff recommends revising Chapters 13.40.010 Parking Meter Zones, Chapters 13.36.030 (One -Hour Parking), and 13.36.040 (Two -Hour Parking) of the Burlingame Municipal Code to increase the parking duration and parking meter rates along Broadway; and WHEREAS, while reviewing the Burlingame Municipal Code, staff discovered that the parking restriction along Burlingame Avenue from El Camino Real to California Drive was shown as one hour, and staff recommends that the City Council update the Code to include this section of Burlingame Avenue as a two-hour restriction, consistent with the plans developed as part of the Burlingame Avenue improvement project. NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: DIVISION 1: Section 2. The City Council amends Chapter 13.36.030 One Hour Parking of the Burlingame Municipal Code to remove the following: "(a) Broadway from El Camino Real to California Drive" "(b) Burlingame Avenue from California Drive to El Camino Real" Section 3. The City Council amends Chapter 13.36.040 Two Hour Parking of the Burlingame Municipal Code with the following edits: Add "Broadway from El Camino Real to California Drive" Revise "Burlingame Avenue, from Myrtle to Carolan Avenue; south side from Occidental to El Camino Real' to also include El Camino Real to California Drive Section 4. The City Council amends Chapter 13.40.010 Parking Meter Zones of the Burlingame Municipal Code to remove the following: "(2) 1 Hour Parking Limit On the following street: Broadway: 50 cents for one hour" "All other areas: 5 cents for each 30 minutes" Section 5. The City Council amends Chapter 13.40.010 Parking Meter Zones of the Burlingame Municipal Code to add the following under (3) 2-Hour Parking Limit, $2.00 for two hours: "Broadway from El Camino Real to California Drive" 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. Emily Beach, 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 January, 2020, and adopted thereafter on the 21 st day of January, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk 13.36.030 One -hour parking. Except where prohibited or otherwise designated for shorter term time periods, it is unlawful for any person to park a vehicle for a period longer than one hour between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on any day, excepting Sundays and holidays, upon any part of the following streets or portions of streets: (c) California Drive, west side, from Douglas to Bellevue Avenue and from Carmelita Avenue to Broadway; (d) Ingold Road, north side, forty-eight (48) feet west from the curb return of Rollins Road to one hundred twenty-eight (128) feet west from that same curb return; (e) Magnolia Avenue, east side, from the intersection of Magnolia Avenue to three hundred (300) feet north of the center line of Trousdale Drive; (f) Primrose Road, from Bellevue Avenue to Floribunda Avenue. 13.36.040 Two-hour parking. It is unlawful for the driver of any vehicle to park such vehicle, unless elsewhere in this title otherwise provided, for a longer period than two (2) hours between the hours designated any day, excepting Sundays and holidays, upon any part of the following streets, or portions of streets: (a) 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.: (1) Adrian Road, west side, one hundred fifty-five (155) feet southerly from the southeast end of the curb return of David Road; (2) Anita Road, west side, from Peninsula Avenue one hundred forty-five (145) feet north toward Bayswater Avenue; (3) Bayswater Avenue from El Camino Real to Park Road; south side, from California Drive to the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way; (4) Bellevue Avenue, except the south side from Primrose Road to Almer Road; (5) Broadway, from El Camino Real to California Drive (6) Burlingame Avenue, from Myrtle to Carolan Avenue; south side from Occidental to El Camino Real; El Camino Real to California Drive (7) California Drive, west side, from Carmelita Avenue to Palm Drive; from Burlingame Avenue to Peninsula Avenue; from Oak Grove Avenue four hundred (400) feet northwards to 755 California Drive, except areas designated for thirty (30) minute parking; (7) Capuchin Avenue from four hundred (400) feet southerly of the centerline of Broadway to Lincoln Avenue; (8) Carmelita Avenue, south side, from El Camino Real to Chula Vista Avenue; (9) Carolan Avenue, east side, from one hundred (100) feet northerly of Toyon Drive to four hundred sixty (460) feet northerly of Toyon Drive; and east side, from Cadillac Way to Broadway; (10) Chapin Avenue, from Chapin Lane to El Camino Real; (11) Chula Vista Avenue from the centerline of Broadway to four hundred ten feet (410) southerly of the centerline of Broadway; (12) Douglas Avenue; (13) East Lane, east side, from Burlingame Avenue to Howard Avenue; (14) El Camino Real service road between Dufferin Avenue and Murchison Drive; (15) Howard Avenue, south side, from Crescent Avenue to El Camino Real and from California Drive to the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way; (16) Laguna Avenue from two hundred eighty feet (280) southerly to five hundred ten (510) feet northerly of the centerline of Broadway; (17) Lorton Avenue, west side, from Bayswater Avenue to Howard Avenue; east side, from Howard Avenue one hundred twenty (120) feet south toward Bayswater and forty (40) feet north toward Burlingame Avenue; (18) Magnolia, west side, from Trousdale Drive to Plaza Lane; (19) North Carolan Avenue with three (3) parking spaces along the lot front of 1361 North Carolan Avenue; (20) Occidental Avenue, from El Camino Real to Ralston Avenue; (21) Paloma Avenue from three hundred ten (310) feet southerly of the centerline of Broadway to Lincoln Avenue; (22) Park Road, except the west side, from Howard Avenue to Bayswater Avenue; (23) Primrose Road, west side, from Howard Avenue to El Camino Real; (24) Ralston Avenue, from Occidental Avenue to El Camino Real; (25) Rollins Road from ninety (90) feet northerly of Toyon Drive to four hundred sixty (460) feet northerly of Toyon Drive; (26) South Lane, both sides; (27) Trousdale Drive, north side, from the curb return of Trousdale Drive and California Drive to ninety (90) feet west of said curb return; (28) Trousdale Drive, south side, from the curb return of Marco Polo Way to forty (40) feet east of said curb return; (29) Marco Polo Way, east side, from the curb return of Trousdale Drive to forty (40) feet south of said curb return; (30) Crescent Avenue, both sides, from the curb return of Ralston Avenue to the curb return of Howard Avenue; (31) 1600 block of Howard Avenue, both sides, from the curb return of Crescent Avenue to the curb return of Occidental Avenue; (32) Newlands Avenue, both sides; (33) Cypress Avenue, both sides, from El Camino Real to twenty (20) feet southerly of the centerline of Central Avenue (between the addresses of 1500 and 5141); (34) Carol Avenue, both sides, from El Camino Real to Barroilhet Avenue; and (35) East Carol Avenue, both sides, from Carol Avenue to Barroilhet Avenue. (b) 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.: (1) Carmelita Avenue, north side, between Chula Vista Avenue and El Camino Real; (2) Magnolia Avenue, east side, from three hundred (300) feet north of the center line of Trousdale Drive to Murchison Drive. (c) 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.: (1) Carolan Avenue, from Oak Grove Avenue to North Lane 13.40.010 Parking meter zones. (a) The streets hereinafter described are defined and established as parking meter zones. The parking of vehicles along such portions of these streets, and at such times as may be designated by the city council, shall be controlled, regulated, and inspected with the aid of parking meters: (1) Broadway from El Camino Real to California Drive; (2) Burlingame Avenue from El Camino Real to California Drive; (3) California Drive, west side, from Broadway to Carmelita Avenue and Bellevue Avenue to Howard Avenue; and east side from North Lane to two hundred seventy (270) feet south of Howard Avenue; (4) Capuchin Avenue from one hundred forty (140) feet north of the centerline of Broadway to two hundred thirty-three (233) feet south of the centerline of Broadway; (5) Carolan Avenue from South Lane to North Lane; (6) Chapin Avenue, from Primrose Road to El Camino Real; (7) Chula Vista Avenue from Broadway to two hundred eighty-two (282) feet south of the centerline of Broadway; (8) City Hall Lane from Primrose Road to Park Road; (9) Donnelly Avenue from Primrose Road to Lorton Avenue; (10) East Lane from Burlingame Avenue to North Lane; (11) Highland Avenue from Howard Avenue to California Drive and one parking space on the southwest corner of Highland at Howard; (12) Howard Avenue from El Camino Real to Highland Avenue; (13) Laguna Avenue from Broadway to one hundred thirty-six (136) feet south of the centerline of Broadway; (14) Lorton Avenue from Bellevue Avenue to Howard Avenue, and the east side of Lorton Avenue from Howard Avenue to Bayswater Avenue; (15) North Lane from Carolan Avenue to East Lane; (16) Paloma Avenue from one hundred (100) feet north of the centerline of Broadway to one hundred twenty (120) feet south of the centerline of Broadway; (17) Park Road, from Burlingame Avenue to Howard Avenue, and the west side of Park Road from Howard Avenue to Bayswater Avenue; (18) Primrose Road from Bellevue Avenue to Howard Avenue; and the east side of Primrose Road from Howard Avenue to Bayswater Avenue; and the west side of Primrose Road from Howard Avenue to two hundred (200) feet south of the centerline of Howard Avenue; (19) South Lane from Carolan Avenue/East Lane to California Drive; and (20) West Lane from South Lane to two hundred (200) feet south of South Lane. (b) The following parking meter rates are established in the city: (1) 24-Minute Parking Limit On the following streets: Broadway from El Camino Real to Rollins Road; Capuchino Avenue from Broadway to Carmelita Avenue; and Chula Vista Avenue from Broadway to Carmelita Avenue: 20 cents for 24 minutes On the following streets: California Drive from Bellevue Avenue to Howard Avenue; Chapin Avenue from Primrose Road to El Camino Real; Highland Avenue from California Drive to Howard Avenue; Howard Avenue from El Camino Real to Highland Drive; Lorton Avenue from Bellevue Avenue to Bayswater Avenue; Park Road from Burlingame Avenue to Howard Avenue; and Primrose Road from Bellevue Avenue to Bayswater Avenue: All other areas: 40 cents for 24 minutes 5 cents for each 12 minutes (3) 2-Hour Parking Limit On the following street: Burlingame Avenue from El Camino Real to California Drive: $1.00 the first hour; $2.00 the second hour On the following streets: Broadway from El Camino Real to California Drive; California Drive from Bellevue Avenue to Bayswater Avenue; Chapin Avenue from Primrose Road to El Camino Real; Donnelly Avenue from Primrose Road to Lorton Avenue; Highland Avenue from California Drive to Bayswater Avenue; Howard Avenue from Primrose Road to Highland Avenue; Lorton Avenue from Bellevue Avenue to Howard Avenue; Park Road from Burlingame Avenue to Howard Avenue; Primrose Road from Bellevue Avenue to Howard Avenue: $2.00 for two hours On the following streets: Capuchino Avenue from Lincoln Avenue to Carmelita Avenue; Chula Vista Avenue from Broadway to Carmelita Avenue; Laguna Avenue from Lincoln Avenue to Carmelita Avenue; and Paloma Avenue from Lincoln Avenue to Carmelita Avenue: $1.00 for two hours All other areas: 75 cents for each hour (4) 4-Hour Parking Limit On the following street: Howard Avenue from Primrose Road to Highland Avenue: $1.00 for each hour (5) 10-Hour Parking Limit On the following streets: California Drive from Howard Avenue to Bellevue Avenue; Chapin Avenue from Primrose Road to El Camino Real; City Hall Lane from Primrose Road to Park Road; Donnelly Avenue from Primrose Road to Lorton Avenue; Highland Avenue from Howard Avenue to California Drive; and Howard Avenue from El Camino Real to California Drive: $3.00 for 10 hours On the following streets: Lorton Avenue from Bayswater Avenue to Howard Avenue; Park Road from Bayswater Avenue to Howard Avenue; Primrose Road from Bayswater Avenue to Howard Avenue; South Lane from Carolan Avenue/East Lane to California Drive; and West Lane from South Lane to two hundred (200) feet south of South Lane: All other areas: $3.00 for 10 hours 25 cents for each 2-1/2 hours o��A�BUjN� BROADWAY VILLAGE: SHOPS November 21, 2019 ESTAURATAURA NTS SERVICE Lisa Goldman, Burlingame City Manager 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 , Burlingame parking request J of directors met today at 8:30 am . In attendance was President John Kevranian, director Treasure Chris Diez, Secreatary Ross Bruce, Director Linda Bullis, Mechant Frank Wang of urant, Merchant Orhan Kurt of Rocca, Merchant Irene Preston of Prestons, City Economic Jose h Sanfilipo and Merchant Isabelle dePaz of all that Glitters. The Board p approved a parking recommendation for the City's consideration. The Broadway ereby request the city to: :hange all current 1 hour parking spaces on Broadway to 2 hour spaces. ;eep all current 24 minute zones in place and add one additional 24 minute zone where neter 1401 is located at the North West end of the 1100 Block of Broadway. :hange the cost of all new 2 hour meters from 50 cents/hour to $1.00/hour. hn Kevranian, BID President Gera d Weisl, BID Director )adway Business Improvement District 6 1399 Broadway, Burf=rgame. Califunia 94010 BUR17 ME STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8f a MEETING DATE: January 21, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 7, 2020 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Freyer & Laureta for the Neighborhood Storm Drain Project #12, City Project No. 85600, in the Amount of $31,150 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving an amendment to the professional services agreement with Freyer & Laureta for engineering design services related to the Neighborhood Storm Drain Project #12 in the amount of $31,150. This will bring the total contract amount to $129,710. Staff also recommends that the Council authorize the City Manager to execute the amendment. BACKGROUND The Neighborhood Storm Drain Project #12 is a continuation of identified locations from the Kennedy/Jenks Neighborhood Storm Drain Improvement Project Report (2010), including other storm drainage improvements requested by residents. On November 26, 2019, the City experienced a heavy rain storm event that flooded the intersection of Dufferin Ave. and California Dr., and affected three residential properties in the area. Since the project is currently being designed, staff would like to expand the original project scope to include performance of a drainage study of the affected area to identify solutions to address the flooding and incorporate the solutions into the project. DISCUSSION Freyer & Laureta was selected from a prequalified list of engineering firms to provide design services for the Neighborhood Storm Drain Project #12. Staff negotiated the scope of professional services for the project in the original amount of $98,560 and executed the agreement on September 16, 2019. The proposed amendment will add $31,150 to the original contract amount and include the following scope of work: • Perform topographic survey of the project area. • Study the existing hydrology, causes of flooding, and capacity of existing systems. • Provide report of recommended solutions to address the flooding. 1 Professional Services Agreement Amendment with Freyer & Laureta January 21, 2020 for Neighborhood Storm Drain Project #12 • Perform Engineering Design of the recommended improvements, and incorporate them into the project construction documents for bidding purposes. Please refer to Exhibit A of the attached Professional Services Agreement for further details. Project design is anticipated to be completed by February, with construction scheduled to begin in the spring and completion by the fall of 2020. FISCAL IMPACT With this amendment, the total professional services fee will be in the not to exceed amount of $129,710. There are adequate funds available in the Storm Drainage Capital Improvement Project Fund to complete the project. Exhibits: Resolution • Agreement Amendment • Original Agreement • Project Location Map 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FREYER & LAURETA FOR DESIGN SERVICES RELATED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD STORM DRAIN PROJECT #12 WHEREAS, on September 16, 2019, the City of Burlingame entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Freyer & Laureta for design services associated with the Neighborhood Storm Drain Project #12; and WHEREAS, the Neighborhood Storm Drain Project #12 is currently under design, and staff would like to expand the original project scope to include the study and design of improvements at the intersection of California Drive and Dufferin Avenue to address recent flooding that occurred in November 2019; and WHEREAS, staff has negotiated the additional scope of work with Freyer & Laureta in the amount of $31,150, bringing the total contract amount to $129,710; and WHEREAS, there are adequate funds available in the Storm Drainage Capital Improvement Project Fund to complete the project. NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and ORDERED, that the Professional Services Agreement with Freyer & Laureta be amended to increase the total amount by $31,150 to $129,710, and the City Manager is authorized to execute the contract amendment. Emily Beach, 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 215' day of January, 2020, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH FREYER & LAURETA, INC. FOR NEIGHBORHOOD STORM DRAIN PROJECT #12 CITY PROJECT NO. 85600 THIS AMENDMENT ("Amendment"), made in duplicate and entered into effective on the day of January, 2020, amends the agreement dated September 16, 2019 ("Agreement") by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME ("CITY") and Frever & Laureta (Consultant). CITY and CONSULTANT are collectively referred to as the "Parties." RECITALS WHEREAS, on September 16, 2019, the Parties entered into an Agreement for professional design services for twenty (20) locations throughout the City to improve existing storm drain facilities, which is attached; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that it is in the CITY's best interest to make modifications and additions to the Agreement's scope of services to expand the scope of work to include the site at Dufferin and California Avenue as a result of a flooding event that occurred during the November 26, 2019 storm event; and WHEREAS, the Parties have negotiated and agreed to amendments to the Agreement as set forth in Exhibit A of this Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Agreement dated September 16, 2019, is amended to include additional design services for the project site at Dufferin and California Avenues and those revisions in services and compensation set forth in Exhibit A of this Amendment, 2. The CITY agrees compensation for all work associated with those services described in Exhibit A shall not exceed $31,150.00. With this Amendment, the total Agreement amount shall not exceed $129,710.00. 3. The services of the CONSULTANT are to commence upon the execution of this Amendment with completion of all work by February 29, 2020. Page 1 of 2 4. In all other respects, the provisions of the Agreement dated September 16, 2019, shall remain in full force and effect to the extent they are not in conflict with this Amendment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written. CITY OF BURLINGAME A municipal corporation By Lisa K. Goldman City Manager Approved as to form: City Attorney — Kathleen Kane ATTEST: City Clerk - Meaghan Hassel -Shearer Page 2 of 2 CONSULTANT Freyer & Laureta, Inc. Richard J. Laureta, P.E. President FREYE LAU RE , INC• CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS January 7, 2020 Mr. Martin Quan, P.E. City of Burlingame Public Works Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: ENGINEERING SERVICES PROPOSAL, CITY OF BURLINGAME NEIGHBORHOOD STORM DRAIN PROJECTS #12 ADD SERVICE #1 Dear Mr. Quan: Following up on the meeting held December 4, 2019, the City has requested F&L to expand our scope of services to include a study and proposed storm drain improvements for Dufferin Avenue between EI Camino Real and California Avenue. The recent storm event on November 26, 2019 had caused flooding at 1108, 1104, and 1100 Dufferin Avenue. The culvert and 48-inch diameter pipeline adjacent to the rear of these specific homes overtopped and caused flooding potentially due to storm flows exceeding downstream conveyance capacity. Dufferin does not have a storm drain system within the street. F&L will study the existing hydrology in the immediate project area, confirm the carrying capacity of the exiting culvert and design a new storm drain system along Dufferin Ave. The proposed scope of work is detailed below. Scope of Services: Dufferin Avenue Project Site 21— Dufferin Avenue (No Project Site ID) • Perform topographic Survey of the projectarea to include the culvert along the northside of Dufferin Avenue. • Study the existing hydrology and recommend storm drain improvements either to the culvert or Dufferin or both. • Present proposed improvements to the City for approval prior to design. • Design a new storm drain system carry a Q10 storm event and help alleviate flooding potential. • Review the sidewalk/driveways grades with in the public right of way at 1108, 1104 and 1100 Dufferin Avenue to determine if raising the back of sidewalk can better contain overland flow. • Assess and potentially redesign the existing v-ditch at Dufferin Avenue and Westmore Road. • Redesign the existing curb ramp at 1100 Dufferin Avenue and raise the back of sidewalk to better contain overland flow. • And new catch basins at California Drive to intercept the existing 8-in SD lines from Killarney Ln, Clovelly Ln, and Hamilton Ln to resolve ponding at those locations. Proiect Site 22 — 220 Park Road • Add a small inlet (12"x12" or 16"x16") at the driveway of 220 Park Road (the former post office) and connect to the existing storm drain main. Utility Potholing An allowance for utility potholing is included with our proposed services. The potholing effort is not intended to pothole all utilities at each site but rather critical utilities where the topographic survey may not accurately capture horizontal or vertical alignment such as water, telecommunication, electrical, and other non -gravity utilities that would not have a manhole or other structure that would allow the survey to capture invert location. The pro- posed pothole locations will be determined during design and F&L will provide a proposed pothole plan to the City for review and approval. ••. -• I-• All work will be on a time and materials (T&M) basis, not exceed the following limits without City authorization (please review the Fee Breakdown matrix for breakdown of costs): Design Services $25,550 Utility Pothole (Allowance) $5,000 Reimbursable Expenses $600 Thank you again for the opportunity of submitting this proposal to you. We look forward to working with you on another successful project. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us. Sincerely, FREYER & LAURETA, INC. Richard J. Laureta, P.E. President l Lorraine Htoo, P.E. Senior Project Manager FEE PROPOSAL: NEIGHBORHOOD STORM DRAIN PROJECT #12, BURLINGAME Add Service #1 Principal Project Project Survey Total Cost Manager Engineer Crew per Task LTask (hours) (hours) (hours) (days) opographic Survey 3 4 $ 11,28 Study 2 4 16 $ 3,48 Design 2 12 40 $ 8,36 Project Site 21 Fee: 4 16 59 4 $ 23,12 mIN.., «... 1 0.5 $ 1,49 Topographic Survey Design 1 2 2 $ 93 Project Site 22 Fee: 1 2 3 0.5 DESIGN SERVICES FEE: 5 18 62 4.6 $ 25,560 Hourly/Daily Rate $ 250 $ 205 $ 135 $ 2,720 1/7/2020 1 of 1 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH FREYER & LAURETA, INC. FOR NEIGHBORHOOD STORM DRAIN PROJECT #12 CITY PROJECT NO.85600 THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this �,i day of September, 2019, by and between the City of Burlingame, State of California, herein called the "City", and FREYER & LAURETA, INC. engaged in providing engineering design services herein called the "Consultant". RECITALS A. The City is considering conducting activities for the consultant engineering services for NEIGHBORHOOD STORM DRAIN PROJECT #12. B. The City desires to engage a professional engineering consultant to provide design services for twenty (20) locations throughout the City. Consultant is selected because of their experience and qualifications to perform the desired work, described in Exhibit A. C. The Consultant represents and affirms that it is qualified and willing to perform the desired work pursuant to this Agreement. AGREEMENTS NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Scope of Services. The Consultant shall provide professional engineering design services for storm drainage improvements as detailed in "Scope of Work" of the attached Exhibit A of this agreement. 2. Time of Performance. The services of the Consultant are to commence upon the execution of this Agreement with completion of all work by December 31, 2019. 3. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, codes, ordinances, and regulations of governing federal, state and local laws. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all Page 1 of 8 times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals which are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall maintain a City of Burlingame business license. 4. Sole Responsibility. Consultant shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services under this Agreement. 5. Information/Report Handling. All documents furnished to Consultant by the City and all reports and supportive data prepared by the Consultant under this Agreement are the City's property and shall be delivered to the City upon the completion of Consultant's services or at the City's written request. All reports, information, data, and exhibits prepared or assembled by Consultant in connection with the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement are confidential until released by the City to the public, and the Consultant shall not make any of these documents or information available to any individual or organization not employed by the Consultant or the City without the written consent of the City before such release. The City acknowledges that the reports to be prepared by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are for the purpose of evaluating a defined project, and City's use of the information contained in the reports prepared by the Consultant in connection with other projects shall be solely at City's risk, unless Consultant expressly consents to such use in writing. City further agrees that it will not appropriate any methodology or technique of Consultant which is and has been confirmed in writing by Consultant to be a trade secret of Consultant. 6. Compensation. Compensation for Consultant's professional services shall not exceed $98,560.00 and payment shall be based upon City approval of each task. Billing shall include current period and cumulative expenditures to date and shall be accompanied by a detailed explanation of the work performed by whom at what rate and on what date. Also, plans, specifications, documents or other pertinent materials shall be submitted for City review, even if only in partial or draft form. 7. Availability of Records. Consultant shall maintain the records supporting this billing for not less than three (3) years following completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall make these records available to authorized personnel of the City at the Consultant's offices during business hours upon written request of the City. Page 2 of 8 8. Project Manager. The Project Manager for the Consultant for the work under this Agreement shall be Richard J. Laureta, President. 9. Assignability and Subcontracting. The services to be performed under this Agreement are unique and personal to the Consultant. No portion of these services shall be assigned or subcontracted without the written consent of the City. 10. Notices. Any notice required to be given shall be deemed to be duly and properly given if mailed postage prepaid, and addressed to: To City: Martin Quan City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 To Consultant: Freyer & Laureta, Inc. 144 North San Mateo Drive San Mateo, CA 94401 or personally delivered to Consultant to such address or such other address as Consultant designates in writing to City. 11. Independent Contractor. It is understood that the Consultant, in the performance of the work and services agreed to be performed, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the City. As an independent contractor he/she shall not obtain any rights to retirement benefits or other benefits which accrue to City employee(s). With prior written consent, the Consultant may perform some obligations under this Agreement by subcontracting, but may not delegate ultimate responsibility for performance or assign or transfer interests under this Agreement. Consultant agrees to testify in any litigation brought regarding the subject of the work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall be compensated for its costs and expenses in preparing for, traveling to, and testifying in such matters at its then current hourly rates of compensation, unless such litigation is brought by Consultant or is based on allegations of Consultant's negligent performance or wrongdoing. Page 3 of 8 12. Conflict of Interest. Consultant understands that its professional responsibilities is solely to the City. The Consultant has and shall not obtain any holding or interest within the City of Burlingame. Consultant has no business holdings or agreements with any individual member of the Staff or management of the City or its representatives nor shall it enter into any such holdings or agreements. In addition, Consultant warrants that it does not presently and shall not acquire any direct or indirect interest adverse to those of the City in the subject of this Agreement, and it shall immediately disassociate itself from such an interest should it discover it has done so and shall, at the City's sole discretion, divest itself of such interest. Consultant shall not knowingly and shall take reasonable steps to ensure that it does not employ a person having such an interest in this performance of this Agreement. If after employment of a person, Consultant discovers it has employed a person with a direct or indirect interest that would conflict with its performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall promptly notify City of this employment relationship, and shall, at the City's sole discretion, sever any such employment relationship. 13. Equal Employment Opportunity. Consultant warrants that it is an equal opportunity employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. Neither Consultant nor its subcontractors do and neither shall discriminate against persons employed or seeking employment with them on the basis of age, sex, color, race, marital status, sexual orientation, ancestry, physical or mental disability, national origin, religion, or medical condition, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the California Fair Employment & Housing Act. 14. Insurance. A. Minimum Scope of Insurance: i. Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the contract, General Liability insurance policies insuring him/her and his/her firm to an amount not less than: One million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence and two million dollars ($2,000,000) aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage in a form at least as broad as ISO Occurrence Form CG 0001. ii. Consultant agrees to have and maintain for the duration of the contract, an Automobile Liability insurance policy ensuring him/her Page 4 of 8 and his/her staff to an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. iii. Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the contract, professional liability insurance in amounts not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) each claim/aggregate sufficient to insure Consultant for professional errors or omissions in the performance of the particular scope of work under this agreement. iv. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing .payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses. B. General and Automobile Liability Policies: The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of Consultant, premises owned or used by the Consultant. The endorsement providing this additional insured coverage shall be equal to or broader than ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 and must cover joint negligence, completed operations, and the acts of subcontractors. This requirement does not apply to the professional liability insurance required for professional errors and omissions. ii. The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be endorsed to be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self -insurances maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. iii. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. Page 5 of 8 iv. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. C. In addition to these policies, Consultant shall have and maintain Workers' Compensation insurance as required by California law. Further, Consultant shall ensure that all subcontractors employed by Consultant provide the required Workers' Compensation insurance for their respective employees. D. All Coverages: Each insurance policy required in this item shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by mail, has been given to the City (10 days for non-payment of premium). Current certification of such insurance shall be kept on file at all times during the term of this agreement with the City Clerk. E. Acceptability of Insurers: Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Best's rating of no less than A-:VII and authorized to do business in the State of California. F. Verification of Coverage: Upon execution of this Agreement, Contractor shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance and with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates and endorsements are to be on forms approved by the City. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before any work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 15. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall save, keep and hold harmless indemnify and defend the City, its officers, employees, authorized agents and volunteers from all damages, liabilities, penalties, costs, or expenses in law or equity, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, that may at any time arise, result from, relate to, or be set up because of damages to property or personal injury received by reason of, or in the course of performing work which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant, or any of the Consultant's officers, employees, or agents or any subconsultant. This provision Page 6 of 8 shall not apply if the damage or injury is caused by the sole negligence, active negligence, or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, agents, employees, or volunteers. 16. . Waiver. No failure on the part of either party to exercise any right or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may have hereunder, nor does waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement. 17. Goveming Law. This Agreement, regardless of where executed, shall be governed by and construed under 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. 18. Termination of Agreement. The City and the Consultant shall have the right to terminate this agreement with or without cause by giving not less than fifteen (15) days written notice of termination. In the event of termination, the Consultant shall deliver to the City all plans, files, documents, reports, performed to date by the Consultant. In the event of such termination, City shall pay Consultant an amount that bears the same ratio to the maximum contract price as the work delivered to the City bears to completed services contemplated under this Agreement, unless such termination is made for cause, in which event, compensation, if any, shall be adjusted in light of the particular facts and circumstances involved in such termination. 19. 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. 20. Disputes. In any dispute over any aspect of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, as well as costs not to exceed $7,500 in total. 21. 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. Page 7 of 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Consultant have executed this Agreement as of the date indicated on page one (1). City of Burlingame Approved as to form: Ci4 A mey — Kathleen Kane 0 n Hassel -Shearer "Consultant" !Q10 reyer & Laureta, Inc. Richard J. Laureta, P.E. President Page 8 of 8 FREYE LAU R E ,INC. CMS ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS August 29, 2019 Mr. Martin Quan, P.E. City of BurCrgame Public Works Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: ENGINEERING SERVICES PROPOSAL, CITY OF BURLINGAME NEIGHBORHOOD STORM DRAIN PROJECTS #12, CITY PROJECT NO.85600 Dear Mr. Quan. Thank you for the opportunity to present this proposal to you for the design of miscellaneous storm drain improvements throughout the City. We understand that the purpose of the City's Neighborhood Storm Drain program is to replacelrehabirdate storm drainage systems to control street flooding that can impede traffic and emergency access and to improve local drainage. This is the twelfth project of the program; which includes a total of 20 project sites as identified at our meeting held on August 14, 2019 at Public Works. In keeping with our recent previous proposals for the City -Wide Neighborhood Storm Drain Pros, we propose to provide topographic survey at each project site and have included a budget forpotholing. Topographic survey will extend beyond the project sites, as defined in the proposal. We propose the following Scope of Services for each site. A Description of Services follows the Scope of Services section. Scope of Services: Burlingame Creek Watershed Proiect Site 9 — Intersection of Califomia and Bayswater (Proiect Site ID BN23) • Perform topographic Survey of the projectarea. • Review CCTV to be provided by the City to assess the condition of the CMP. If CCTV provided by City indicates pipe is suitable for lining. If pipe is determined to be too damaged, pipe will be removed and replaced. • Prepare plans to repair and replace the existing CMP and replace four (4) existing drainage inlets at the intersection. Work will include replacement of 40 linear feet (LF) of curb and gutter (C&G) adjacent to the new inlets at the intersection. Proiect Site 2 — Burlingame and Victoda/Rollins jProiect Site ID BN49) • Perform topographic Survey of the pmjectarea. • Prepare plans for the replacement of five (5) existing catch basins at the intersection Mr. Martin Quan August 29, 2019 Page 2 and replacement 50 LF of curb and gutter. Replacement of the existing curb ramp at Victoria and Burlingame or the driveway at 240 Victoria is not anticipated at this time but final determination will be made after completion of topographic survey. Project Site 3 — Howard and Highland (Project 1D BN50) Perform topographic survey of the projectarea. Prepare plans for the replacement of three (3) existing catch basins at the intersection and replacement 30 LF of curb and gutter. Replacement of the existing curb ramps located to the south and east and the driveway at Eagle Car Wash is not anticipated at this time. Final determination of driveway and curb ramp replacements will be made after completion of topographic survey. Project Site 4 — Howard and Hatch (Project ID BN51) • Perform topographic survey of the projectarea. • The project will upgrade the existing inlet with anew junction structure. Proiect Site 5 — Peninsula at Railroad Tracks (Proiect ID BN52) • Perform topographic survey of the projectarea. • Prepare plans to combine two side by side junction structures to improve the hydraulics of the storm drain system. It is anticipated that there will be replacement of 15 LF of C&G. Proiect Site 6 — Oak Grove west of San Mateo Boulevard (Proiect ID BN54) • Perform topographic survey of the existing grate. • Prepare plans to replace grate of existing inlet structure. Project Site 7 — Califomia Drive South of Oak Grove (Proiect ID BN55) • Perform topographic survey of the existing grate. • Prepare plans to replace grate of existing inlet structure. Proiect Site 8 Ansel Road- (Proiect ID BN58) • Perform topographic survey of the projectarea. • Review CCTV to be provided by the City to assess the condition approximately 200 LF of existing 8" diameter CMP. • Design for the replacement of up to 200 LF of existing CMP with new minimum 10-inch RCP and prepare plans for three (3) inlet replacements. Proiect Site 9 — Oak Grove and Paloma (Proiect ID BN 59) • Perform topographic survey of the projectarea. Mr. Martin Quan August 29, 2019 Page 3 • Review CCTV to be provided by the City to assess the condition of the CMP which appears to transition to RCP after approximately 110 LF. • If pipe is determined to be too damaged, pipe will be designed to be removed and replaced with new RCP. • For scope assumptions, design for the replacement of up to 110 LF of 54-inch pipe and replaoe one inlet. Easton Creek Watershed Proiect Site 10 —Easton Drive Drainage at HillsideQesbto L ject 1D EN 13) • Perform topographic survey of the projectarea. • Review CCTV to be provided by the City to assess the condition of the CMP. • Perform capacity study to determine if the existing 124nch storm drain is sufficient to carry anticipated flows. Provide recommendation to the City. • Prepare design for storm drain improvements. Mills Creek Watershed Proiect Site 11— Hillside Court at Newton (Proiect ID MN 7) • Perform topographic survey of the projectarea. • Review CCTV to be provided by the City to assess the condition of the CMP. If pipe is determined to be too damaged, pipe will be designed to be removed and replaced with new RCP. • Upgrade two (2) existing drainage inlets. • For scope assumptions, design for the replacement of 60 LF of valley gutter. Proiect Site 12 —110 Loma Vista Drive Proiect ID MN 22) • Perform topographic survey of the projectarea. • Review CCTV to be provided by the City to assess of the existing 12-inch RCP and determine if it is suitable for relining. • Provide recommendation to the City. • Prepare design for storm drain improvements. Proiect Site 13 — 1505 Alturas (Proiect ID MN 23) • Perform topographic survey of the projectarea. • Prepare design for the replacement of five (5) existing catch basins replacement 110 LF of concrete gutter at 1505 Alturas. Final determination gutter replacement will be made after completion of topographic survey. Mr. Martin Quan August 29, 2019 Page 4 Proiect Site 14 — Albemarle and Ray (Protect ID MN 33) • Perform topographic survey of the projectarea. • Prepare design for the replacement of four (4) existing catch basins replacement 40 LF of concrete gutter. Final determination of C&G replacement will be made after completion of topographic survey. It is assumed all curb rams will may be left intact. Proiect Site 15 — 1521 Albemarle (Proiect Site ID MN 34) • Perform topographic survey of the projectarea. • Review CCTV to be provided by the City to assess of the existing 150 LF 1 &inch RCP and determine if it is still suitable. • Prepare design for the replacement of one (1) existing catch basin replacement 10 LF of rolled curb and gutter. Final determination of C&G replacement will be made after completion of topographic survey. For scope purposes, design of new pipeline replacement has been included. Project Site 16 — Balboa and Ray (Proiect ID MN35) • Perform topographic survey of the projectarea. • Review CCTV to be provided by the City to assess of the existing 110 LF of 12-inch to 18- inch RCP and determine if it is sufficient to carry anticipated flows. • Prepare design for the replacement of three (3) existing catch basins replacement 30 LF of concrete gutter. For scope purposes, design of new pipeline replacement has been included. • Final determination of C&G replacement will be made after completion of topographic survey. Project Site 17 — 1524 Balboa_ (Proiect ID MN36) • Perform topographic survey of the projectarea. • Prepare plans for the replacement of two (2) existing grates. Proiect Site 18 —1512 & 1514 Alturas INo Proiect ID) Perform topographic survey of the projectarea. Prepare a drainage study to review existing street grades fronting 1512 and 1514 Alturas. It appears that if the existing median was extended and the road can undergo regrade with a new inlet at the median, overtopping can be drastically minimized. Prepare design for two new inlets and approximately 200 LF of new storm drain pipe to reduce stormwater overtopping existing rolled curbs. Mr. Martin Quan August 29, 2019 Page 5 El Portal Watershed Proiect Site 19 - Mills Canyon Court (No Pro'ec� t /Dl • Perform topographic survey of the projectarea. • Review CCTV to be provided by the City to assess of the existing 100 LF of 124nch or 15- inch RCP and determine what kind of repairs are needed. • For scope assumptions, design includes replacement of one (1) inlet in place. Prolect Site 20 — 2739 Martinez Drive No Project ID) • Perform topographic survey of the projectana. • Provide design for two (2) new inlets and new 100 LF 124nch diameter storm drain to eliminate existing valley gutter. Plans will include regrading of street. Description of Services Topographic Surveys: Topographic surveys will be based on assumed benchmarks local to each project area. Boundary surveys will not be performed. Limits of survey will extend 100 feet past the improvement zone for drainage inlet replacement projects. For projects that require curb and gutter replacement, capacity evaluation, or other larger area assessments, the limits of survey will extend 250 feet past the improvement zone. In project sites where new roadway surface improvements and replacement curb/gutter are being designed, we will perform topographic surveys in order to obtain elevations needed for design. Desion Services Design Services include: • Field visits and field meetings with City Staff as needed to design the project sites. • Attendance of a kick-off meeting, Project Scope Review meeting, and Bid Package Review meeting. • Preparation of Draft Bid Package. • Preparation of Final Bid Package, incorporating City review comments on the Draft Bid Package Mr. Martin Quan August 29, 2019 Page 6 ! tilit�r Potholing An allowance for utility potholing is included with our proposed services. The potholing effort is not intended to pothole all utilities at each site but rather critical utilities where the topographic survey may not accurately capture horizontal or vertical alignment such as water, telecommunication, electrical, and other non -gravity utilities that would not have a manhole or other structure that would allow the survey to capture invert location. The pro- posed pothole locations will be determined during design and F&L will provide a proposed pothole plan to the City for review and approval. All work will be on a time and materials (T&M) basis, not exceed the following limits without City authorization (please review the Fee Breakdown matrix for breakdown of costs): Design Services $85,960 Utility Pothole (Allowance) $12,000 Reimbursable Expenses 600 Total Budget $98,560 Thank you again for the opportunity of submitting this proposal to you. We look forward to working with you on another successful project If you have any questions, please feel free to call us. Sincerely, FREYER & LAURETA, INC. tw Richard J. Laureta, P.E. President FEE PROPOSAL: NEIGHBORHOOD STORM DRAIN PROJECT #12, BURUNGAME PrY+dpN Omit "-aS�rwy Tobi Coat ilane0v 6 Cnw lvwT&sk 1 1 2 4 t IAM Prated 81b t Fer. 1 2 5 0.5 f 2 rota T=CalMonta DrIN 3mM of OMCtlrew" ` l lD pl _ . _ _ _. WV"i 0.5 $ 1.44 1 2 4 S 1 Project Sib 7 Far. 1 2 5 0.5 f 2. 2 ♦ 10 t 2, Projed Sib t Fee: 2 4 11 1 3 2 4 10 t 2, Project t1b t Fa: 2 4 11 1 f t, Stte l0=Eaatat w— at Awmm D*W , . ib vt y H SUN" 1 1 f 2. 2 2 6 f 1. 2 2 6 t 1, Project She 10 Fee: 4 4 13 1 f $itt H—11ipsWe Coot at Newton (R'ojaetD ittt l}" � ��'�w opogaptYc Survey 1 1 ts 2. 2 16 3.07 Project Stie 11 Fm 2 2 17 1 f R 8/29%2019 FREYER & LAURETA, INC 1 of 2 FEE PROPOSAL NEIGHBORHOOD STORM DRAIN PROJECTg12, BURUNGAME Pdnc" Project P-J*d Survey Tow Cod Mansper Ergi— Cr" per Tint Tit" i+s) (ems) {trouts) {days) TopowsplicSwvoy1 1 # zew 1 2 d # 1,4 Projret JIM 12 Frw 1 2 7 1 S S--y 1 1 S 2. o E d Project SNe ill Fw. 1 2 9 1 # 4 6 r- d„r.y 1 1 S 2. i 2 d $ 1,47 Project Sttr 14 Few 1 2 7 1 $ suryry 2 2 2 d S 1, Project Sao 16 Feu, 2 2 7 1 # 4,67 2 SAY 1 2 6 # 1, Project Sion 19 For. 1 2 7 1 # a St-w 1 as # 1, 1 2 2 # Projed Sft 17 Few 1 2 3 0.5 # IAV mw� ism apopraptyc Suvey 1 1 S 2. 2 4 16 S 3, Prood Stir 19 Fur. 2 4 tl 1 # 6.331 Topowsoft S-m 2 1 S zow Deso 2 4 d S 2 Project Site 19 Feu. 2 4 10 1 # 8Re 20 2739 M kfet Drive (No opo9raphiC S-M 2 1 # 2. Deso 2 4 10 S zow Project SKe 20 Fee: 2 4 12 1 S 6, DESIGN SERVICES FEE: 31 62 17E 16 S 95,960 ready Rate $ 2w S 205 S 135 S 2.72G j 9/29/2019 FREYER & LAURETA, INC. 2 of 2 BURL AGENDA NO: 8g STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: January 21, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 21, 2020 From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director — (650) 558-7222 Subject: Consideration and Adoption of a Resolution Approving an Interfund Loan Policy for the City of Burlingame RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review the attached proposed policy, and consider adopting a resolution approving an Interfund Loan Policy for the City of Burlingame. BACKGROUND Prior to the City Council recess in July 2019, the Council had a robust discussion of Affordable Housing Fund programs. Although no monies have been collected thus far, revenues from commercial linkage fees and residential impact fees will be directed into a dedicated Affordable Housing Fund to be used for the creation and support of affordable workforce housing in Burlingame. As part of the discussion of what types of programs could most effectively be supported, the ability to leverage these funds was of particular interest to the Council. Specifically, the Council questioned the possibility of borrowing from other City funds to allow for the initiation of affordable housing programs and activities prior to actual receipt of the fees. DISCUSSION In order to achieve important public policy goals, the City has established various special revenue, capital project, debt service, and enterprise funds to account for revenues whose use should be restricted to certain activities. Accordingly, each fund exists as a separate financing entity from other funds, with its own revenue sources, expenditures, and fund equity. Any transfers between funds for operating purposes are clearly set forth in the Annual Budget and can only be made in accordance with the adopted budget. These operating transfers, under which financial resources are transferred from one fund to another, are distinctly different from interfund borrowings, which are usually made for temporary cash flow reasons. The purpose of interfund borrowing is to finance high -priority needs at reduced costs of interest, debt issuance, and/or administration. Many cities address interfund borrowing within their debt management policies. The Debt Management Policy for the City of Burlingame, which the City Council adopted in March 2019, complies with the requirements set forth in SB 1029 and by the State Debt and Investment Advisory 1 Interfund Loan Policy January 21, 2020 Commission, and aligns with GFOA recommendations. However, there is no discussion of interfund borrowing within the policy. In researching the possibility of interfund borrowing, staff noted that, to avoid violating debt limits as established through the California Constitutional Debt Limit (§ 18 of article XVI of the California Constitution), interfund borrowings cannot be made for a term beyond 12 months. Section 18 of article XVI of the California Constitution provides that no county, city, town, township, board of education, or school district may incur any indebtedness or liability in any manner or for any purpose exceeding the income and revenue without the assent of the voters. This constitutional debt limit was created to mandate fiscal responsibility in public borrowing at a time when the State of California was rapidly developing and local governments were under pressure to expand railroads and fund other infrastructure projects. Although the limitation can be described as a pay-as-you- go mandate, there are exceptions to this debt limit. Financing can be obtained through a lease agreement through a financing authority, for example. However, the Burlingame Finance Authority, established in 1995, can only be used to finance the construction of public capital improvements. Another exception is Council -authorized interfund lending. The practice of interfund loans has long been a recognized and necessary aspect of municipal finance. Interfund loans are typically short- term in nature, and constitute the allocation of resources between individual funds for working cash purposes. The governing principle is that such borrowings must not interfere with the purpose for which the lending fund was established. Communities are encouraged to adopt Interfund Loan Policies to ensure arrangements do not offend legal principles and generally accepted accounting practices. General Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 34 states that interfund lending is generally used where repayment of the source fund is expected within a "reasonable" time. The attached Interfund Loan Policy addresses anticipated short-term cash flow needs as well as short-term financing needs that arise outside the annual budget, and sets a maximum repayment period of 24 months. This term was determined to be both reasonable and mindful of delays that can be incurred in the receipt of revenues legally due to the debtor fund. The policy also allows for an adjustment of the terms of any interfund loan to be made only with the consent of the City Council. If the City Council wishes at some point to allow interfund borrowing for a term of greater than 24 months for specific purposes, the Interfund Loan Policy can be amended at that time. If the Council wishes to address only interfund borrowings in lieu of issuing short-term bonds or other outside debt instruments within the City's current Debt Management Policy, the policy can be updated to include a general clause regarding interfund borrowings: "The City may borrow internally from other funds with surplus cash in lieu of incurring third -party debt. Such interfund loans will be for terms of 24 months or less. Purposes warranting the use of this type of borrowing could include short-term cash flow imbalances due to grant terms, interim financing pending the issuance of bonds, or capital financing in lieu of bonds. Interfund loans will be evaluated on a case by case basis. Any borrowing between two City funds that exceeds 180 days requires a payment schedule approved by the City Council and shall include an interest rate based on market conditions at the time the loan was taken out." 2 Interfund Loan Policy January 21, 2020 FISCAL IMPACT Adoption of an Interfund Loan Policy, or amendment of the City's current Debt Management Policy, will not result in any direct impact on City resources. However, policies based upon the specific financing needs of the City's various funds supports sound financial management and enhances the transparency of the City's financial dealings Exhibits: • Resolution Adopting an Interfund Loan Policy for the City of Burlingame • Proposed Interfund Loan Policy 3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPTING AN INTERFUND LOAN POLICY WHEREAS, the practice of interfund loans has long been a recognized and necessary aspect of municipal finance, allowing for the short-term borrowing between funds for working cash purposes; and WHEREAS, interfund loans provide a means of low-cost borrowing that can be used to respond to opportunities that arise in the advancement of quality projects, programs, and services to the citizens of Burlingame; and WHEREAS, communities are encouraged to adopt Interfund Loan Policies to ensure arrangements do not transgress legal principles and generally accepted accounting practices; and WHEREAS, staff has prepared the attached Interfund Loan Policy for the City Council's consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Adoption of Policy. The Council approves and adopts the Interfund Loan Policy as shown on the attached Exhibit A. The Interfund Loan Policy shall govern the issuance and administration of all interfund borrowings by the City. Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Emily Beach, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council held on the 21 sc day of January, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk City of Burlingame, California Financial Policy Document Interfund Loan Policy Adoption Date: Last Revision Date: Owner Department: Finance Introduction An Interfund Loan Policy sets forth certain fund management objectives, establishes overall parameters, and provides general direction in the appropriate establishment and administration of the City's interfund borrowings. The purpose is to maintain the City's ability to utilize existing resources to pursue opportunities that require financing in the short-term, where resources are not yet available in the appropriate funds. Accessing the capital markets for such short-term borrowings is not cost-effective. This policy supports the Council's goal of sustaining long-term financial strength in all funds. The guidelines established by this policy will govern the issuance and management of all interfund borrowings and repayment. The Finance Department recognizes that funds are segregated according to their intended purpose and may be used only in compliance with finance -related legal and contractual provisions. Interfund loans may be used to forward specific capital financing needs or to initiate specific programs, and not for general operating functions. In cases that require exceptions to this Interfund Borrowing Policy, approval from the City Council will be necessary for implementation. Objectives The purpose of this Interfund Loan Policy is to establish a framework in which the City can work to effectively use the cash balances of other funds to provide a short-term financing option to funds in anticipation of revenues adequate to cover the loan. This low-cost borrowing will allow the City maximum flexibility in responding to opportunities that arise in the advancement of quality projects, programs, and services to the citizens of Burlingame, while maintaining financial integrity. Such short-term financing is an efficient use of City resources in that it avoids the cost of issuance or establishment of debt with external entities. The City may not utilize this form of debt obligations between funds to finance long-term capital projects. However, interfund borrowing may be used for any interim financing purposes that meet the conditions and purposes outlined in this policy. CONDITIONS AND PURPOSES OF INTERFUND LOANS Acceptable Conditions for the Use of Interfund Loans — In the event of temporary shortfalls in cash flow in any fund established by the City, due to timing of receipt of revenues and the lack of cash on hand to cover the temporary deficit, the City may consider the use of an interfund loan. In compliance with applicable state law, any such note shall be payable either (i) not later than the last day of the fiscal year in which it is issued, or (ii) during the fiscal year succeeding Page 1 of 3 City of Burlingame, California Financial Policy Document Interfund Loan Policy the fiscal year in which issued, but in no event later than 24 months after the date of issue, and only if such note is payable only from revenue received or accrued during the fiscal year in which it was issued. Interfund loans are not permitted without an identified repayment source. The borrowing fund must anticipate sufficient revenues to be in a position over the period of the loan to make specified principal and interest payments. The lending fund may loan only that portion of the fund's cash that is clearly inactive or in excess of current needs. Interfund loans may not be used to solve ongoing structural budget problems, unless a rigorous plan is in place to resolve the budget issue. Acceptable Uses of Interfund Loans — From time to time, interfund borrowings may be appropriate. Such borrowings are subject to the following criteria in ensuring that the fiduciary purposes of the affected funds are met: • The Finance Director is authorized to approve temporary interfund borrowings for cash flow purposes whenever the cash shortfall is expected to be resolved within 90 days. The most common use of interfund borrowing under this circumstance is for grant programs, where costs are incurred before drawdowns on the grant funds are initiated and received (reimbursements). However, receipt of funds is typically received shortly after the request for funds has been made. Any other interfund borrowings for cash flow or other purposes require case -by -case approval by the City Council. Any transfers between funds where reimbursement is not expected within 24 months shall not be recorded as interfund borrowings; they shall be recorded as interfund operating transfers that affect equity by moving financial resources from one fund to another. All interfund loan proposals require an analysis by the Finance Department demonstrating that: • The borrowing fund has the capacity to repay the debt; • The lending fund has the capacity to lend the funds, beyond its own operating and capital needs; and • The loan does not violate any debt covenants or other provisions of the borrowing and lending funds. Any adjustment of the terms of an interfund loan that will result in the extension of repayment, an increase in the repayment amount, a write-off, or cancellation must be approved by the City Council. Page 2 of 3 City of Burlingame, California Financial Policy Document Interfund Loan Policy Interfund Documentation Requirements Each interfund loan will be documented by formal agreements that specify the following terms and conditions: • The purpose of the loan • The identification of the borrowing and lending fund or funds • The dollar amount of the loan and the interest rate* • The terms for repayment, including the dates for installment payments and maturity date on which all principal and unpaid interest will be due • The source of repayment and the ability to repay the loan within the terms without causing a negative impact to the fund's financial position * All interfund loans are interest bearing, and the amount of interest to be paid on the loan must be at least equal to the investment earnings the fund making the loan would have received had the loan not occurred. There is no prepayment penalty on an interfund loan. Repayment of the interfund loan must be the top priority of the borrowing fund once cash is available. The Finance Department will review all inter -fund borrowing at least annually to determine compliance with the agreed -upon terms. Administration — Ultimate responsibility for all matters relating to the administration and proper reporting of interfund borrowings rests with the City's Finance Director. The Finance Director and other appropriate City personnel may also consult with legal counsel, auditors, and advisors as needed in establishing such loans, to ensure compliance with all applicable covenants and to safeguard the integrity of the purpose of all funds established by the City. A copy of all debt -related records shall be retained at the City's offices. At minimum, these records shall include all legal documents/transcripts, resolutions, leases (if applicable), and notes. The Finance Director is responsible for efficient cash management that ensures the timely and accurate payment of all interfund borrowings as delineated in the financial documents governing the loan. Periodic Review of Policy This Interfund Loan Policy will be reviewed from time to time as conditions warrant, or at any time it is determined that changes are necessary, to safeguard its effectiveness and relevance to the City's needs. All changes to this policy will be approved by resolution of the City Council. Page 3 of 3 BURL— �r�GnNtE AGENDA NO: 8h STAFF REPORT J MEETING DATE: January 21, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 21, 2020 From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks & Recreation Director — (650) 558-7307 Rich Holtz, Parks Supervisor — (650) 558-7335 Nicole Houghton, Recreation Coordinator- (650) 558-7308 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Bay Trail Fitness Equipment Project at the Cost of $205,576.89, City Project No. 85440 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the Bay Trail Fitness Equipment Project at the cost of $205,576.89, City Project No. 85440. BACKGROUND On September 3, 2019, the City Council awarded the purchase of materials and the installation of the concrete pads for the Bay Trail Fitness Equipment Project. The equipment was purchased from Greenfields, Inc. in the amount of $75,308.70 through Porter Corp., and the concrete pads were installed by Bay Area Paving Co. in the amount of $73,500, City Project No. 85440. The Bay Trail Fitness Equipment Project included providing all labor and materials required for the concrete paving, curbs, off -haul, grading, and drainage. Parks Division staff completed the fitness equipment, irrigation, and site furnishing installation, landscaping, and other miscellaneous items. DISCUSSION The project construction has been satisfactorily completed in compliance with the plans and specifications. The final construction cost was $205,576.89. The DoubleTree by Hilton San Francisco Airport, the Crowne Plaza Hotel & Resorts, Caccia Plumbing, Burlingame Lions Club, and Burlingame Parks and Recreation Foundation provided funding to allow for the upgrade of the equipment surfacing. The total donation was $20,000. FISCAL IMPACT The following are the final project construction expenditures: 1 Resolution Accepting the Bay Trail Fitness Equipment Project January 21, 2020 Fitness Equipment $75,309.00 Concrete Pads (base) $69,900.00 Concrete Pads (add-alt) $3,500.00 PLS Surveying $3,720.00 Baytree Design, Inc. $4,511.00 BCDC $600.00 San Mateo County Clerk $50.00 Signage $912.58 Channel Drain $2,430.73 Retaining Wall Stone $687.48 Rubber Tile Surfacing $28,920.88 Drinking Fountains $9,075.00 Irrigation $ 3,462.68 Landscape Materials $ 2,497.54 Total $205,576.89 There are sufficient funds in the Parks and Trees Capital Improvement budget to cover the final project costs. Exhibit: • Resolution RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ACCEPTING THE BAY TRAIL FITNESS EQUIPMENT PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO. 85440 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 Bay Area Paving, Inc. under the terms of its contract with the City dated September 4, 2019, 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. 85440. 3. Said work is accepted. Mayor Emily Beach 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 21st day of January, 2020, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk B RLINAME AGENDA NO: 8i STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: January 21, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 21, 2020 From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager — (650) 558-7243 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Directing Staff to Notify the California Community Housing Agency that the City Will Not Become an Additional Member of the Agency RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution directing staff to notify the California Community Housing Agency (CaICHA) that the City will not become an additional member of the agency. BACKGROUND At the December 2 City Council meeting, which was adjourned to December 4 for further discussion, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the City to become a noncharter additional member of CaICHA. CaICHA was formed pursuant to a joint exercise of powers agreement (JPA) between two original members, Kings County and the Housing Authority of Kings County. Under the auspices of this agency, multi -family developments are acquired through public bond financing. DISCUSSION As described in the attached December 2 staff report, CaICHA had an opportunity to purchase a multifamily rental apartment complex in Burlingame for conversion to below market rate rental housing. Unfortunately, CaICHA was not successful in purchasing this apartment complex. On December 4, the City Council agreed to join CaICHA for the express purpose of assisting in the purchase of this particular apartment complex. During the discussion on December 2 and December 4, Councilmembers noted that if the property is not acquired, they would direct staff to withdraw the City from the JPA. FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibits: • Resolution • December 2, 2019 staff report without attachments 1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DIRECTING STAFF TO NOTIFY CALCHA THAT IT DOES NOT WISH TO BECOME AN ADDITIONAL MEMBER OF THE AGENCY WHEREAS, CaICHA was formed pursuant to a joint exercise of powers agreement (JPA) between two original members, Kings County and the Housing Authority of Kings County; and WHEREAS, under the auspices of this agency, multi -family developments are acquired through public bond financing; and WHEREAS, CaICHA had an opportunity to purchase a multifamily rental apartment complex in Burlingame for conversion to below market rate rental housing; and WHEREAS, at the December 2, 2019 City Council meeting, which was adjourned to December 4 for further discussion, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the City to become a noncharter additional member of CaICHA for the express purpose of assisting in the purchase of this particular apartment complex; and WHEREAS, during the City Council's discussion, Councilmembers noted that if the property is not acquired, they would direct staff to withdraw the City from the JPA. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME authorizes City staff to notify CaICHA that it does not wish to become an additional member of the agency. Emily Beach, 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 211 day of January, 2020, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk C ITV j REPORTSTAFF To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: December 2, 2019 AGENDA ITEM NO: 10d MEETING DATE: December 2, 2019 From: Lisa Goldman, City Manager — (650) 558-7204 Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director — (650) 558-7253 Kathleen Kane, City Attorney — (650) 558-7204 Subject: Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the City of Burlingame to Become an Additional Member of the California Community Housing Agency (CaICHA) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council consider the opportunity to become a noncharter additional member of the California Community Housing Agency (CaICHA). BACKGROUND A new bond -financing program was recently created, with the stated purpose of supporting rental housing affordable for middle and moderate -income households earning less than 120 percent of the AMI. The California Community Housing Agency (CaICHA) was formed pursuant to a joint exercise of powers agreement (the Agreement) between two original members, Kings County and the Housing Authority of Kings County. Underthe auspices of this Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) agency, multi -family developments are acquired through public bond financing. The bonds are issued with a 30-year term, with amortization beginning in year 15. Rents are capped (with maximum annual increases) for existing tenants satisfying the target AMI. For existing tenants who earn in excess of the target AMI, rents may be raised as suggested by the market (and now capped under AB 1482). Once existing tenants who earn in excess of the target AMI leave their units, the units are rented to tenants satisfying the income requirement. Therefore, how quickly the multifamily project reaches the target AMI depends on its existing tenants and the speed of turnover, as well as there being sufficient demand for the units among prospective tenants earning the target income. The JPA is exempt from property taxes on the multifamily developments it holds. In accordance with the Agreement, additional cities, counties, and other local government entities may, and have, joined CaICHA (additional members). CaICHA is authorized to issue revenue bonds and to conduct a range of activities including acquisition, ownership, maintenance, and operation of any property. Under the Agreement, bonds are issued as limited obligations of CaICHA and not of the additional member and are payable solely out of the revenues and receipts derived from the project being financed. The Agreement expressly provides that CaICHA is a public entity separate and apart from its California Community Housing Agency (CaICHA) December 2, 2019 members, and that the debts, liabilities, and obligations of CaICHA do not constitute debts, liabilities, or obligations of any members. Bonds issued for any particular project will be indebtedness solely of CalCHA, and payable only from revenues of the project. The JPA Agreement states that only members of the Kings County Board of Supervisors may be voting board members of the JPA. The Board members do not receive a separate stipend, although their expenses may be reimbursed. Additional members, such as Burlingame, have no voting rights or guarantee of direct influence on the JPA's investment, policy, or operational decisions. CaICHA states that it has adopted a policy to not issue bonds for a project unless the governing body of an additional member in which the proposed project is located approves the issuance of the bonds, although this and other policies may be modified from time to time. The JPA board has retained two private entities to run the operations of the JPA. While additional members can make their wishes known, there is no structural guarantee in the JPA Agreement itself that additional member jurisdictions can control future purchases by the JPA. To participate in this new program, the City would need to become a non -voting member of CaICHA. DISCUSSION CaICHA has proposed purchasing a multifamily rental apartment complex in Burlingame for conversion to below market rate rental housing. The purchase does not include any financial investment from the City. Existing tenants who qualify would be offered below market rents that would increase at no more than 4 percent per year. As vacancies occur, new tenants would need to income qualify for the below market rate program to be eligible to lease units. As proposed by the JPA, the City could enter into a Purchase Option Agreement that allows the City, at its sole discretion, to purchase or sell the property between year 15 and year 30 (the end of the life) of the bonds. The City may also assign this purchase option to another entity, provided that assignment is approved by the JPA Board. To maintain housing affordability past 30 years, the most likely outcome would be for the City to assign its purchase option to a nonprofit housing organization. If approved by the City Council, the City will be provided with a Purchase Option Agreement for future properties in Burlingame (including but not limited to the property currently being considered). The Purchase Option agreement provides that surplus cash generated by the project may be held for the City's use if it decides to exercise the option. In order to exercise the purchase option, the City would need to pay off any remaining debt on the asset as well as fees and costs of the JPA and its managers. The JPA Board has the authority to dispose of the property at the end of the bond term if the City does not exercise a Purchase Option. CaICHA represents that it cannot sell or transfer the property during the initial 15 years and can only sell or transfer the property between years 15 and 30 with the City's approval, and that the property will be encumbered with a regulatory agreement that will be enforced by CalCHA. According to the JPA, a professional property management company with experience managing market rate and below market rate properties will manage the property. CaICHA would be acquiring an existing market rate complex. While there is no guarantee CaICHA 2 California Community Housing Agency (Ca/CHA) December Z 2019 will be selected as the buyer, passing the resolution creates future opportunities for CaICHA to acquire similar properties in Burlingame to create and preserve affordability. In evaluating the program, several considerations should be weighed against the program benefits. To provide assistance with this evaluation, staff has consulted with Bill Lowell, who has experience with the County of San Mateo Department of Housing (DOH), as well as the Home for All initiative, and has provided assistance to the City on other housing program endeavors. Attached to this staff report is a memo from Mr. Lowell outlining areas of consideration. FISCAL IMPACT No financial expenditures, liabilities, or obligations would be created by joining CaICHA or executing the purchase option agreements. However, if a project is purchased through the tax- exempt funding model, the development would be eligible for the welfare tax exemption, resulting in a loss of revenue to the City and other agencies benefitting from local taxes. While the value of the currently anticipated acquisition is unknown, an estimate of $100M for the purchase price would have losses to the City of $170,000 per year in property tax, $290,000 in loss to the County, $470,000 in loss to the State for education, and $70,000 to other County entities. Should the JPA acquire other properties in Burlingame, future property tax losses would adhere as well. If the purchase option agreement is exercised between year 15 and year 30 (the end of the life of the bonds), a fiscal impact could result from the acquisition cost. Surplus cash flow from the property could be used to offset the cost of exercising the purchase option. Exhibits: ■ Memorandum — Considerations ■ Proposed Resolution ■ Attachment A — CaICHA Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement ■ Attachment B — CaICHA Additional Member Signature Page ■ Attachment C — CaICHA Purchase Option Agreement (sample, subject to revision) ■ Attachment D — CaICHA No Liability Letter 3 BURL INGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 10a MEETING DATE: January 21, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 21, 2020 From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director — (650) 558-7307 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Parks Master Plan RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Parks Master Plan. BACKGROUND Parks and Recreation Department staff and MIG, Inc. have been working on developing the City's first Parks Master Plan (PMP) to help guide future planning, policy, and development of the City's parks and recreation system. The PMP sets the framework for decision -makers in the planning, maintenance, development, and/or rehabilitation of Burlingame's parks and recreation facilities. It also provides a systematic and prioritized approach to the implementation of parks and recreation projects. The City Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission have long supported a robust system of parks and open space lands in the city. This commitment has been affirmed and strengthened in the Healthy People Healthy Places Element of the City's new General Plan. The General Plan calls for the City to "provide a diversity of City -owned parks, recreation facilities, natural open spaces, and public gathering places citywide, and ensure that every Burlingame resident lives within one-half mile of such a resource" (Goal HP-4). The PMP is an implementation item in the General Plan Update (HP-4.1). However, the City of Burlingame is largely built out and is expecting continued population growth. Continuing to provide abundant open spaces, parks, and recreation facilities is an ongoing challenge. niSri issinm Recreation Trends Understanding both national and local trends in parks and recreation was a critical early step in the PMP process. Increasingly, the relationship between public health/wellness and outdoor recreation (including trail -based activities like walking, jogging, and bicycling) is part of the national and local dialogue. The importance of connecting with nature in a world where children and adults are increasingly disconnected from the natural world is another topic that resonates both nationally and 1 Approval of the Parks Master Plan January 21, 2020 locally. Also, the importance of universal design that includes recreation experiences for all ages and abilities is gaining traction on the national level and within the local Burlingame community. The significance of these topics to both the City and the people of Burlingame are reflected through key planning policies and goals in the Envision Burlingame General Plan Update and inform recommendations in the PMP. Community Engagement Initial planning tasks for the Parks Master Plan began in March 2018 and focused on engaging the Burlingame community to identify priorities and values that would guide the PMP. The various community engagement methods listed below provided valuable data and insight into how residents currently use the parks and recreation system and were used to inform strategic direction and recommendations for the PMP. Methods of community engagement included: • Kick-off meeting and parks tour with City staff • Stakeholder interviews (City staff, Commissioners, business owners, field user groups, special interest groups, school representatives, and PTA representatives) • Pop-up surveys (Summer 2018: 300+ participants, eight events throughout Burlingame) • Mapita online survey (May — July 2018: 500+ participants) • Master Plan Advisory Team Meeting (October 22, 2018) • Community Workshop (November 7, 2018: included participatory feedback exercises) • Statistically valid phone survey (November 29, 2018 - December 9, 2018) • Master Plan Advisory Team Meeting (November 26, 2019) The community engagement initiatives surfaced some key trends, highlights, and community priorities, including: • Community members highly appreciate access to nature and wildlife, beautiful scenery, running and biking trails, and would like to expand this access. • Current recreation programs are very high -quality, diverse, and highly appreciated by participants. • Park improvement priorities include addressing barriers, improving restrooms, improving park seating/shade, and expanding off -leash dog areas. • Facility and amenity priorities include trails, dog parks, water recreation, and playgrounds. • Recreation program priorities include adventure activities, large community events, and performing arts. • Bayfront priorities include improving walking and biking trails, waterfront access, and activities. The statistically valid phone survey confirmed the findings, including the following: • Residents highly value parks and recreation. • Residents are generally satisfied with the programs and facilities that the City offers. • The highest community priorities include: o Trails for running, walking, biking o Additional nature trails and wilderness areas 2 Approval of the Parks Master Plan January 21, 2020 o Expanded recreation program for kids, adults, and seniors o Universally designed play areas o Additional restrooms o Additional sports programs o Additional art programs • Bayfront recreation was important, but not the highest priority among residents polled. Mapping and Analysis To supplement the community input and team observations, the project team conducted research, mapping, and analysis to identify system -wide parks and recreation needs and opportunities. This needs assessment included a review of parks and recreation system existing conditions, park service, and walkshed analysis, and began a process of identifying opportunity areas, including sites within Burlingame's potential growth areas and parts of the city that are currently underserved by parks. The key findings that have emerged from the community engagement activities, mapping exercises, and needs analysis provided the foundation for the PMP document framework. The PMP document has five sections. 1. Introduction The introduction defines a parks master plan, sets the context, describes the process and input, and provides an overview of the document. 2. Needs and Opportunities The Needs and Opportunities section describes the existing park system and services as well as national and regional trends, explains the community priorities based on the community input, and introduces the 10-minute walk analysis. 3. Vision and Guidelines The Vision and Guidelines section introduces the goals and describes the Park System Concept of Hubs and Clusters, park -links, and Park Design Guidelines. 4. Strategies and Recommendations The Strategies and Recommendations present the recommendations for each goal and offer possible locations and strategies to achieve the goals desired by the community. 5. Implementation The Implementation section describes the criteria to help facilitate the decision -making process, defines funding sources, and suggests an action to prioritize projects/initiatives dependent on future funding, opportunities, and partnerships. Staff will use the document as part of each park's renovation to help inform the process, educate the committee about the community -wide interests, and ensure a wide variety of options throughout the park system. It will also be used by architects of new development projects to design new parks reflecting the community's interests and needs. It is important to note that not all of the proposed ideas and opportunities presented in the PMP will come to fruition, and the PMP is not "set in stone." The City needs to remain flexible, nimble, and 3 Approval of the Parks Master Plan January 21, 2020 open to other opportunities, trends, and community needs as they arise over the next eight to ten years. Also, the park -link concept, as proposed in the PMP, will need to be incorporated into the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan for further development and implementation. The PMP will be a document that guides decision -makers for the next eight to ten years to improve the park system as the community envisions it today. At the end of this time, staff recommends an update of the PMP to stay relevant and up-to-date on community needs and national and regional trends. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the PMP on December 19, 2019, at their regularly scheduled meeting. After discussion, the Commissioners requested that public art be added to the downtown park area recommendations on page 71 and that the location of Benito Triangle be added to page 73. Those additions have been included in the attached document, along with a few typographical corrections noted by Commissioners. At the completion of the discussion, the Commissioners in attendance unanimously approved the PMP and recommended approval by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with the approval of the Parks Master Plan document. However, City staff will be returning to Council at a future meeting with possible funding options, as noted in Chapter 5, as part of an overall review of City Impact fees. Exhibits: • Resolution • Draft Parks Master Plan 4 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE PARKS MASTER PLAN WHEREAS, Parks and Recreation staff and MIG, Inc. have been working on developing the City's first Parks Master Plan (PMP) to help guide future planning, policy, and development of the City's parks and recreation; and WHEREAS, the PMP sets the framework for decision -makers in the planning, maintenance, development, and/or rehabilitation of Burlingame's parks and recreation facilities and provides a systematic and prioritized approach to the implementation of parks and recreation projects; and WHEREAS, initial planning tasks for the Parks Master Plan began in March 2018 and focused on engaging the Burlingame community to identify priorities and values that would guide the PMP; and WHEREAS, to supplement the community input and team observations, the project team conducted research, mapping, and analysis to identify system -wide parks and recreation needs and opportunities; and WHEREAS, this needs analysis included a review of parks and recreation system existing conditions, park service, and walkshed analysis, and began a process of identifying opportunity areas, including sites within Burlingame's potential growth areas and parts of the city that are currently underserved by parks; and. WHEREAS, staff will use the PMP as part of each park's renovation to help inform the process, educate the committee about the community -wide interests, and ensure a wide variety of options throughout the park system; and architects of new development projects will use the PMP to design new parks reflecting the community's interests and needs; and WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed and approved the PMP at their meeting on December 19, 2019. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME approves the Parks Master Plan. Emily Beach, 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 21 st day of January, 2020, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk U ", I 11 Jig A tt jA .. - A j, 4A, - PARKS MASTER PLAN FINAL DRAFT JAN 2020 Introduction What is the Parks Master Plan? 3 What is Our Planning Context? 5 Burlingame's Parks Master Plan Process 9 PMP Overview 13 Strategies and Recommendations Needs and Opportunities Goals 1 through 8 45 - 52 Bayfront Recreation Hub 53 Burlingame's Existing Parks and Recreation System 17 Civic Recreation Hub 57 National and Regional Trends 21 Hillside Recreation Hub 61 Community Priorities 23 Northern Park Cluster 65 10-Minute Walk Analysis 25 Southern Park Cluster 67 Visitor Experience 25 Eastern Park Cluster 69 Implications 26 New Parks, Public Spaces, and Facilities 71 Vision and Guidelines Vision Framework Park System Concept Park Design Guidelines Implementation 29 Prioritizing Projects and Initiatives 79 31 Decision -Making Criteria 80 35 Funding Sources 81 Action Plan 89 Appendix 95 CHAPTER ONE Introduction Burlingame is a scenic city in San Mateo County that extends from the top of the hillsides to the shoreline of the San Francisco Bay. With a walkable Downtown, great neighborhoods and schools, a significant shoreline, and sweeping views of the Bay, Burlingame is rich in both natural assets and community amenities. --P BURLINGAME PARKS MASTER PLAN 1 2 Burlingame Parks Master Plan WHAT IS THE PARKS MASTER PLAN? Over its history, Burlingame has been committed to developing excellent parks and facilities and providing engaging recreation programs. It has become known as the "City of Trees" because of its carefully maintained urban forest and historic tree groves. Despite this legacy, Burlingame has never had a long-range guiding plan for its parks and recreation system. This Parks Master Plan (PMP) is the City's first, and it will guide the Parks and Recreation Department in the planning, policy, and development of Burlingame's parks and recreation system for the next 10 to 15 years. It will help the Department in its effort to fulfill its mission of creating a better community. Why Plan? Why Now? The City of Burlingame has planned individual parks and facilities and implemented many improvements overthe years, despite not having an overall guiding PMP. In 2015, Burlingame embarked on a community -wide visioning process connected to its General Plan Update, to plan for future growth and development while protecting the small-town character residents value. Through that planning and visioning process, the Burlingame community highlighted the importance of parks, recreation facilities, and open space to Burlingame's quality of life and reaffirmed its commitment to be a city of healthy people and healthy places. This PMP is an important implementation step in addressing growth and change by wisely investing in one of Burlingame's most important community assets - its parks and recreation system. And because Burlingame is largely built -out, with limited land available for parks and recreation, the City must be strategic and innovative in its approach to meeting future recreation needs. Figure 1: Regional Context Chapter One I Introduction 4 Burlingame Parks Master Plan WHAT IS OUR PLANNING CONTEXT? Several aspects of Burlingame's context create opportunities and challenges when planning for parks and recreation. Transportation and Connections Burlingame is well connected to the larger Bay Area and beyond by highways, Caltrain, BART, SamTrans, and the San Francisco International Airport (SFO). These transportation connections and associated infrastructure have been majorfactors in Burlingame's economic success. However, these assets —including Highway 101, El Camino Real, and the rail line —can also function as barriers to safe and easy travel across the city. Combined with the city's topography and landscape, Burlingame's transportation corridors make getting to parks and recreation facilities challenging, especially when on foot or by bike. Economic Vitality Proximity to employment centers in San Francisco and Silicon Valley as well as SFO has helped create a robust and growing economy in Burlingame. The city has about as many jobs as it does residents today, and job growth is projected to be slightly higher than residential growth at buildout. Strong job sectors include hospitality, automobile sales, airline support services, biotechnology, high-tech firms, and destination retail. As a result, Burlingame's four planned growth areas anticipate more jobs, mixed -use development, and live - work options. To serve these growth areas, Burlingame will need different approaches to parks and recreation. Figure 2. Planned Growth Areas North Burlingame Mixed -Use Downtown Rollins Road Live -Work Bayfront Chapter One I Introduction Burlingame Parks Master Plan Residential Density Situated between San Francisco and San Jose and nestled between San Mateo, Millbrae, Foster City, and Hillsborough, Burlingame has charming, well - established residential neighborhoods and is unique among Peninsula communities for its high share of multi -family residential and rental housing stock. Burlingame's residential population in 2019 was just over 30,000, giving it a higher than typical population densityfor cities of its size nationwide. For comparison, the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) considers 2,500 residents per square mile to be high density in its Park Metrics data collected from agencies around the U.S. Compared to regional neighbors, Burlingame has a higher densitythan Belmont, Redwood City, and San Carlos. Higher density neighborhoods mean that each park serves more people, usually translating to higher operating costs and a need for a higher level of capital investment. Table 1. Population Density City Burlingame PopulationResidential Per Square Mile 6,965 Belmont 5,856 Redwood City 4,492 San Bruno 7,909 San Carlos 5,531 San Mateo 8,635 Source(s): World Population Review (2019) r {I i..nll+�I �ii 1� ¢b lirm pig Chapter One I Introduction Demographics and Growth Burlingame is anticipating a 19% growth in its residential population by 2040 and is also anticipating several shifts in its demographic profile. By 2040, Burlingame's Table 2: Projected Growth, Burlingame General Plan Residential Population 29,724 36,600 Housing Units 13,243 16,065 Source(s): CA Department of Finance, World Population Review (2019) community will include more families, children, and seniors than it does today. There will be an increase in the households at the highest and lowest income brackets. An increase in multi -family housing is planned forfuture growth areas and will include renter -occupied units. These demographic changes will require parks and recreation services to adjust to best serve the different needs of the changing resident population. 0 ***t N 44444 44444 19% residential population growth Burlingame Parks Master Plan Chapter One I Introduction 10 BURLINGAME'S PARKS MASTER PLAN PROCESS The planning process forthe PMP was designed to build on the strong baseline of information from the General Plan and other planning efforts, integrate community engagement throughout, and provide comprehensive guidance for the future. Figure 3 below illustrates the steps and timing of the PMP process. Engaging the Community As shown in the process diagram below, community engagement was foundational to the PMP process. Guided by an engagement and outreach plan developed at the beginning of the project, the PMP incorporated a multi -layered outreach strategy with a variety of engagement opportunities and methods timed overthe course of the project to gather a range of perspectives reflective of Burlingame's community. Public information, including information about opportunities to provide input, was distributed through established City communication channels including social media and mailing lists. A project webpage on the Burlingame website served as a landing pad and information portal throughout the PMP process. • A "I love that I'm able to access nature, enjoy the Bay, and take a break from my everyday work -life. I believe it makes me healthier and happier." - Burlingame resident Spring Fall Spring Fall Winter 2018 2018 2019 2019 2020 2. Existing Conditions and Trends Analysis 4. Plan Framework IN Figure 3: PMP Process 11 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS Burlingame Parks Master Plan At the outset of the planning process, in -person interviews with individuals and small groups provided insights into key issues and opportunities, as well as the needs of specific interest groups. Interviewees included City staff, Commissioners, members of the Burlingame business community, field users, other recreation interest groups, and school and PTA representatives. POP-UP ACTIVITIES During May, June, and July of 2018, more than 300 people provided input at a series of eight pop-up events at parks, recreation facilities, and community events throughout Burlingame. ONLINE MAP -BASED SURVEY (MAPITA) More than 540 participants provided input on how they use Burlingame's park system through a dynamic online interactive map -based questionnaire available from May through mid -July in 2018. NOVEMBER 7, 2018 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP The November public workshop provided a formal opportunityfor community members to learn aboutthe planning process and provide input through interactive boards and exercises. TELEPHONE SURVEY In late November and early December 2018, a statistical sample of 300 Burlingame registered voters was surveyed by telephone. ONLINE SURVEY An online version of the telephone surveywas available to the public from late December 2018 through the end of January 2019. This allowed anyone to provide input to the same questions asked on the telephone survey in a separate data set, while maintaining the integrity of the statistical sample of the telephone survey. Chapter One I Introduction 12 SURVEY SAYS... BASED ON THE COMBINED RESULTS OF THE TELEPHONE AND ONLINE SURVEYS, BURLINGAME RESIDENTS SUPPORT ADDITIONAL: PAPER SURVEY SUPPLEMENT A paper survey that included a selection of the open access survey questions was distributed in Spring 2019 to ensure that Burlingame's diverse residents had an opportunity to provide input that did not require online access. ADVISORY GROUPS Throughout the process, the Parks and Recreation Department engaged and informed elected and appointed officials in the form of in -person meetings and regular communication with the following groups: Master Plan Advisory Team (MPAT): This advisory group was composed of City staff members, Parks and Recreation Commissioners, and City Council members and provided guidance and input at key project milestones. • Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC): The PRC acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council, City Manager, and Parks and Recreation Directorto provide general oversight, input, and recommendations for the parks and recreation system, including guidance and advice on the PMP at meetings throughout the planning process. • Burlingame City Council: The City Council provided input midway through the planning process and on the PMP recommendations through the public review and adoption process. In addition, the Parks and Recreation Department also reached out to other appointed groups including the Planning Commission, the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission, the Beautification Commission, and the Library Board. ,,LOTS OF THINGS FOR KIDS TO DO INCLUDING BIKING AROUND THE PARK, PLAYING GAMES ON THE GRASS AREAS AND PLAY ON THE STRUCTURES." - Burlingame resident ,i M c N , �; �+, w^'h '. ♦ I/ \ d' #. �� CO r af� �yrr t '.:,;�, n- - lens..• ':f+. � i. l �, .. r<r�. ! Y V C. F' LgGEphI. r. w� i� ML- C _ 1 At � ��.�. „ •eye. • g :• fr y a 14 MurrayField YWtMeperkoNywh.pniaPo.m w he iPyment maq dada aanem e / ' , ro nemnow�agy„aenPe:. All commerc al achvrtks must have a m-L \' Illegal subsuncesarakoholareproh,blted A�1� Dogs mustbekeptonaleash at alltmez tM No ownasarerepfl idean uPafier theiraogz fl` No aubles For Burl ,game Mun a W <otlez, pleau uan the oAcoapW lnyoursmartphan orgoro n"t"�rapae.,ycodesm„rr„gamer Amcewa„olac agmemrtmc celcode a,sy be dtm a �mor:e:certded rrom the pad, CHAPTER TWO Needs and Opportunities The City of Burlingame's Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for planning, maintaining, and programming Burlingame's 130+ acres of park land and recreation facilities, as well as providing a wide range of high -quality recreation programs. This section provides an overview of the existing system and services. BURLINGAME PARKS MASTER PLAN 1 16 17 Burlingame Parks Master Plan BURLINGAME'S EXISTING PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM Park Land Inventory Burlingame's park system includes developed parks (many of which are quite small), undeveloped natural areas and parks, and lands owned bythe California State Lands Commission and leased by private businesses. During the PMP process, the creation of Skyline Park and improvements at Mills Canyon Wildlife Area were underway. Recreation Facilities Within its parks, Burlingame has outdoor recreation facilities including playgrounds; sports fields for baseball, softball, and soccer; courts for tennis and basketball; a community garden; off -leash dog runs; and picnic areas. Burlingame also has four major recreation facilities: • The Burlingame Community Center, which is in progress, is an expansion and upgrade of the existing facility in Washington Park; • The Burlingame Aquatic Center (BAC), a joint use facility with the San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD), is located at the high school adjacent to Washington Park; • A golf facility is expected to replace Burlingame's aging driving range (anticipated opening in 2021 or 2022); and • The Village Park Preschool, which provides facilities for classes. Several significant recreation facility enhancement projects were underway during the PMP, including the design and construction of the Burlingame Community Center, the redesign of the Washington Park playground, and the renovation of the BAC pool. Recreation Programs The Burlingame Parks and Recreation Department offers a full -service and very popular set of recreation programs and special events. Partnerships and agreements between the Department and other local serving agencies and organizations increase the City's capacity to meet the recreation needs of Burlingame residents. The Department collaborates with other City departments; has partnerships and/or joint use agreements with other public agencies including the two school districts; manages contracts with outside entities; and has strong relationships with numerous community organizations. Chapter Two I Needs and Opportunities Figure 4: Existing Parks and Recreation System: Developed Parks Developed Parks OALPINE PARK 0.10 Acres © BAYSIDE PARK 36.00 Acres ©CUERNAVACA PARK 5.00 Acres A HERITAGE PARK 0.40 Acres ©"J" LOT PLAYGROUND 0.05 Acres 18 OLAGUNA PARK SHOREBIRD SANCTUARY 0.50 Acres 2.00 Acres OMURRAY FIELD ® TRENTON PLAYGROUND 20.60 Acres 0.10 Acres C-1 PALOMA PLAYGROUND ® VICTORIA PARK 0.10 Acres 0.90 Acres OPERSHING PARK QD VILLAGE PARK 1.10 Acres 1.90 Acres RAY PARK 13 WASHINGTON PARK 5.90 Acres 18.90 Acres Developed Parks Total: 93.55 Acres 19 Burlingame Parks Master Plan Chapter Two I Needs and Opportunities 20 Figure 5: Existing Parks and Recreation System: Natural Park Areas and State Lands Commission Natural Park Areas MILLS CANYON WILDLIFE AREA 34.50 Acres SKYLINE PARK 3.30 Acres State Lands Commission ROBERT E. WOOLEY STATE PARK Leased by Embassy Suites 1.76 Acres GFISHERMAN'S PARK Maintained by County Parks 0.70 Acres Natural Park Areas Total: 37.80 Acres State Lands Commission Total: 2.46 Acres Burlingame Parks Master Plan NATIONALAND REOIONALTRENDS Several broader national and regional trends, described below, are especially pertinent to Burlingames planning issues and provide context for community preferences and priorities. A Public Health and Wellness Movement To combat the national rise of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, public and private entities are exploring ways to promote preventative healthcare and active living, which reduce healthcare costs and improve public health. This includes initiatives such as Park Rx, through which health care practitioners prescribe time outdoors in nature to improve health outcomes. Connecting Youth with Nature Across the country, there is a movement to reconnect youth with nature and the outdoors. This is largely in response to the decreased time kids spend outdoors compared to previous generations and the associated negative physical and mental health impacts. Parents and professionals alike express concerns about the ill effects of a sedentary lifestyle, too much screen time, and too little exploratory, unstructured outside play for children. Public health organizations and parks and recreation departments are working to reverse the negative impacts of "Nature Deficit Disorder." Participation in Trail -Based Recreation While trail -related recreation such as walking, hiking, and running is among the most popular outdoor activities nationwide, Californians in particular spend even more recreation time participating in these activities than the national average. Need for Culturally Responsive Services California is now a majority -minority state, meaning that less than half of its population identifies as non -Hispanic white. Research has shown that cultural and ethnic groups use public spaces differently and that there is a growing need for public agency -hosted events, vendors, and entertainment to reflect a wider array of interests and cultures. An Active Aging Population The Baby Boomer and Millennial generations are the largest population segments driving outdoor lifestyle trends, with activities such as walking and biking becoming part of day-to-day life. As people live longer, the population of "seniors" encompasses multiple generations, including retirees who are in good health, physically active, and uninterested in participating in typical "senior center" activities. Instead, there is growing interest in leisure activities for older adults, such as art -related programs and senior sports clubs. The Digital World Given Burlingame's proximity to San Francisco and Silicon Valley, technology has a significant impact on the City's economic, cultural, and social landscape. Digital devices are changing how people interact with the world, with public agencies, and with each other. Technology is offering parks and recreation providers new opportunities as well as new challenges, including the emergence of a counter -trend calling for technology -free parks and environments. Chapter Two I Needs and Opportunities Burlingame Parks Master Plan COMMUNITY PRIORITIES Through all public engagement opportunities during the PMP process, Burlingame residents indicated they have a high level of satisfaction with the City of Burlingame's parks and recreation programs, maintenance, and facilities. Feedback also indicates that people regularly use parks, facilities, and recreation programs, especially those close to their homes. They value the proximity of parks and typically get there by foot or bike. They use parks for relaxing in the outdoors, playing with kids, and for community events. When they go to the Bayfront, they typically drive and are interested in more access and water recreation. While satisfaction with existing services is high, the Burlingame community has strong interest in further enhancing parks and recreation services. Community priorities that emerged from the public engagement process include: • Access to Nature, Wildlife, and Scenery. In keeping with national trends regarding connecting with nature, Burlingame residents would like more opportunities to connect with nature in parks and on the Bayfront. • Walking and Biking for Health and Fitness. People are interested in walking and biking more, especially for health and fitness, and would like to increase walking and biking opportunities in the park system. • More Amenities. Community members would like more restrooms and more fenced -in dog parks. They are also interested in water -based recreation and adventure activities in the park system. • Safety. The Burlingame community identified a need for enhanced safety, especially for pedestrians, through lighting, fencing, and safe routes. • Community Events. People in Burlingame appreciate the availability of events and activities and would like to continue and expand on these. • Expanded Programming. Community members would like an expansion in arts and sports programs in particular. • Aesthetics. There is an interest in elevating park and facility design, and in integrating local character and identity. • Sustainability. The Burlingame community values sustainability and would like the park system to demonstrate environmental stewardship and sustainable design and operations. • Spaces and Programs forAll. Community members prioritize inclusiveness, so that people of all ages, abilities, and recreation interests can find a place in parks, recreation facilities, and programs. 24 Chapter Two I Needs and Opportunities vw.supportburfingameparksmemg ER 1CF 25 Burlingame Parks Master Plan Figure 6: 10-Minute Walk Park Access 0.25 mile walkshed 0.50 mile walkshed 10-MINUTE WALK ANALYSIS Burlingame is on trend with communities striving to ensure their residents are within walking distance of a park and set a target in its General Plan to provide every resident access to a park within one-half mile of home. One-half mile equates to about a 10-minute walk and is the basis for the recent #10-Minute-Walk campaign undertaken by the NRPA, the Trust for Public Land, and the Urban Land Institute. Burlingame residents confirmed they value the proximity of parks and the ability to walk and bike to them. Conducting a citywide park "walkshed analysis" is a wayto reveal areas that lack access to a parkwithin the desired distance. The walkshed analysis uses ESRI's Network Analyst extension in ArcGIS to show half -mile and quarter -mile walksheds from each of Burlingame's parks. The analysis methodology factors in physical barriers such as highways, train tracks, disconnected street networks, and water bodies. It also uses the City's street system and trail network data to simulate the path of travel for pedestrians and bicyclists. Figure 6 shows the result of the walkshed analysis in Burlingame, which confirms that most residents have access to a park within walking distance. According to the Trust for Public Land, 74 percent of residents live within a 10-minute walk of a park. Compared to the national average of 54 percent (Source: www.tpl.org/ parkscore). However, underserved areas exist around schools and within areas targeted for growth. VISITOR EXPERIENCE Community feedback shows that people value parks that are close to home, but theywant more to do in those parks. As seen in Figure 7, some parks in Burlingame's Chapter Two I Needs and Opportunities Developed Parks I Amenities Alpine Park Bayside Park Cuernavaca Park Heritage Park "J" Lot Playground Laguna Park Murray Field Paloma Playground Pershing Park Ray Park Shorebird Sanctuary Trenton Playground Victoria Park Village Park Washington Park u 5 10 1 1 2.5 *, - - iA ■ - Figure 7.• Developed Parks Amenities Distribution (See Appendix A for Complete Inventory) neighborhoods provide a limited range of amenities. The very small size of many Burlingame parks is a factor in where and which amenities are provided. Adding amenities to smaller -scale parks is challenging and may not always be possible. However, finding ways to provide a broader range of amenities that people can easily get to from home is key to enhancing the experience for Burlingame park visitors. IMPLICATIONS Burlingame's existing parks and recreation system and set of services provide a foundation for the future. Considering community priorities, national and regional trends, and analyses of existing parks and facilities clarified opportunities and potential directions for the future. These were vetted through the statistically valid survey and companion methodologies, validating the plan direction laid out in the next three chapters. 10 26 MW --. CHAPTER THREE Vision and Guidelines The vision framework articulates the direction for Burlingame's parks and recreation system, building upon the Parks and Recreation Department Mission and themes from the public engagement process. BURLINGAME PARKS MASTER PLAN 1 28 Burlingame Parks Master Plan VISION FRAMEWORK The vision framework, depicted in the graphic on the next page, includes three elements: The Parks and Recreation Department Mission describing the purpose of the department; The PMP Vision, a statement that articulates the community's aspirations for the parks and recreation system; and Eight PMP Goals, that provide strategic direction to achieving the vision. The vision framework is a guiding structure for the Department and the City for the next 10 to 15 years The recommendations, strategies, and guidelines in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of this PMP are aimed at realizing the vision, using the goals as an organizing element. PMP Goals The eight goals reflect community priorities and City initiatives. 1. Enhance Public Spaces to make all of Burlingame's parks and recreation facilities a thriving part of a complete park system. 2. Support Healthy People with park facilities and recreation programs that provide opportunities for physical fitness as well as ecological and social connections that promote overall health and well- being. 3. Create Ecologically Healthy Places by creating resource -efficient, ecologically sensitive, Bay -friendly landscapes throughout Burlingame's parks and recreation system. 4. Establish Strong Physical Connections that improve the safety, comfort, and ease of traveling to and between parks. S. Ensure Strategic Growth so parks and recreation facilities and services throughout the city will continue to meet the needs of Burlingame's growing and changing community. 6. Advance Stewardship of Burlingame's parks and recreation assets through top-quality maintenance and operations practices. 7. Expand Partnerships and work with other agencies, departments, and private entities that support the PMP goals and recommendations. 8. Stabilize Funding to ensure diverse sources of support for Burlingame's parks and recreation system. Enhance Public Spaces Ensure Strategic Growth •TC Support Healthy People Advance Stewardship U I Create Ecologically Healthy Places Expand Partnerships Establish Strong Physical Connections Stabilize Funding Burlingame Parks Master Plan PARK SYSTEM CONCEPT The park system concept is a physical structure for achieving the PMP vision framework and the General Plan target of providing every Burlingame resident with a park within a half -mile, or about a 10-minute walk. A Park System of Hubs and Clusters As illustrated in Figure 8, Burlingame's park system is composed of Recreation Hubs and Park Clusters that are physically and conceptually connected. This organizing structure establishes a strong framework with city - serving and neighborhood -level amenities that are complementary and accessible to all. This park system concept forms the basis for PMP recommendations and will guide decisions about where to include amenities, when to activate underutilized areas, and how to provide interesting experiences so that the City of Figure 8: Park System Concept Diagram Burlingame's parks and open space system can grow with its community. This park system concept directly responds to and supports PMP Goals 1, 2, 4, and 5. Chapter Three I Vision and Guidelines 32 Figure 9: Recreation Hubs Diagram Recreation Hubs Recreation Hubs are flagship sites that include a diverse range of recreation experiences. Their character reflects their physical, natural, and cultural context. These sites function as recreation magnets with a variety of experiences at one distinct site or a group of related sites. They are intended to serve the entire Burlingame community and also provide for the daily recreation needs of nearby residents. The concept is organized around three existing Recreation Hubs: The Hillside Recreation Hub centers on Cuernavaca Park, with Mills Canyon and the planned Skyline Park playing supporting roles. • The Civic Recreation Hub consists of Washington Park and the Community Center and has functioned as Burlingame's primary Recreation Hub for many years. The Bayfront Recreation Hub knits together Bayside Fields, the Bayside Dog Park, Murray Field, the future Topgolf site (formerly the Golf Center), the planned fitness clusters, the Bay Trail, and Robert E. Wooley State Park (located and managed by the Embassy Suites Hotel) into Burlingame's largest Recreation Hub in terms of land area. The Recreation Hubs are connected to one another by Burlingame's pedestrian and bicycle network, allowing park visitors to safely traverse the city to these three recreation destination areas. As part of the upcoming update to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, a review of appropriate routes will be evaluated. 33 Burlingame Parks Master Plan Chapter Three I Vision and Guidelines 34 Figure 10: Park Clusters Diagram Park Clusters Park Clusters are groups of interconnected parks. These parks are, or will be, linked by pedestrian and bicycle connections to provide a full suite of park amenities. Each site within a cluster has its own identity and features that are distinct from and complementary to the other sites. A total of five Park Clusters will primarily serve the daily recreation needs of their surrounding residential areas. Three of these clusters exist in 2019, and two are future opportunities to enhance and connect the system. • The Northern Park Cluster, which includes Laguna Park, Ray Park, and Village Park and primarily serves residential areas north of Broadway. • The Southern Park Cluster, which includes Heritage Park, "J" Lot Playground, Paloma Playground, and Pershing Park and primarily serves residential areas west of the railroad and south of the Downtown area. • The Eastern Park Cluster, which includes Alpine Park, Trenton Playground, and Victoria Park and primarily serves residential areas east of the railroad and around Burlingame High School. The Future Park Clusters are proposed in two areas that are currently underserved by recreation amenities including the North Burlingame/Rollins Road growth areas and the areas surrounding Hillside Drive. Creating Park Clusters in these areas would provide the surrounding areas with a range of recreation options, from play areas to nature connections. If future opportunities and development warrant it, a Recreation Hub may also be appropriate in the North Burlingame and North Rollins Road growth areas. Park -links are safe and pleasant pedestrian and bicycle routes that connect individual park sites. While specific details about routes within the city may be identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, the intent is to provide enjoyable looped walking and running routes to and around parks. These routes could incorporate distance markers (by mile) as well as locally inspired identity and wayfinding features. Establishing safe, well - marked routes creates opportunities for everyone, from families to walking groups, to use Park -links for fitness and fun in Burlingame. Northern Park Cluster: Park -links Ray Park, Village Park, and Laguna Park are safely connected for pedestrians and bicyclists via Park -links on Balboa Way, Ray Drive, Rosedale Avenue, California Drive, Mills Avenue, Laguna Avenue, Grove Avenue, Capuchino Avenue, Highway Road, and Adeline Drive. Together, these connections equal an approximately 1.45-mile looped route. Southern Park Cluster: Park -links "J" Lot Playground, Heritage Park, and Pershing Park are safely connected for pedestrians and bicyclists via Park - links on Crescent Avenue, Ralston Avenue, Occidental Avenue, Bellevue Avenue, Primrose Road, Bayswater Avenue, Cypress Avenue, Central Avenue, and Newlands Ave. Together, these connections equal just under 1.22 miles of looped routes. Eastern Park Cluster: Park -links Alpine Park, Trenton Playground, Victoria Park, and Washington Park are safely connected for pedestrians and bicyclists via Park -links on Carolan Avenue, Park Avenue, Winchester Drive, Oak Grove Avenue, Rollins Road, Dwight Road, Lexington Way, Channing Road, Burlingame Avenue, Victoria Road, Howard Avenue, and Bloomfield Road. Together, these connections equal 2.56 miles of looped routes. Burlingame High School and Washington Park are other destinations in close proximity to these bicycle and pedestrian routes. J X rk Kay FarK Figure 11: Park -links within the Northern Park Cluster •• 1.22 mile / "J" Lot loop , Playground Herit � Parks\V/ hing Park 00 .. Figure 12: Park -links within the Southern Park Cluster pm 'w2 56 mile loop Figure 13: Park -links within the Eastern Park Cluster Burlingame Parks Master Plan PARK DESIGN GUIDELINES Purpose of Guidelines The park design guidelines will ensure that each park is planned, designed, and managed to meet the needs of the community it serves. Images in this section are intended to be inspirational as they do not depict existing Burlingame parks and recreation facilities. The guidelines: • Encourage thoughtful and well -designed spaces that are representative of community needs and values and that respond to the unique characteristics of individual park sites. • Serve as park design objectives, promoting design flexibility and adaptability, while allowing park designers and planners, the community, and decision - makers to communicate design parameters that are clear and consistent. How and When to Apply Guidelines The guidelines should be applied towards the planning, design, and approval of both public and privately developed projects. As the City grows and improves its existing parks and recreation assets, the park design guidelines will assist in identifying, designing, and renovating parks and open space sites, features, amenities, and character. The guidelines identify key characteristics for Recreation Hubs, Park Clusters, and Park -links, which are the overarching components of Burlingame's parks and recreation system. Site -specific recommendations for each of Burlingame's existing sites, found in Chapter 4, follow from the guidelines. The following definitions are provided for context: • Revenue facilities are recreation facilities that generate revenue to offset their operating costs. Examples include pools, sports complexes, rental facilities, and pavilions. • Signature amenities are distinct recreation elements orfeatures that draw visitors from the entire city and beyond. Chapter Three I Vision and Guidelines � a N_ 37 Burlingame Parks Master Plan Chapter Three I Vision and Guidelines 38 C_1 RECREATION HUBS are flagship sites that include a diverse range of recreation experiences. Their character reflects their physical, natural, and cultural context. These sites function as recreation magnets with a variety of experiences at one distinct site or a group of related sites. They are intended to serve the entire Burlingame community and also provide for the daily recreation needs of nearby residents. Service Area There are single -site Recreation Hubs and multi -site Recreation Hubs. Multi -site Recreation Hubs comprise multiple parks in close proximity to each other. All Recreation Hubs serve the entire city. Site Character The character of each Recreation Hub is closely tied to its site context. Sites are visually and physically accessible to their surrounding areas, with strong curb appeal and inviting gateway features, elements, and entry experience for visitors. A relationship to the surrounding environment, i.e., the Bayfront, Hillside, or Downtown area, is reinforced by visual connections even if direct physical contact to those elements does not exist. Recreation Hub sites feature unique, flagship elements and consistent site graphics or color schemes to strengthen site character and identity. All Recreation Hubs include site identification elements and signage for wayfinding, kiosk, facilities, and facility/amenity regulations to enhance user experience. Thematic signage may be found throughout the site to strengthen site identity. Site Connectivity All Recreation Hubs are physically connected to surrounding areas by safe pedestrian and bicycle routes. Multi -site Recreation Hubs feature pedestrian and bicycle connections between sites and strong wayfinding components to reinforce their relationship. Single -site Recreation Hubs should have a strong street presence with strong curb appeal and inviting entries, and be visually and physically accessible to the surrounding neighborhood on at least one major street. Sites include trail linkage to other parks when possible. Details of pedestrian and bicycle connections are identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Circulation and Parking On -street parking adjacent to the park is preferred to maximize usable park space. Off-street parking, including Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant spaces, may be included to support the amenities. Where driveways pass through park space, traffic calming devices and design techniques to prioritize pedestrians should be incorporated. All Recreation Hubs should include site elements for bicycle parking and accessible entry paths. Site Amenities Recreation Hubs include at least: • Four Signature Amenities loop trails sports fields sports courts sports complexes multipurpose recreation center aquatic center reservable picnic facilities large shelters/pavilions community playground with features appropriate for both younger and older children • One Area for Flexible -Use open lawn open, informal natural area open paved area plaza • One Public Restroom • One Revenue Facility • Drinking Fountains water bottle -filling stations 39 Burlingame Parks Master Plan PARK CLUSTERS are groups of small parks that are interconnected. These parks are linked by pedestrian and bicycle connections to provide a full suite of park amenities. Each site within a cluster has its own identity and features that are distinct from and complementary to the other sites. Service Area Park Clusters primarily serve their local, residential neighborhoods and surrounding areas. Site Character All sites within Park Clusters include unique elements as well as consistent site graphics and/or color schemes to strengthen site identity. Site Connectivity Park Clusters have a strong relationship to their surrounding neighborhoods. Each individual park site within a cluster has strong curb appeal and inviting W entries, and is visually and physically accessible to the surrounding neighborhood. Sites within Park Clusters are typically located on a local or collector street. If near an arterial street, park sites within clusters may have natural or artificial buffers or barriers. Circulation and Parking Each Park Cluster has unique wayfinding signage to identify Park -link routes between park sites, including distance markers. Within each Park Cluster, individual park sites include consistent park identification, wayfinding, and facility/amenity regulations to enhance user experience. Parking is not required at park sites within Park Clusters but if included, accounts for fewer than 10 cars and provides for ADA access, with at least one van accessible parking space. When needed, widened on -street parking is the preferred option for parking in order to minimize park space dedicated to cars. Traffic calming devices, such as lane narrowing, curb extensions, expanded Chapter Three I Vision and Guidelines street planting areas, speed bumps, or raised pedestrian crossings are encouraged throughout Park Clusters, especially adjacent to individual park sites. Site Amenities Park Clusters are comprised of multiple individual park sites and do not include revenue facilities. Park Clusters include at least: • Four Signature Amenities loop trails feature gardens, formal planting area pollinator planting stormwater planting elements seating areas/elements multi -use fields sports courts reservable picnic facilities 40 shelters/pavilions playground with shade elements and features appropriate for young children playground with shade elements and features appropriate for older children • One Area for Flexible -Use open lawn open natural area open paved area plaza • One Public Restroom, if practical • Drinking Fountains water bottle -filling stations 41 Burlingame Parks Master Plan PARK -LINKS are safe and pleasant pedestrian and bicycle routes that connect individual park sites and provide enjoyable looped walking and running routes to and around parks. Service Area Park -links primarily serve neighborhoods and residential areas within Park Clusters. Site Character Park -links may include locally inspired artistic and graphic elements that strengthen local neighborhood identity and character. Site Connectivity Park -links provide safe pedestrian and bicycle routes to and between park sites within Park Clusters. Circulation and Parking Specific details about routes, circulation, and design may be identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Site Amenities Park -links may include: • Well -marked wayfinding features: signs, banners, street painting, paving materials, murals • Distance markers (by mile) • Locally inspired artistic and graphic elements • Street trees with wide canopy and understory planting Chapter Three I Vision and Guidelines Other Regulations In addition to these guidelines and Burlingame's local codes and standards, other regulations are applicable to the City's parks and recreation system. Listed below, these requirements provide a baseline to ensure safety, universal access, and comfort for all park users. • ADA, which prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life - including public and private places that are open to the general public. • ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), which provide scoping and technical requirements for accessibility to buildings and facilities by individuals with disabilities underthe ADA. Title 24 Code of Regulations, or California Buildings Standards Code, published by the California Building Standards Commission, which are State of California regulations that govern the design and construction of buildings, associated facilities and equipment. 42 • California Playground Safety Regulations, Title 22 of California Code of Regulations, Division 4, Chapter 22. r.:' ., t .�1, a.. qy. • y1 ._ate?P .. �' ` `4'st.�1 ^7:ilk \, , ��j�' -�� '���f' �� •�' �_. � - � a }.. ip'� i�'k }�'aRt_ "•�' :�j." ate_ A '. �--- "'1 --. -3_ �1 + - � �� �t �l�:. ? ..j. "� !� -�'�', q°.° 1 /, 1 �/ • �� `��.. � ..a-S s"?tea. �, ;�ry .:,,i.� � `'n �}�,�. �. a ',!� !__. PLV 4' { r�; 1'h dr. 9Mc r� i •*_f :�.,.�1. % 4.' *a' _ mot.. _ � .:.t�+ �,r� � - - i> � q'' - - • w.n.wR.• •0,4:4"111 -11111":- a I m. I a -ITO M FI r. -mr-5 .�.111: s - 1,011 i,� Burlingame Parks Master Plan Chapter Four I Strategies and Recommendations 46 GOAL *1 Enhance Public Spaces to make all of Burlingame's parks and recreation facilities a thriving part of a complete park system. RECOMMENDATIONS 1-A. Repurpose low -use and single -purpose areas to create more flexible spaces that can accommodate multiple functions and provide greater amenity value to the entire community. 1-B. Strategically layer in more activities in existing parks to get more function out of each. 1-C. Add walking loops to existing parks where appropriate. 1-D. Provide restroom facilities at all Recreation Hubs and strive to provide a restroom within each park cluster. 1-E. Increase shade (structures and tree canopy), especially in play and seating areas. 1-F. Create additional fenced -in off -leash dog areas in parks. 1-0. Create universal design play areas that are accessible for all abilities that meet or exceed ADA requirements and enrich the play experience for all by providing a range of visual characteristics, materials, and developmental offerings. 1-H. Integrate art in parks and recreation facilities to enhance identity and interpret the local environment. 1-I. Design landscapes to enhance site context, theme, and experience, as well as to strengthen visual connections to the surrounding environment. 1-3. Design sites that feature large -canopy shade trees, stormwater planting, flowering plant material, and formal planting areas to create areas of interest at appropriate site locations like entries and gathering areas. 1-K. Use appropriately scaled lighting that minimizes light pollution, including amenity lighting, sport field light standards, and security lighting when applicable to enhance site character, safety, and security. GOAL Z Support Healthy People with park facilities and recreation programs that provide opportunities for physical fitness as well as ecological and social connections that promote overall health and well-being. RECOMMENDATIONS 2-A. Expand programs that promote personal wellness including nutrition, mindfulness, and connections with nature. 2-113. Connect people to nature by creating natural play areas that encourage interaction with the natural world though active, tactile nature discovery. 2-C. Enhance awareness of and access to natural features in parks and open space throughout the city (including Shorebird Park and Sanchez Lagoon). 2-D. Expand programming for walking and biking throughout the city. 2-F. Continue to address demand for sports fields and courts. Maximize use of existing sports fields through strategic enhancements, such as converting fields to artificial turf and efficient field -use coordination. • Continue and expand partnerships with other cities and school districts to increase access to sports fields and courts. 2-0. Explore opportunities for a new indoor gym, sports center, orfield house. 2-H. Continue the legacy of exceptional programming • Introduce programs such as "Bike -about -town;' 5k at the Community Center. runs, and organized walks that are supported by the City and community organizations. 2-E. Incorporate adventure experiences, such as challenge courses or small zip lines, into parks and recreation areas. • Increase arts, cultural, and recreation events with the expanded capacity at the Community Center. Burlingame Parks Master Plan Chapter Four I Strategies and Recommendations 48 GOAL 3 Create Ecologically Healthy Places by creating resource -efficient, ecologically sensitive, Bay -friendly landscapes throughout Burlingame's parks and recreation system. RECOMMENDATIONS 3-A. Employ climate -appropriate vegetation that is low water use and does not require intensive maintenance practices. 3-113. Incorporate stormwater management into parks through rain gardens and green infrastructure. 3-H. When practical, select durable and locally sourced site and facility furnishings, materials, and elements. 3-I. Feature nature and natural elements in site design. 3-C. Expand the collection and use of solar power and 3-3. Expand educational and stewardship efforts other renewable energy sources at parks and facilities. focused on Burlingame's local watershed, creeks, vegetation, and wildlife. 3-D. Use non -toxic methods and materials for site and facility maintenance as appropriate. 3-E. Use water -efficient technology when replacing or installing new irrigation systems. 3-F. Conduct water use audits at regular 10-year intervals and set targets for water use reduction that align with or exceed statewide water reduction goals 3-0. Use energy efficient and "smart" technology when replacing or installing new site features. 3-K. Incorporate interpretive signage throughout the parks and recreation system that educates the public about the natural world (including Burlingame's major creeks where they are accessible or visible: El Portal/ Trousdale, Mills, Easton, Sanchez, Terrace, Burlingame, and Ralston). 3-L. Include electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at all park and recreation facility parking lots. GOAL 4 Establish Strong Physical Connections that improve the safety, comfort, and ease of traveling to and between parks. RECOMMENDATIONS 4-A. Support walking and biking connections throughout Burlingame, especially between parks and neighborhoods and from the hillsides to the Bayfront, in collaboration with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. 4-113. Implement the Park -links in coordination with the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 4-C. Improve trails within parks, especially at Mills Canyon, by adding loop trails and signage to encourage use. 4-D. Develop citywide wayfinding graphics that strengthen Burlingame's identity as a walkable, bikeable city. 49 Burlingame Parks Master Plan GOALS Ensure Strategic Growth so parks and recreation facilities and services throughout the citywill continue to meet the needs of Burlingame's growing and changing community. RECOMMENDATIONS 5-A. Provide unique recreation options that serve growth areas, strengthen their unique character, and support adopted planning policies. 5-113. Provide new urban parks and recreation amenities forthose who live and work in high - density transit -oriented developments (TOD) in North Burlingame. 5-C. Encourage a network of pedestrian and green spaces focused along the creeks in the Rollins Road area to provide a usable outdoor recreational asset circulation amenity to residents and employees. 5-0. Develop additional community -serving public spaces in Downtown Burlingame, including implementing the Burlingame Square Beautification project and Lorton Park improvements. 5-E. Collaborate to expand and promote recreation facilities and programs along the San Francisco Bay shoreline and Anza Lagoon, including cultural, arts, food, and sports related events. 5-F. Establish requirements for all new Bayfront development to provide public space amenities that support the goals and vision of this PMP as a condition of approval. 5-0. Consider non-traditional park space, including plazas, parklets, and small-scale pedestrian open space whenever opportunities arise throughout Burlingame. 5-H. Continue to engage the Burlingame community, including new residents, employees, and employers to ensure improvements and investments reflect evolving needs. Chapter Four I Strategies and Recommendations 50 GOAL 6 Advance Stewardship of Burlingame's parks and recreation assets through top-quality maintenance and operations practices. RECOMMENDATIONS 6-A. Continue Burlingame's sound operational approaches to parks and facilities to deliver high - quality maintenance and excellent long-term value. 6-1113. Maximize the use of sustainable and green fleet, equipment, and power sources. 6-C. Ensure staff capacity and operational resources match the needs of Burlingame's park system. The system requires a higher level of effort than the average for California communities due to Burlingame's relatively small total park acreage and high per -acre level of use. 6-D. Increase landscaped areas that provide benefits and ecosystem services at parks and recreation sites by increasing pollinator gardens, native planting areas, and stormwater retention elements, especially in underutilized turf areas. 6-E. Consider reducing mowed turf where it is not serving a recreation purpose and replace with lawn alternatives or low water use plantings. 6-F. Coordinate with community -based organizations and user groups (e.g., garden club, youth service organizations) to help maintain specific park areas, e.g., rose garden, community garden, dog parks. 6-0. Advance natural area / natural resource management skills and practices internally orthrough contract relationships to support the city's extensive natural areas. 6-H. Implement an enhanced level of maintenance at Recreation Hubs, in Downtown, and at sports fields. 6-I. Continue providing standard maintenance levels at Recreation Clusters and Recreation Hubs. 6-3. Continue urban forestry best practices in coordination with the City's Urban Forestry Management Plan and related efforts. 6-K. Continue staff development and training on a wide range of topics such as inclusive design and programming, cultural competency, health and fitness, senior and youth issues as appropriate. Burlingame Parks Master Plan Chapter Four I Strategies and Recommendations 52 GOAL Expand Partnerships and work with other agencies, departments, and private entities that support the PMP goals and recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS 7-A. Continue and expand partnership agreements with schools to maximize use of existing recreation amenities and make them available to the public. 7-113. Continue and expand collaboration with local organizations whose missions are focused on parks and open space in Burlingame. 7-C. Consider partnering with community arts and culture organizations as well as other non -government groups to bring arts and culture programming and installations into City parks. 7-D. Look for new opportunities to form mutually beneficial partnerships and agreements with public, private, and non-profit organizations whose missions support the vision of this PMP. 7-E. Continue the partnership with the SMUHSD to provide community access to the Burlingame Aquatic Center. GOAL 8 Stabilize Funding to ensure diverse sources of supportfor Burlingame's parks and recreation system. RECOMMENDATIONS 8-A. Periodically review the guiding fee policy and update fees accordingly in coordination with the citywide masterfee schedule. 8-113. Leverage developerfees and/or exactions to create high quality public parks and open space that meet the needs of Burlingame's growing residential and working population. 8-C. Expand funding through donations, grants, and alternative sources. 8-D. Explore newfunding mechanisms, especiallyfor operations. 8-E. Consider public/private partnerships and vendor agreements that bring additional amenities and opportunities into the park system. 8-F. Leverage and expand partnerships that support stewardship and fundraising efforts for Burlingame's parks and recreation system, such as with the Burlingame Parks and Recreation Foundation. EXISTING PARKS AND AMENITIES • Bayside Park (including Burlingame's Dog Exercise Park and Community Garden) • Murray Field • Burlingame Golf Center (under redevelopment) • Bay Trail • Robert E. Wooley State Park (owned by the State Lands Commission and leased by Embassy Suites) • Fisherman's Park State Park (owned by the State Lands Commission and maintained by County Parks). • Shorebird Sanctuary RECOMMENDATIONS A. Develop and implement a program to link the sites within the Bayfront Recreation Hub with a Bayfront identity, wayfinding elements, and San Francisco Bay -focused art elements. This includes better entry demarcation and gateways into each site. B. Enhance entry areas, entry monumentation/ gateways, and arrival experiences. C. Improve the appearance of the wastewater treatment plant with public art. Upgrade the Airport Boulevard parking lot and frontage, including adding recreation elements to the west of the driveway into the plant. Enhance the external facing walls of the treatment plant with art. Potential themes for artwork could include the San Francisco Bay ecosystem. D. Consider relocating the dog exercise area to the property along Airport Boulevard currently used for storage, allowing for increased visibility. E. Maintain the community garden and monitor demand for plots to determine the need for additional space. F. Strengthen pedestrian and bicycle connections among the Bayfront sites, including the pathway linking the Burlingame Golf Center and Murray Field. Develop a continuous pedestrian loop path with distance markers. G. Add more seating areas along the Bay Trail and develop stronger connections to the Bay Trail within the Recreation Hub, including pedestrian crossings from the Bay Trail access across Airport Boulevard. H. Retrofit parking lots with Bay -friendly Landscaping and improved pedestrian movement. I. Enhance operational efficiency at existing sports and active recreation facilities through LED lighting and field surfacing upgrades. J. Add active recreation elements that can fit into small spaces around the peripheries of existing features, such asfutsal courts, pickleball courts, ora climbing wall. Explore opportunities for: The edges of the Bayside Park parking lot, including in and around the roundabout. The hillside and path area leading to the Golf Center. K. Seek partnerships to provide access to water and water -based recreation opportunities. L. Add shaded seating areas throughout the recreation hub including seating with protection from the wind where warranted. 53 1 BURLINGAME PARKS MASTER PLAN CHAPTER FOUR I STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 54 • f ` O Wayfinding Elements Gateway Feature •# Beautify Treatment Plant Fagade •or ,q. '.Y�:i�.,�'gtr Yt».Y••rN , ..fi�r"-" .��M'I� �. -.nvu �M11'11p r1 ".A• :FLAY Irt.M' ,� °\"i Consider Relocating Dog Park 0 Establish Ped / Bicycle Crossings ' Retrofit Small Spaces Proposed Maintain Community Garden Expand Water Access Improve Ped / Bicycle Connections © Retrofit Parking Lot Add Shaded Seating Proposed Field Upgrades 55 1 BURLINGAME PARKS MASTER PLAN CHAPTER FOUR I STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 56 EXISTING PARKS AND AMENITIES • Washington Park (including picnic tables, tennis courts, a playground, baseball facilities, bocce ball, horseshoe pits, cornhole, walking paths, sports courts, and small gardens) • Burlingame Community Center (a new community center building will replace the existing one) • Lions Club Hall (City -owned but operated by the Burlingame Lions Club) • Burlingame Aquatic Center (owned and maintained bythe SMUHSD) RECOMMENDATIONS A. Continue implementing the Burlingame Community Center project as planned, the demolition of the existing Recreation Center, and the construction of the new Community Center and associated parking improvements. B. Use the materials and forms of the new Community Center as a palette for new buildings and structures within the park, such as picnic shelters, storage buildings, orfree-standing restrooms. C. Develop and implement a pedestrian circulation plan for Washington Park that creates a pathway hierarchy, improves ADA and universal access, develops a wayfinding strategy, and better connects the areas of the park and potentiallythe high school. D. Develop a Washington Park monument/entry sign or feature on the island at Burlingame Avenue and East Lane. E. Maintain and enhance the open lawn character of the park, including developing a better visual and pedestrian connection between the lawn fronting on Carolan Avenue and the new playground. Consider improving the bocce courts and horseshoe pits to increase pedestrian visibility and connection. F. Continue locating formal gardens and garden features in Washington Park and retain and enhance existing gardens. G. Add pickleball markings to some tennis courts. H. Convert field illumination to LED lights. I. Upgrade the parking lots and add EV charging stations and bicycle parking at activity hubs within the park, expanding on the enhancements that will occur with the Community Center project. J. Collaborate with community groups on a program to use public art to interpret Burlingame history within the park. K. Continue to work with the Burlingame Lions Club to integrate their Lions Club Hall into the park landscape. 57 1 BURLINGAME PARKS MASTER PLAN CHAPTER FOUR I STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 58 r1l AN �p X, EXISTING PARKS AND AMENITIES • Cuernavaca Park • Mills Canyon Wildlife Area • Skyline Park (new passive hillside park that allows off -leash dogs) RECOMMENDATIONS A. Continue implementing Skyline Park improvements. B. Strengthen pedestrian and bicycle connections between the Skyline, Cuernavaca, and Mills Canyon major entrances, connecting along Skyline Boulevard to Rivera, then along Rivera and Hunt to Cuernavaca Park, and along Escalante Way/Arguello to the Arguello trailhead at Mills Canyon. C. Provide greening along the Alcazar and Hunt frontages of Cuernavaca Park, while maintaining views of San Francisco Bay from surrounding properties. D. Develop a guiding master plan for Cuernavaca Park that considers the following improvements: Retain and continue reinvestment in the sports field. Renovate the landscape to replace sheared hedges with climate appropriate plantings. Implement a planting program for eucalyptus and othertree replacement consistent with Burlingame's tree replacement policy. Enhance screening to adjacent residential properties. Add more picnic areas and seating, including upgrading the tables underthe arbor adjacentto the playground. Consider a medium-sized reservable picnic area on the open lawn. Add a fenced -in off -leash dog area. Redesign the playground when playground replacement is needed to increase play value and capacity. Consider a hill slide and other features that take advantage of the park's topography. Add nature play elements. Add seating at the basketball court. Consider adding striping for pickleball and a bin for net storage. Add more shade strategically, being sure to retain views from and across the park. Upgrade the restroom. Add greening enhancements to the parking lot. Add bicycle parking. Maximize on -street parking adjacentto the parkfor park visitors. E. Enhance Mills Canyon Wildlife Area access points. Create a seating area, small nature play area, and enhanced trail sign with adjacent bicycle parking at the entrance from Arguello. Work with an artist to create Mills Canyon - inspired treatments along the narrow pedestrian accessways at Escalante/Arguello and Margarita Avenue, including a bollard or sign to demarcate the path. Improve the parking area atthe Adeline Drive access, including an enhanced trail sign and map. Evaluate the feasibility of a permanent restroom, including restroom alternatives such as a composting toilet (such as at Crystal Springs Golf Course or the Presidio's El Polin Spring). Explore securing access from the Mercy Center to Mills Canyon. F. Continue to monitor and maintain the hiking trails within Mills Canyon. Provide information about the challenge level of the trails online and at entry points. G. Develop and implement a natural resources management plan within the Canyon. 61 1 BURLINGAME PARKS MASTER PLAN CHAPTER FOUR I STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 62 0 I IL y 41 .00 4o�- • �'♦� � � "���_ t'•�LQ• � :ram' � ,�, �` "�. ILA i, ♦ .� ���._.� � �s � '� :�'� ,�` ,.•tea, • -; � ��_ 14 _all, AL a LAGUNA PARK • Replace the playground to include more features and types of play experiences. Layer in more uses and amenities for different age groups and abilities, such as outdoor fitness equipment and small picnic or seating areas. • Consider adding movable furniture to the lawn on the west side of the tennis courts. • Replace the lawn to the west of the tennis courts with an ecolawn or lawn alternative and native or pollinator plants to reduce mowing needs and increase ecological value. RAY PARK • Implement the planned ballfield improvements. • Add a fenced -in off -leash dog area. • Consider adding a loop trail and more shaded seating areas. VILLAGE PARK • Add nature play to the site, expanding on the play experiences offered bythe existing playground. • Add shade sails or a structure and more seating options between the court and the playground. • Add a soft -surface loop trail around the open lawn. • Enhance the entry from Eastmoor with a reconfigured and more welcoming entry sequence that includes a wider pathway with a curb cut from the accessible parking spot, updated park signs and landscaping, removal of chain link fencing around the entry point, and bicycle parking. PARK -LINKS • Work with Public Works to implement Park -links. 1MV ' Xj, ice`. . 65 1 BURLINGAME PARKS MASTER PLAN CHAPTER FOUR I STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 66 "," LOT PLAYGROUND • Redesign and expand to include more creative play experiences for children, additional seating and play options for teens and adults, and better linkages to Downtown businesses. PERSHING PARK • Add a permanent restroom. Add more shaded seating around the playground. PALOMA PLAYGROUND PARK -LINKS • Add more seating and art elements, potentially even Work with Public Works to implement Park -links. artist -designed benches or seat walls. HERITAGE PARK • Retain the less developed character of Heritage Park. • Add nature play elements and a more rustic picnic shelter. • Strengthen connections to the creek, such as an overlook or riparian plantings. • Expand pollinator and native plants on -site to enhance ecological value. 67 1 BURLINGAME PARKS MASTER PLAN CHAPTER FOUR I STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 68 ALPINE PARK • Redesign play area to be more compact with vertical play elements that have a smallerfall zone. Consider a disc swing instead of the swings. • Introduce artistic and sculptural elements to the site to create more interest. • Add a shelter structure and bicycle parking. • Replace lawn with ecolawn or drought -tolerant plantings. • Coordinate with Public Works to add curb extensions into select areas of the parking lane on Carolan Ave. to provide space for tree planting. TRENTON PLAYGROUND • Implement greening along Rollins Road, potentially within the street right-of-way, to allow the addition of more trees. Work with Public Works to explore curb extensions into Trenton Way or a planting island at the intersection of Trenton and Dwight with Rollins. • Enhance the sound wall along Highway 101. Consider art (a mural or an artist -designed enhancement) or additional plantings with visual interest in front of the sound wall, potentially adding tree wells along Rollins Road. • Replace the playground, creating a more layered urban park that incorporates social spaces and has appeal for more ages. Incorporate playfeatures that require less fall zone surfacing (such as spinners) to allow seating, shade structures, and other amenities to be incorporated into the park, rather than lined along the edges. • Consider small-scale features such as outdoor ping pong tables, climbing rocks, and exercise equipment. VICTORIA PARK • As the largest park within the Eastern Park Cluster, Victoria Park offers the greatest potential for enhanced recreation value. • Develop a plan for a complete park renovation that can be completed in phases. Use the guidance for park clusters in Chapter 3 when developing options forthis site, developing a design program that makes Victoria Park special. • Eliminate chain -link fencing. • Consider community gardens, adventure play elements, a large net climber, swings, picnic shelters, a small off -leash dog area, and a loop trail as additional amenities. • Add a permanent restroom. PARK -LINKS • Work with Public Works to implement Park -links. P II 69 1 BURLINGAME PARKS MASTER PLAN CHAPTER FOUR I STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 70 DOWNTOWN Downtown Burlingame is a vibrant area centered around a commercial corridor on Burlingame Avenue. "J" Lot Playground is the only public space in Downtown and is discussed as part of the Southern Park Cluster recommendations. The Burlingame community has long expressed interest in creating more gathering spaces in Downtown, and the public engagement efforts associated with this PMP underscore that desire. Downtown will continue to grow as an employment hub as well as a destination for both residents (including teens) and visitors. As the daytime and evening population in and around Downtown continues to grow, so will demand for public spaces. The following recommendations are consistent with the 2010 Downtown Specific Plan Open Space Recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Coordinate with Planning staff to identify opportunities for a signature open space in Downtown, such as a town square or green, through land dedication or acquisition (e.g., converting a City parking lot to an open space). B. Work with Planning staff and developers to ensure that new Downtown public spaces, including privately -owned public spaces, adhere to the goals and guidelines of this PMP. C. Convert a portion of Lot F to Lorton Park, a passive urban park with picnic and game tables. Ensure its amenities, design, public art, and features complement the J Lot and other Downtown public spaces. D. Advance efforts to implement the Southern Pacific Circle / Burlingame Square improvements. Review and revise the design concepts to ensure consistency with the goals and guidelines of this PMP. E. Enhance visual connections to Washington Park from Downtown and Burlingame Square. F. Add a signature feature, such as an interactive fountain or public art, to a Downtown park, playground, or public space. G. Identify opportunities to add seating, amenities, and programming to the City Hall Lawn and/or Civic Center Circle, potentially in coordination with the Library. 71 1 BURLINGAME PARKS MASTER PLAN CHAPTER FOUR I STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 72 BENITO TRIANGLE The tree grove at the intersection of Benito Avenue and Hale Drive (the Benito Triangle) is owned by the City of Burlingame. It is home to a small stand of mature redwood trees and is located within a residential neighborhood. This publicly owned site represents a unique opportunityto add to the City's parkland by adding appropriately scaled park amenities. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Ensure the protection of the redwoods. B. Engage nearby neighbors to develop and refine a plan for improvements to the Benito Triangle. Add seating and identify other context -appropriate amenities. Figure 14: Benito Triangle C. Identify long-term opportunities for pedestrian connections to Mills Canyon /the Hillside Recreation Hub and to the future southwestern hills park cluster. Explore a partnership with Mercy to allow public access across their site. D. Provide safe access to Benito Triangle. .•�''� Hale Drive I�js`•ii ,•%,.. � ''may ��O r•.I NORTH BURLINGAME MIXED -USE AREA The North Burlingame area is slated for new high -density, transit -oriented development that includes hundreds of residential units. As the area redevelops into Burlingame's densest neighborhood, new urban -style parks, amenities, and open space will be needed to meet the needs of this new community. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Plan for a sequence of linked urban spaces created as a part of new developments that include outdoor social spaces, ping pong tables and games, urban fenced off -leash areas, outdoor exercise equipment, small performance or event spaces, and play environments. Consider community gardens; courts for basketball, tennis/pickleball, or futsal; and a skatepark as options. C. Design spaces to support outdoor programming of various types (e.g., small concerts, fitness classes, movies, and outdoor landscape painting). D. Explore opportunities to work with the Mills - Peninsula Medical Center / Sutter Health and other large landowners on public space enhancements and programming. B. Provide safe routes for walking and biking that link E. Depending on growth and development, this area together public spaces and parks. may warrant a recreation hub rather than a park cluster. 73 1 BURLINGAME PARKS MASTER PLAN CHAPTER FOUR I STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 74 ROLLINS ROAD AREA The Rollins Road area has traditionally been an industrial neighborhood with very limited open space. Several private indoor and indoor/outdoor recreation amenities are located in this area. Going forward, the Rollins Road area will become home to a new mixed -use live -work neighborhood providing residential opportunities within walking distance to the Millbrae Intermodal (BART/Caltrain) station. The area further to the south will be primarily employment land with limited indoor recreational uses. Parks and open space are needed throughout Rollins Road to meet the needs of Rollins Road residents and employees. RECOMMENDATIONS A. As redevelopment occurs, work with Planning staff and developers to carefully site and program new privately -owned public spaces and/or dedicated parkland to create a network of complementary spaces that are connected by safe pedestrian and bicycle routes. B. Ensure new spaces are complementary and connected to the planned SummerHill Apartment Communities property. C. Explore the possibility of creating a north -south linear park in the utility easement. D. Site new parks and/or open space along Mills and Easton Creeks and the utility easement north of Mills Creek wherever possible. E. Create an interconnected system of trails and green spaces throughout the district. F. Tailor the park amenities to the live -work environment. Consider off -leash dog areas. Explore parks with access to refreshments, such as a public plaza adjacent to a coffee shop or restaurant or a public park with a food/beverage concessionaire. G. Consider indoor facilities such as a gymnasium or fieldhouse, potentially in partnership with a private or non-profit entity. SOUTHWESTERN BURLINGAME The existing western neighborhoods of Burlingame, including Easton Addition, are built out but lack local park access. Afuture park cluster is desirable in this area to provide close -to -home recreation opportunities. (See Figure 10.) RECOMMENDATIONS A. Explore partnerships with public property owners, such as the Central County Fire Department Station and public schools, to provide park amenities. B. Work with Public Works to explore right-of-way enhancements such as neighborhood -focused walking and biking routes and parklets. C. Explore opportunities with non-profit and private landowners forjoint use or public access. D. Proactively monitorthis area for willing seller property acquisition opportunities. 75 1 BURLINGAME PARKS MASTER PLAN CHAPTER FOUR I STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 76 Implementatimon The PMP sets forth a comprehensive direction for the enhancement of Burlingame's park system over the next 10 to 15 years. The keys to achieving the PMP vision are preparation and flexibility. Chapter 5 outlines how Burlingame can make the best use of opportunities presented to implement the PMP. BURLINGAME PARKS MASTER PLAN 1 78 79 PRIORITIZING PR03ECTSAND INITIATIVES Burlingame Parks Master Plan The recommendations presented in this PMP represent 10 to 15 years of enhancement and development of the parks and recreation system in Burlingame. Over this period, factors such as staff time, financial resources, and the actions of private landowners —some of which are outside of City control —will affect the timing of implementation. A key step is to develop a clear framework that articulates the status of a project or initiative. This framework is organized into three status categories: active, pending, and future. Active Projects and Initiatives Active projects and initiatives are those that are currently underway. Burlingame is constantly implementing enhancements. Those projects that are actively underway require continued community investment in staff time, consulting fees, or capital resources until completion. • Burlingame Golf Center redevelopment • Burlingame Community Center redevelopment, including associated Washington Park projects • Skyline Park development • Burlingame High School Pool renovations • Fitness Equipment on the Bayfront • Improvements at: Cuernavaca Park Mills Canyon Murray Field Paloma Park Village Park Washington Park Murray Park Ray Park Victoria Park Pending Projects and Initiatives Projects or initiatives in the "Pending" category are ready to move forward to a next step but require a commitment of capital dollars and staff time to make this happen. For example, a Pending project may be a site for which a master plan has been completed and that is awaiting resources for construction or implementation. Washington Park tennis court landscaping improvements • Ray Park Master Plan implementation • Burlingame Square (Southern Pacific Circle, by the Burlingame Train Station) Future Projects and Initiatives These are projects and initiatives that have not yet been started. Some are "conditional;' meaning that there is a triggering action that must occur and is outside the control of the City, such as the relocation of a large existing use or a redevelopment proposal in an area identified for a future park site. Future projects and initiatives are those discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 of this PMP that are not already active or pending. In addition, during the life of this plan, new projects and initiatives will almost certainly be proposed. Once vetted for consistency with the PMP, these will be added to the Future Projects and Initiatives list. • Lorton Park development • Adrian Court Park development • Ingold Park development Chapter Five I Implementation DECISION -MAKING CRITERIA Over the lifetime of this PMP, Burlingame will need to determine which projects and initiatives to move forward into the "Active" category. The decision -making criteria in this section are intended to help City staff and elected officials determine which projects and initiatives make the best use of resources available to move projects and initiatives forward, including capital and operating dollars along with workload capacity of Burlingame's staff. The criteria below will help Burlingame determine how to prioritize resources when projects or initiatives are considered for moving from eitherthe Future or Pending categories to Active. • Completes a phased project: Projects that represent the second orfinal phase of developmentfora new or existing park with an adopted site master plan should be considered a high priority to move forward. Funding availability: Projects or initiatives for which Burlingame has identified capital and operating funding sources should be moved to active status as capacity allows. An additional consideration is whetherthe costs are one-time or recurring. Multiple benefit projects or initiatives, those that advance the goals, projects, and directions of other City plans as well as the PMP, often have more sources forfunding. Reduces operating costs or generates revenue: Projects or initiatives that can create additional revenue, improve maintenance or operations efficiencies, and conserve water or reduce water usage should be given high priority to move forward. Time -limited opportunity: Opportunities arise, and often come with a time constraint, such as a property coming up for sale, a new residential or commercial development, or project being completed by another department or agency. Time -limited opportunities should be leveraged. 80 Partnership potential: Partnerships are an important aspect of Burlingame's approach to parks and recreation services. Those projects or initiatives with one or more partners who will help with implementation and/or ongoing operation should take precedence. • Quick win: Some projects can be quickly implemented, demonstrating results to the community. Providing quick wins keeps staff and the community motivated and invested while longerterm and more complicated projects are underway. Project complexity: Burlingame is a complex environment for moving projects forward. There is limited capacity to advance complicated projects at one time, which means Burlingame should consider project complexity and available staff capacity as part of the decision -making process. Burlingame Parks Master Plan Chapter Five I Implementation 82 FUNDING SOURCES There are a variety of funding sources available for parks and recreation, many of which are already used by Burlingame. Different funding sources have different limitations on use. • Capital improvement funding can be used for land acquisition, design, and construction, including new parks and facilities and expansion or renovation of existing parks and facilities. Operations funding supports ongoing services, such as maintenance, facility operations, recreation programming, events, marketing, and management. To implement PMP recommendations, Burlingame will need to diversify and increase both capital and operations funding. The City should increase existing sources of revenue where feasible and explore new sources. The tables on the following pages summarize funding sources and their potential uses. Table 3: Potential Funding Sources - Bonds Source Description Bonds General Obligation These are voter -approved bonds with the assessment placed on real property for a X Bonds specified period of time (usually 15-20 years). Passage of a General Obligation bond requires a two-thirds voter majority, a high bar that makes passage challenging. Revenue Bonds Revenue bonds are sold to finance revenue -generating facilities, such as community X centers, performing arts centers, and in some cases, sports complexes. The interest and capital are paid from the revenue produced from the operation of such a facility. Typically, the city issuing the bond will have to guarantee the repayment, meaning that if revenue does not cover the necessary payments, the city will be required to pay in some other way. 83 Burlingame Parks Master Plan Table 4: Potential Funding Sources - Taxes and Assessments Source Description 0 0 Taxes and Assessments General Fund The General Fund is the pool of unrestricted tax dollars and other revenues that a X X city uses to pay for most of the services it provides. General Funds are allocated in Burlingame's budgeting process, and dollars for park operations must compete with other City needs for limited resources. Within Burlingame's budget, the Leisure and Neighborhood Services portion of the General Fund includes the Aquatics Center, Library, and Parks and Recreation (including the Parks Division, Recreation Division, and Aquatics Division). Mello -Roos The Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 allows any county, city, special district, X X Community Facility school district, orjoint powers authority to establish a Mello -Roos Community Facilities District District ("CFD") to finance public improvements and services. Formation of a CFD requires a two-thirds vote of residents living within the proposed boundaries. If there are fewerthan 12 residents, then the vote is instead conducted of current landowners. The assessment is based on the size of the property or square footage of structures. By law, the CFD is also entitled to recover expenses needed to form the CFD and administer the annual special taxes and bonded debt. The special assessment continues until bonds are paid off and then is typically reduced to a level to maintain the investments. Landscaping The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 allows public agencies to create assessment X X and Lighting districts to fund improvements and operations for landscaping and lighting public areas, Assessment including parks and streets. Agencies can use the revenues incrementally or can sell Districts bonds to receive a lump sum, which would then be paid back with the annual revenues generated by the assessment. Establishing or revising a district requires a majority of property owners to vote in favor of establishing the district. Parcel Tax A parcel tax is a special tax on units of real property collected as part of a property tax bill. X X Unlike the property tax, the parcel tax cannot be based on property value. Establishing a parcel tax requires approval by two-thirds of voters. California cities, school districts, and special districts have increasingly sought approval of parcel taxes. In 2016, Los Angeles County voters approved Measure A, a parcel tax of 1.5 cents per square foot of structural improvements (buildings) to fund parks and recreation countywide, an example that many cities in California are looking at as a model approach. Chapter Five I Implementation Table 5: Potential Funding Sources - Development -Related Exactions 84 Source Description Development -Related Exactions Quimby Parkland The parkland dedication fee is authorized under the Quimby Act (California Government X Dedication and Code §66477), allowing cities to require that developers set aside land, donate In -Lieu Fees conservation easements, or pay fees in lieu of providing land as part of the land subdivision process. The land dedication orfee in lieu of dedication is calculated based on the city's service level in terms of acreage of park land per 1,000 residents. The Act establishes a maximum dedication requirement of five acres per 1,000, even if a city has a higher level of service. It also establishes a minimum, allowing cities to set Quimby requirements at three acres per 1,000 even if their service level is lower. The Quimby Act is a valuable funding mechanism in many California communities but is less applicable to Burlingame due to its built -out nature and the planned multi -family housing growth. Impact Fees An Impact Fee is a monetary exaction charged by a local governmental agency to an X applicant in connection with approval of development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of parkfacilities related to the proposed development project. The legal requirements for enactment of a development impact fee program are set forth in Government Code § 66000- 66025 (the "Mitigation Fee Act"), the bulk of which was adopted as 1987's Assembly Bill (AB)1600 and thus are commonly referred to as "AB 1600 requirements:' If a development impact fee does not relate to the impact created by development or exceeds the reasonable cost of providing the public service, then the fee may be declared a special tax and must then be subject to a two-thirds voter approval. These fees are collected at the time building permits are issued for new construction and are based on a measurable impact of additional people to the system. As part of the Parks Master Plan, Burlingame is evaluating and updating its park impact fees. 85 Table 6: Potential Funding Sources - User Fees Burlingame Parks Master Plan Source Description C.) 0 User Fees Facility -Use Facility charges generate revenue for parks by charging for the use of City faci I ities X X Charges (e.g., sport fields, picnic shelters, pool usage, open space access, and multi -purpose rooms at park facilities). These charges may cover direct costs generated by facility use, such as field lighting or trash removal. Rates may also beset higher to subsidize parks maintenance and address the long-term impacts of facility use. Programming Fees Userfees for recreation programming generate revenue by charging users for some or X X all of the costs of providing services and materials. Charges for programming are often based on a cost -recovery strategy or fee philosophy determined by the city. The fee philosophy or cost -recovery strategy may partially subsidize (with General Fund or other revenue) some types of programs due to their community benefit, while requiring others to fully recover their cost. Some communities charge higher fees for non-residents than for residents. Some programming fees also include built-in charges for facility use, maintenance, and even for ongoing capital reinvestment. Entry Fees Park entry fees, day -use fees, or parking fees are used by some larger jurisdictions to X X generate revenue for parks. These are more commonly seen at larger regional parks or for specialized facilities such as swimming pools or recreation centers, rather than at neighborhood and community parks. Some communities charge entry fees for certain special events. Concessions Food, beverage, and merchandise vendors or concessionaires that operate restaurants, X X coffee kiosks, rentals of equipment such as bicycles or kayaks, or provide other revenue -generating facilities or services in parks can also generate excess revenues to support the park system. The City can set-up specific arrangements with vendors and concessionaires for these services. Park Sponsorships The City may solicit sponsors who are willing to pay for advertising, signage, facility X X naming rights, etc., generating funds to support operations. In addition, sponsors are often sought to support a particular event or program. Miscellaneous Many cities and districts are evaluating a variety of opportunities to generate revenue X X Rentals and Leases in parks. For example, some agencies generate revenue from cellular phone towers or billboards on park land. Some agencies provide vendor pads with hookups, where food carts can be parked, offering a rental space rather than taking a portion of proceeds from vendor sales in a concessions agreement. Burlingame's contract with Topgolf is an example of a lease of a facility. Chapter Five I Implementation Table 7 Potential Funding Sources - Partnerships 86 Source Description Partnerships Interagency Partnerships between agencies are useful in terms of providing both facilities and Partnerships programs. For example, a joint -use agreement between a city and a school district sets out the conditions for public use of school fields and athletic facilities. Public/Private or This concept is increasingly popular for parks and recreation agencies. The public agency X X Public/Non-profit enters into a working agreement with a private corporation to help fund, build, and/or Partnerships operate a public facility. The public agency often will approach the partnership with one of three incentives: offering free land (often a park) on which the partner can place a facility, access to an existing facility, or certain tax advantages. Partnerships A city may craft agreements with various community organizations for park with Community improvements, operations, and maintenance. Many park agencies work with Organizations organizations to help develop facilities, such as dog parks, community gardens, bicycle trails, and conservation projects. Neighborhood groups can also fund projects, such as new playgrounds, sports organizations, sports field improvements, or maintenance. This type of partnership requires careful consideration and agreements to clarify roles and responsibilities. Volunteers Volunteers can increase the quality and quantity of public services at a minimal cost while providing an opportunity for citizens to contribute to community enhancement. Studies suggest that for every dollar invested in volunteers, a city can realize as much as $10 in benefits. With tight fiscal conditions, more local governments are expanding volunteer programs. These can include individuals or groups who agree to take on specific tasks or perform certain services, such as maintenance, restoration, programming, capital development, and special event support. Volunteers may provide direct and indirect support to the park system. 87 Table 8: Potential Funding Sources - Other Burlingame Parks Master Plan Source Description C.) 0 Other Private Grants and Grants and foundations provide money for a wide range of projects and make awards X X Foundations based on criteria related to their mission and funding priorities. Public agencies are often not eligible for funding from these sources, but registered nonprofits are eligible. In some cities, parks conservancies orfriends groups pursue private funding. Under the right circumstances, foundations may provide funding assistance for larger capital improvement projects or specific programs, such as specialized facilities that are consistent with their mission statement and philanthropic values. Shared Facilities In some situations, other services provided in the city, or in private utilities, may be able X X to share the cost of improvements that would benefit the parks, recreation, and natural areas system. One example is utility corridors; in many cases, land used for sanitary sewer, water, or power lines may make an excellent trail corridor. Community These grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development are available for X Development Block a wide variety of projects, in areas of the community that are low or moderate income. Grants (CDBG) Grants can cover up to 100% of project costs. Government Grant The federal and state governments offer a variety of grant programs for parks and a a Programs recreation projects. Available grant programs change regularly; potential applicants _0 _0 should monitorfederal and state agencies forforthcoming grant opportunities. Grants a 0 are not a sustainable or reliable source of funding and should not be relied upon. When _0 _0 available, however, grants can be used to augment other funding sources. The following o 0 is a partial list of federal and state grant programs that fund parks and recreation CD c) projects: National Park Service: Land and Water Conservation Funds U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The California Parks and Recreation Department: Recreation Trails Program The California Office of Grants and Local Services: Habitat Conservation Fund California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Bicycle Funds The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans): Transportation Development Act Funds California Statewide Park Bonds Bay Area Quality Management District: Transportation Funding for Clean Air Chapter Five I Implementation Table 8: Potential Funding Sources - Other Continued 88 Source Description Other Continued Public Land Trusts Land trusts such as the Trust for Public Land, Inc. and the Nature Conservancy will X acquire and hold land for eventual acquisition by a public agency or community land trust. These private and nonprofit organizations can also assist local agencies in identifying land for protection, as well as help raise funds through charitable campaigns and legislative orvoter initiatives to acquire open space lands. Donations The donations of cash, land, or in -kind services by service agencies, private groups, or X X individuals can be an effective way to raise money for specific projects. The Burlingame Parks and Recreation Foundation, a non-profit, 501(c)(3) group, is set up to take tax-deductible donations. Exchange of If the City has an excess piece of property with some development value, it could be X Property traded for a private piece of property more suitable for park use. 91 Table 9: Action Plan Burlingame Parks Master Plan .. ll(s) Service Area Action 1-8 Citywide Update the list of Active and Pending Projects on an Annual Basis using the PMP decision -making criteria 5 Future Park Clusters Monitor land use activity and seek park improvements when development is proposed in growth areas. Monitor Downtown for opportunities to secure park land. 5 Downtown 2 Citywide Monitor opportunities for new facilities. 3,6 Citywide Continue to evolve and innovate in sustainable maintenance and operations practices. 1 Citywide Complete all Active projects 8 Citywide Update impact fees. 2 Civic Recreation Hub Develop expanded programming forthe new Community Center. 1, 3, 4 Hillside Recreation Hub Develop Master Plan for Cuernavaca Park and an implementation program. Implementation of the plan will occur in the 5+yeartimeframe. 1, 4 Bayfront Recreation Hub Develop a Bayfront wayfinding program and implement priority enhancements. Additional implementation will occur in the 5+ years timeframe. 1 Eastern Park Cluster Develop a park renovation plan for Victoria Park and install a new play structure. Complete the plan in the 5+ years timeframe. 1 Southern Park Cluster Add a permanent restroom to Pershing Park. 1 Northern Park Cluster Develop a park renovation plan for Village Park. Implementation of the plan will occur in the 5+yeartimeframe. 1,8 Citywide Secure funding for Pending projects to move them to Active status. 1-8 Citywide Use PMP decision -making criteria to move projects from Future to Active status. 4 Citywide Work with Public Works to implement low cost, quick win park -links enhancements. Chapter Five I Implementation 92 Lead Potential Partners 1-3 Years 3-5 Years 5+ Years Ongoing P&R Public Works, School Districts, community X organizations J_ P&R, Community X Development P&R, Community X Development P&R User groups, private operators X P&R, Public Community organizations, community X Works members P&R Public Works, School Districts, community X organizations City Council, Community X Development P&R X P&R Public Works, user groups, community X X members P&R Public Works X X P&R Public Works, user groups, community X X members P&R Public Works, Community Development X P&R Public Works, user groups, community X members P&R X P&R X Public Works, X P&R 93 Table 9: Action Plan Continued Burlingame Parks Master Plan .. ll(s) Service Area Action 2 Citywide Develop and evaluate pilot recreation programs and events to test new formats and program approaches that address needs identified in the PMP. 4 Citywide Work with Public Works on higher cost, more complex park -links enhancements, such as crossing improvements. 2 Civic Recreation Hub Prioritize and complete additional upgrades to the pedestrian path system in Washington Park. Design and implement Mills Canyon Wildlife Area access points and trail 1, 3, 4 Hillside Recreation Hub enhancements. 1, 4 Bayfront Recreation Hub Develop and implement a park renovation plan for Bayside Park. 1 Eastern Park Cluster Develop a park renovation plan for Trenton Park. 1,3 Southern Park Cluster Develop a park improvement plan for Heritage Park that highlights its connections to nature and the creek. 1 Northern Park Cluster Develop a park renovation plan for Laguna Park. Chapter Five I Implementation P&R I User groups, community members 94 I In' 1 11 r, -M 1-3Years 3-5Years 5+Years Ongoing X X Public Works, X P&R Public Works, user groups, community P&R X members P&R User groups, community members X P&R User groups, community members X P&R User groups, community members X P&R X P&R User groups, community members X ;77" fop F ,•� ♦ �. '' .:" r� •( � ,�" * ns�. ' III' Yid I I I I '�� I� � j ",...> � �' ��� ► ; 1 .� P A 97 Burlingame Parks Master Plan Table 10: Inventory of Parks and Recreational Facilities, 2019 DEVELOPED PARKS Alpine Playground 831 Alpine and Carolan Ave 0.10 1 Bayside Park 1125 Airport Blvd 36.00 5 2 1 Cuernavaca Park 3051 Alcazar Drive at Hunt Dr 5.00 1.5 1 Heritage Park 1575 Ralston at Occidental Ave 0.40 "J" Lot Playground 248 Primrose Rd 0.05 1 Laguna Park 1414 Laguna Ave 0.50 1 Murray Field 250 Anza Blvd 20.60 1 Paloma Playground Paloma Ave and 1328 Edgehill Dr 0.10 1 Pershing Park 138 Crescent Dr at Newlands Ave 1.10 1 1 Ray Park 1525 Balboa Ave at Deveroux Dr 5.90 1 1 Shorebird Sanctuary Bayshore Highway at Mills Creek 2.00 Trenton Playground 600 Trenton Way and Rollins Rd 0.10 1 Victoria Park 30 Howard Ave 0.90 0.5 1 Village Park 1535 California Dr 1.90 1 1 2 Washington Park 850 Burlingame Ave at Carolan Ave 18.90 1 1 1 3 1 DEVELOPED PARKS TOTAL 93.55 NATURAL PARK AREAS Mills Canyon Wildlife Area Arguello at Sebastian 34.50 Skyline Park 1672 Skyline Blvd 3.30 NATURAL PARK AREAS TOTAL 37.80 STATE LAND COMMISSION Robert E. Woolley State Park 111 Anza Blvd 1.76 Fisherman's Park 350 Airport Blvd 0.70 STATE LAND COMMISSION TOTAL 2.46 Appendix A 98 M m L Q V i L lC �+ O L 7 X C d Q M N ++ C Z N_ • v m E R C O ii VN C Z N CC y o � w s cC U 0 c E E c ii LL LL (.i' J —1a a a r, � C L C R C M d O E LL d i d d m Wo m o v! v� N d tr_ lQ C rL i ° QiLL .Ci Mo O Nr NMG a 3 m o W vn H > ..................... ..................... r NATURAL PARK AREAS STATE LAND COMMISSION 1 1 1 BVRLrk11Cp. E AGENDA NO: 10b STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: January 21, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 21, 2020 From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager — (650) 558-7243 Syed Murtuza, Public Works Director — (650) 558-7230 Subject: Discussion of Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Operational and Governance Options Administrative Draft Report RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council discuss the Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District (BHSMD) Operational and Governance Options Administrative Draft Report and provide feedback. BACKGROUND Last year, Supervisor Pine commissioned a study to evaluate current BHSMD services and the fiscal viability of the district including operational and governance options that would create efficiencies. The objective of the study is to improve the cost effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of sewer services and other public services in Burlingame Hills and nearby unincorporated areas. Berkson Associates performed the study. As the report indicates, the BHSMD provides sewer services to the unincorporated area of Burlingame Hills and is operated by the County's Department of Public Works. The County also provides other municipal services to Burlingame Hills, such as planning and code enforcement. Although the San Mateo County Fire Department has jurisdictional authority and is responsible for structural fire protection and rescue services in the County unincorporated areas, the Central County Fire Department (CCFD) serves as the first responder for fire and emergency medical services due to the proximity of Station 35 to the Burlingame Hills unincorporated area. (The County does not provide funding to CCFD for this purpose.) In addition to receiving potable (drinking) water services from the City, the Burlingame Hills residents use the City's recreation and library facilities. DISCUSSION According to the report, the BHSMD needs an estimated $12.7 million of capital improvements; funding these improvements, plus annual operations, could lead to rate increases of 100% for BHSMD ratepayers. (The current annual rate is $1,675 per unit.) The capital improvements are currently programmed over a ten-year period beginning in FY 2020-21. The report notes that current and future ratepayer costs are high due to the following: 1 Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District January 21, 2020 • The sewer system is relatively small; there is a limited customer base; and there is an absence of commercial uses to help absorb costs. • The area's hilly topography and high proportion of sewer lines in easements on private property increase costs of maintenance and improvement. • The aging system was built in the 1940's and has only recently has been undergoing significant upgrades. The study evaluates three options, which are noted on page vi of the attached draft report. Additional details on each option are provided later in the report. The three options are: Option 1: Status Quo Service Provider — Burlingame Hills (and two other unincorporated areas) remain unincorporated, governed by the County of San Mateo Board of Supervisors, and BHSMD's sewer services continue to be managed by the County Department of Public Works (DPW) as a County -dependent district governed by the Board of Supervisors. No changes in current property tax allocations are assumed. Option 2: BHSMD remains until BHSMD completes capital improvements, then annexation and BHSMD dissolution/merger with the City — BHSMD remains intact and County -operated until BHSMD completes the estimated $12.7 million of needed high priority capital improvements, currently estimated in FY 2029-30. Upon completion of the improvements, annexation of Burlingame Hills would occur and BHSMD would be dissolved; the City would be the successor agency to all functions, assets, and liabilities of BHSMD, and may create a sewer "zone" specific to Burlingame Hills for financing purposes. Option 3: Annexation of Burlingame Hills to the City and BHSMD dissolution with County participation in funding for City completion of capital improvements — The City annexes Burlingame Hills (and two other unincorporated areas) and BHSMD would simultaneously be dissolved and merged with the City's sewer services. The County, in addition to Burlingame Hills sewer ratepayers, would be responsible for participating in funding the estimated $12.7 million of needed capital improvements to be completed by the City. Funds for improvements will not be subsidized by pre -annexation City of Burlingame sewer customers or by the City. The City may create a sewer "zone" specific to Burlingame Hills. In Supervisor Pine's attached letter transmitting the report, he states his belief that "the Burlingame Hills should be incorporated into the City of Burlingame but not until the identified sewer system upgrades have been completed." Supervisor Pine further explains: As the report makes clear, annexation would align with good governance principles, yield economic efficiencies, and correct jurisdictional anomalies. Assuming we find a viable financial mechanism to address the necessary sewer infrastructure upgrades, Option 2 will relieve the Burlingame Hills residents of significant future rate increases, and link them officially to the community of which they currently feel a part. Meanwhile, the City of Burlingame can be kept financially whole and in fact quite likely end up in a net positive fiscal position." Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District January 21, 2020 The report notes that the City of Burlingame may benefit financially from annexing the BHSMD parcels and other, smaller unincorporated areas depending on the outcome of property tax negotiations, the addition of property value, and the ability to spread City costs over a larger base. Staff Comments City staff provided quite a bit of information to Berkson Associates for their use in preparing the report and agrees that the basic details with respect to many City services, including Police, Parks and Recreation, Library, and Community Development, are accurate. Unfortunately, because this is a high-level review of the BHSMD, it is lacking in certain detail. For example, the report notes that "in past years, portions of the BHSMD sewer system have failed due to multiple factors including grease, other non-flushable items, and tree roots, and these issues contributed to sanitary sewer overflows." According to Public Works staff, however, there are other causes including a lack of maintenance of upper laterals, inflow/infiltration, and a high probability of illegal connections to upstream sewer laterals because they are not maintained by the County. The report identifies $12.7 million of needed high priority improvements, but it is not clear what year this number is tied to, nor whether it includes all planning, engineering design, construction, inspection, and construction management costs associated with the high priority projects or the costs of overall system improvements. Additionally, the report does not include information regarding potential liabilities to the City of Burlingame associated with each of the identified options. The report provides three options, two of which result in the City's annexation of the BHSMD area. Staff notes that under Option 2, a comprehensive and independent evaluation of the system would need to be done to assess the integrity of the system and associated costs and liabilities in order to determine whether the system is ready for City annexation. Under Option 3, staff is concerned about the City accepting liability without the benefit of any improvements and without the benefit of a comprehensive study of the impacts to existing Burlingame ratepayers, the maintenance costs, and the associated resources required. Under both options, staff is concerned about the impact on City staff resources, which are already constrained. "Staff is also concerned that the report's projected impact on the City's General Fund does not adequately account for the increased costs of services to the annexed areas." In the area of road maintenance, the City and County have different standards for roadways, which would present some challenges for maintenance. The County has narrow roads without sidewalks and pedestrian infrastructure as well as inadequate street lights. This could present a liability to the City. In addition, maintaining a roadway system in a hilly terrain is difficult and costly. Although the City also has hilly areas, the roadway system also includes flat areas and wider streets with sidewalks and pedestrian lighting. Finally, in the area of storm drains and storm water management and state mandated regulatory provisions, staff believes that the BHSMD area does not have adequate storm drain protection infrastructure such as proper drainage inlets and pipes. Due to steep terrain, access to the infrastructure for maintenance purposes is likely to be difficult and costly. Staff is concerned about increased liability in taking on the storm drain infrastructure as well as the staff time required to build and maintain this infrastructure. Furthermore, the City would be responsible for ensuring 3 Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District January 21, 2020 compliance with state mandated storm water regulations, which would substantially impact current staffing resources. Council Comments In transmitting the report to the City Council and City staff, Supervisor Pine's staff requested that the City send them any corrections or feedback before January 24 (the deadline was extended from January 17 to allow the City Council an opportunity to review and comment on the report). Supervisor Pine's office will consolidate any feedback received and provide it to Berkson Associates, who will prepare a public circulation draft. Supervisor Pine's office will then work with Mayor Beach, City staff, and Burlingame Hills leadership on next steps. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this review. Significant staff time would be required should the City and County pursue either Option 2 or Option 3 in the future. Exhibits: • Supervisor Pine transmittal letter • Administrative Draft Report 4 HALL OF JUSTICE AND RECORDS 400 COUNTY CENTER REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 DAVE PINE Supervisor, First District San Mateo County December 19, 2019 TEL: (650) 363-4571 E-MAIL: dpine@smcgov.org To: Mayor Beach and the Burlingame City Council Burlingame City Manager Lisa Goldman Steve Epstein, President, Burlingame Hills Improvement Association San Mateo County has dozens of land areas that are outside of the County's 20 incorporated cities. On the bay side of the County, these areas are spread out in a patchwork of non-contiguous islands. The County provides the residents of these areas with services that are typically provided by cities such as road maintenance, sewer systems, police and fire services, and planning and building review. It is an inherently inefficient arrangement for the County to manage the delivery of municipal services in these areas. It is from that perspective that I commissioned the attached study entitled "Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District: Operational and Governance Options." The Burlingame Hills area — adjacent to the City of Burlingame and sharing a school district, a zip code, and library, parks and recreation services with city residents — is one of these unincorporated pockets. Complicating the situation, the sewer system for the Burlingame Hills is served by a special district, the Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District (BHSMD), which assesses its own fees from the 439 equivalent residential units in its purview. The County has 10 similar special sewer districts, all of which, other than the Fair Oaks Sewer Maintenance System, serve only a relatively small number of homes. This fragmented series of special sewer districts limits opportunities for economies of scale and increases operating and capital expenses. The study, independently conducted by Richard Berkson of Berkson Associates, specifically examines the economic costs and fiscal impacts of three potential governance and service options for how municipal services, particularly sewer services, might be provided to the residents of the Burlingame Hills. Mr. Berkson carefully reviewed multiple sets of data and historical documents, spoke with key stakeholders, and examined revenue and expense estimates to arrive at his findings. While Mr. Berkson maintains neutrality in his presentation, we can draw several conclusions from the data he presents: 1. It is imperative that the BHSMD complete the estimated $12.7 million worth of infrastructure work as soon as possible. 2. Assuming the BHSMD is transferred in good condition, the fiscal impacts on the City of Burlingame annexing the Burlingame Hills are essentially break-even, but could be net positive depending on the outcome of tax -sharing negotiations between the City and the County that would take place should an annexation proposal move forward. 3. Conducting a thorough analysis of this unincorporated pocket revealed several jurisdictional anomalies that can now be corrected, and one can assume that such anomalies exist elsewhere in the County. 4. The inherent inefficiency in providing municipal services to residents in far flung unincorporated pockets could be mitigated if these pockets were to be annexed by adjacent cities. 5. Annexation makes sense for good governance and for creating complete, and whole, communities. I believe that the Burlingame Hills should be incorporated into the City of Burlingame but not until the identified sewer system upgrades have been completed. This approach is described in Option 2 in the study, where annexation (including the dissolution of the BHSMD and its merger with the City) would occur after the required capital improvements are finished. As the report makes clear, annexation would align with good governance principles, yield economic efficiencies, and correct jurisdictional anomalies. Assuming we find a viable financial mechanism to address the necessary sewer infrastructure upgrades, Option 2 will relieve the Burlingame Hills residents of significant future rate increases, and link them officially to the community of which they currently feel a part. Meanwhile, the City of Burlingame can be kept financially whole and in fact quite likely end up in a net positive fiscal position. The study, which is now in administrative draft form, will be updated to reflect input from the City of Burlingame and the Burlingame Hills Improvement Association in order to correct any factual inaccuracies. In addition, Mr. Berkson is available to meet with you if you would like to discuss the study. While annexation is complicated and difficult to accomplish, I believe it has the potential to benefit both the City of Burlingame and the Burlingame Hills and needs to be carefully considered with an open mind. Page 2 of 3 Should you have any questions, please contact Michael Barber or Linda Wolin of my office at (650) 363-4571. Regards, Dave Pine San Mateo County Supervisor, District 1 Page 3of3 Berkson Associates Urban Economics 'Policy Forensics & Forecasting Planning & Policy Analysis ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT REPORT BURLINGAME HILLS SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT (BHSMD) OPERATIONAL AND GOVERNANCE OPTIONS Prepared by BERKSON ASSOCIATES December 5, 2019 richard@berksonassociates.com 1 510.612.6906 1 www.berksonassociates, com TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. INTRODUCTION II. OVERVIEW OF BHSMD & OTHER STUDY AREAS BHSMD Other Unincorporated Areas III. CURRENT SERVICE PROVIDERS AND SERVICES General Government Sewer Water Sheriff Protection Fire Protection Planning and Building Roads Stormwater Street Lighting Solid Waste Schools Other Services IV. BHSMD REVENUES Property Tax Service Charges V. BHSMD EXPENDITURES Operations Debt Service Other Appropriations VI. BURLINGAME HILLS SEWER BUDGET FORECAST Forecast Assumptions Budget Forecast Table of Contents Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 iv 1 3 4 4 6 6 6 10 10 11 13 14 15 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 20 20 21 22 23 23 26 VI I. OPTION 1: STATUS QUO SERVICE PROVIDER Impacts on Sewer Service Rates Fiscal Impacts Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 28 28 28 VI II. OPTION 2: BHSMD REMAINS UNTIL BHSMD COMPLETES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, THEN ANNEXATION AND BHSMD DISSOLUTION/MERGER WITH THE CITY 29 Impacts on Sewer Service Rates 29 Changes in Service Providers 30 Impacts on Other Rates and Charges to Residents 35 Fiscal Impacts on the City of Burlingame 37 Fiscal Impacts on the County of San Mateo 42 IX. OPTION 3: ANNEXATION TO THE CITY AND BHSMD DISSOLUTION WITH COUNTY PARTICIPATION IN FUNDING FOR CITY COMPLETION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 45 Impacts on Sewer Service Rates 46 Changes in Service Providers 48 Impacts on Other Rates and Charges 48 Fiscal Impacts on the City of Burlingame 49 Fiscal Impacts on the County of San Mateo 49 APPENDIX A — COMPARISON OF LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS APPENDIX B — SEWER RATE ESTIMATES AND COMPARISONS APPENDIX C — BURLINGAME FISCAL IMPACT ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY APPENDIX D —CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND FUNDING - BHSMD GOVERNANCE OPTIONS BUDGET FORECAST APPENDIX E — PARCELS REQUIRING REVISIONS TO PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATIONS Table of Contents FIGURES AND TABLES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE S-1 COMPARISON OF GOVERNANCE AND SERVICE OPTIONS II. OVERVIEW OF BHSMD & OTHER PROJECT AREAS FIGURE II-1 BHSMD GOVERNANCE OPTIONS STUDY AREAS TABLE II-1 SUMMARY OF STUDY AREAS Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 vi i 3 4 III. CURRENT SERVICE PROVIDERS AND SERVICES FIGURE III-1 LOCATION OF CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE STATION #35 (BURLINGAME) 12 FIGURE III-2 COUNTY -MAINTAINED ROADS IN BURLINGAME HILLS 15 TABLE III-1 SUMMARY OF CURRENT STUDY AREA SERVICE PROVIDERS 7 TABLE III-2 SUMMARY OF BHSMD BUDGET 9 TABLE III-3 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF CALLS TO BURLINGAME HILLS 10 TABLE III-4 FIRE INCIDENTS AND RESOURCES DISPATCHED TO BURLINGAME HILLS 12 TABLE III-5 PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPT. PERMIT ACTIVITY - BURLINGAME HILLS 13 IV. BHSMD REVENUES FIGURE IV-1 COMPARISON OF MONTHLY SEWER RATES 18 VI. BURLINGAME HILLS SEWER BUDGET FORECAST TABLEVI-1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS—BHSMD 26 TABLE VI-2 SEWER BUDGET FORECAST— BHSMD STATUS QUO SERVICE PROVIDER OPTION 27 VIII. OPTION 2: BHSMD REMAINS UNTIL BHSMD COMPLETES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, THEN ANNEXATION AND BHSMD DISSOLUTION/MERGER WITH THE CITY TABLE VIII-1 SUMMARY OF RATES AND CHARGES - STATUS QUO VS. ANNEXATION 36 TABLE VIII-2 SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACTS OF ANNEXATION ON THE CITY 38 TABLE VI I I-3 PROPERTY TAXES SUBJECT TO NEGOTIATION (FY18-19) 40 TABLE VIII-4 SUMMARY OF COUNTY OF SAN MATEO PROPERTY TAX REDUCTIONS DUE TO ANNEXATION (NET OF ERAF) 43 IX. OPTION 3: ANNEXATION TO THE CITY AND BHSMD DISSOLUTION WITH COUNTY PARTICIPATION IN FUNDING FOR CITY COMPLETION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TABLE IX-1 SEWER BUDGET FORECAST —ANNEXATION AND BHSMD DISSOLUTION/MERGER WITH THE CITY 47 Table of Contents Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Study reviews the fiscal, operational and governance options for two small and distinct unincorporated San Mateo County "islands" within the sphere of influence of the City of Burlingame, in addition to the Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District (BHSMD). The Study's objective is to find options that are fiscally sound and provide efficient operations and good governance. In past years portions of the Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District's (BHSMD) aging sewer system have failed due to multiple factors including grease, other non-flushable items, and tree roots, and these issues contributed to sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). While the County has worked diligently to make needed repairs and replace the aging pipes, the District faces significant improvement costs that must be borne by a relatively small customer base. The primary financial issue is how to fund large costs for sewer capital improvements relative to a fairly small unincorporated residential neighborhood. This significant issue applies in all options reviewed in this study; none of the options can eliminate the estimated $12.7 million of required capital costs' without adequate funding. The study estimates potential burdens for ratepayers to fully fund the estimated $12.7 million, however, the specific manner of financing, for example County participation in funding and re -allocation of property taxes as part of annexation tax share agreement negotiations, could reduce rate impacts. LAFCO Terms and Conditions and the tax share agreement can specify the disposition of current property taxes and their continued (or interim) use for sewer services and infrastructure for the former BHSMD area within a City sewer service zone. The fiscal impacts on the City's budget are essentially break-even and could be enhanced, depending on the outcome of County -City tax sharing negotiations that will occur if annexation proceeds. The study indicates that operational and governance options could provide services in a more efficient and effective manner given the proximity of City service providers; the potential savings and service improvements are contingent on the staffing and cost structure of the City and its ability and capacity to serve a larger population and area. Potential economies of scale due to merger with City operations could help mitigate Burlingame Hills sewer rate increases attributable to operating costs; these savings could result from Option 3 upon annexation and merger of BHSMD with the City, and Option 2 following annexation and merger of BHSMD after completion of capital improvements. ' Wastewater Collection System Capacity Assurance Plan and Master Plan Update, Final Technical Memorandum, Brown and Caldwell, June 24, 2011. Note: County DPW has budgeted approximately $1 million towards these costs in FY20, reducing the estimated $12.7 million in future years. iv Executive Summary Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 During the course of preparing the Study, the author identified a number of parcel property tax discrepancies; these parcels are under review by the County and adjustments are being made to reconcile and correct for required changes (see APPENDIX Q. The discrepancies were an outcome of past parcel annexations to the City. CURRENT SERVICE PROVIDERS AND SERVICES BHSMD provides sewer services to the unincorporated area of Burlingame Hills; the District is operated by the County of San Mateo's Department of Public Works, which manages nine other small sewer systems throughout the County. The two additional unincorporated areas under review are outside BHSMD boundaries, and with the exception of two parcels, these areas are not served by the District. Other municipal public services to the areas generally are the County's responsibility, although fire protection services are largely the responsibility of the first responder, Central County Fire, a JPA that includes the City of Burlingame (the "City"), due to station proximity. Burlingame Hills residents are an integral part of the Burlingame community, and utilize City recreation and library facilities. CHAPTER III describes current services in greater detail. BURLINGAME HILLS SEWER BUDGET FORECAST The need to repair and replace BHSMD sewer lines is likely to increase sewer rates to BHSMD customers. Depending on the timing of the estimated $12.7 million of priority capital improvements and type of financing, annual rates to BHSMD ratepayers for operations and capital could increase 100% compared to current annual rates of $1,675 per unit. The study estimates potential burdens on Burlingame Hills sewer ratepayers to fund the estimated $12.7 million, however, the specific manner of financing and funding from other sources could reduce impacts on rates. Current and future ratepayer costs are high due to: • the relatively small size of the sewer system, limited customer base and absence of commercial uses to help absorb costs • the area's hilly topography and high proportion of sewer lines in easements on private property increases costs of maintenance and improvement • an aging BHSMD system built in the 1940's that only recently has been undergoing significant upgrade Without substantial investment, the system will be prone to ongoing risk of failure, sewage spills, and resulting clean-up, repair, fines and litigation costs. Executive Summary Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 Service and governance options could provide efficiencies to facilitate improvements and minimize future operating costs, however residents of Burlingame Hills face major capital improvement costs regardless of how sewer services and capital improvements are provided. All options summarized below assume the need for completion of the estimated $12.7 million of priority capital improvements funded by ratepayers although the impact on rates depend on further analysis, additional funding sources, and annexation negotiations. SUMMARY OF OPTIONS The study evaluated three options summarized below. In all options, the estimated $12.7 million of needed capital improvements are shown as funded and completed. • Option 1: Status Quo Service Provider- Burlingame Hills (and two other unincorporated areas) remain unincorporated, governed by the County of San Mateo Board of Supervisors, and BHSMD's sewer services continue to be managed by the County Department of Public Works (DPW) as a County -dependent district governed by the Board of Supervisors. No changes in current property tax allocations are assumed. • Option 2: BHSMD remains until BHSMD completes capital improvements, then annexation and BHSMD dissolution/merger with the City — BHSMD remains intact and County -operated until BHSMD completes the estimated $12.7 million of needed capital improvements. Upon completion of the improvements, annexation of Burlingame Hills would occur and BHSMD would be dissolved; the City would be the successor agency to all functions, assets and liabilities of BHSMD, and may create a sewer "zone" specific to Burlingame Hills for financing purposes. • Option 3: Annexation of Burlingame Hills to the City and BHSMD dissolution with County participation in funding for City completion of capital improvements -- The City annexes Burlingame Hills (and two other unincorporated areas) and BHSMD would simultaneously be dissolved and merged with the City's sewer services. The County, in addition to Burlingame Hills sewer ratepayers, would be responsible for participating in funding the estimated $12.7 million of needed capital improvements to be completed by the City. Funds for improvements will not be subsidized by pre -annexation City of Burlingame sewer customers or by the City. The City may create a sewer "zone" specific to Burlingame Hills. vi Executive Summary Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 Table S-1 Comparison of Governance and Service Options Governance and Service Option I ...........................................................................................(............. I ................ _................................ ..... ._........ .._............. ....... ............................................................................................. € OPTION 3 OPTION 2 Annexation to City, BHSMD OPTION 1 BHSMD completes improvements, dissolved & merged w/City, County Status Quo Service Provider (County then annexation & BHSMD helps fund completion of Item of San Mateo) dissolution/merger w/City I improvements by City _...................... } .. I.......}. ._...._...._.........._._.............._._........._........... I ...._, ..................._........._.........._............ _ ..................... Governance & No change; BHSMD dependent on Status Quo until improvements are IBurlingame City Council to govern Representation ed. of Supervisors. Burlingame Hills Icompleted and annexation/merger I IBurlingame Hills and merged sewer voters are about 1% of District 1 occurs; then the same as Option 3. -system, about 4.7% of City voters. voters. I Sewer Service ®_No I change to management by San Status Quo until improvements are E !City would assume responsibility for Management & ,Mateo County Public Works (BHSMD completed and annexation/merger I fall aspects of sewer operations & Operation I is 1 of 10 DPW districts). Collection, ,occurs; then the same as Option 3. I €could create Burlingame Hills sewer treatment & disposal by @`zone (or subsidiary district) for Burlingame billed to BHSMD. j ;separate rates and capital charges. I Sewer Service Costs I Rate increases required to fund ISame as Status Quo - rate increases Irequired to fund I (Rate increases in Burlingame Hills to fund 9 and Rates needed priority capital needed priority !required needed priority improvements and capital reserves. (capital improvements and capital ! capital improvements and capital Long -Term Financial i Ireserves. I 'reserves, supplemented by County Sustainability of Sewer System Following completion of Ip (participation in funding of I Eimprovements. ! improvements and ! I (dissolution/merger w/City, possible (Possible operations & overhead operations & overhead efficiencies I €efficiencies could help fund could help fund transition costs and ! !transition costs and reduce rate reduce rate impacts. However, City i impacts. However, City currently has currently has minimal staff capacity, I minimal staff capacity, reducing reducing potential savings. I !potential savings. _ County Fire Quo improvements are `Central County Fire (JPA cities of Fire Protection I No change. services via I (CAL FIRE, although Central County I IStatus until 1completed and annexation/merger IBurlingame & Hillsborough) provide (Fire (CityJPA) is primary responder. j ,occurs; then the same as Option 3. 'fire services ....._................................................................................... Other Services ...... .................... _..... ....... ..................... ....... No change. Services continue to be ...... ..................... ............I..................... _......................... Status Quo until improvements are I (City of Burlingame responsible for provided by County depts & other completed and annexation/merger I (municipal services. public agencies. I ,occurs; then the same as Option 3. Impacts on City of 3No impact. I Status Quo until improvements are INo impact from sewer-- funded by Burlingame j Icompleted and annexation/merger I :separate zone & County l loccurs; then the same as Option 3. ! participation. City services covered l by additional property tax, sewer I I (fees, & other increased revenues. Impacts on County of No impact. Status Quo until improvements are jCounty Gen. Fund property tax San Mateo I completed and annexation/merger € reduced to level of other City areas; occurs; then the same as Option 3. I loss of Fire Fund property tax; I reduction in other services and I `costs. 1215119 vll Executive Summary Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 OPTION 1: STATUS QUO SERVICE PROVIDER Under this option, Burlingame Hills (and two other unincorporated areas) would remain unincorporated, governed by the County of San Mateo Board of Supervisors, and BHSMD's sewer services would continue to be managed by the County Department of Public Works (DPW) as a County -dependent district governed by the Board of Supervisors. No current property tax allocation changes are assumed. This option assumes that DPW would continue the current program of spot repairs and pursue funding to complete the estimated $12.7 million program of priority capital improvements begun in 2012. Absent State or Federal grants or other non-BHSMD sources, funding will be required from residents as shown in the Status Quo Budget Forecast in order to complete needed repairs and replacement and provide reserves for future capital improvements. Over the longer -term, rate increases may be mitigated as the need for spot repairs declines and financing costs are reduced by the use of reserves. Annual allocations to capital reserves would provide for an ongoing program of capital improvements once the current priority improvements are completed. Refer to CHAPTER VI for additional information about the Study's Budget Forecast. Required rate increases could nearly double current rates in order to fund improvements, in the absence of grants, other non -rate sources, or other County funds. No changes in current property tax allocations are assumed in this option. Non -sewer rate funding sources will reduce projected rate increases. OPTION 2: BHSMD REMAINS UNTIL BHSMD COMPLETES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, THEN ANNEXATION AND BHSMD DISSOLUTION/MERGER WITH THE CITY Under this option, BHSMD would remain intact. BHSMD would be responsible for funding the estimated $12.7 million of needed capital improvements to be completed by BHSMD. Funds for improvements will not be subsidized by City of Burlingame sewer customers. Upon completion of the improvements, Burlingame Hills and the two additional unincorporated areas would be annexed, BHSMD would be dissolved and the City would be the successor agency to all functions, assets and liabilities of BHSMD. Prior to annexation and BHSMD dissolution, funding will be required from BHSMD ratepayers in order to complete needed sewer system repairs and provide reserves for future capital improvements. The specific manner of financing could reduce estimated BHSMD sewer rate increases required to fund the estimated $12.7 million of improvements. viii Executive Summary Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 After capital improvements are completed, annexation occurs, and BHSMD is dissolved and merged with the City, operating efficiencies could be achieved utilizing the City's utility and management staff and other administrative systems. However, the City has indicated that its current staff is fully engaged, and the City's ability and cost to provide sewer services to Burlingame Hills and achieve economies of scale is contingent on further detailed evaluation of the BHSMD system. Annexation of Burlingame Hills (and two other unincorporated areas) could produce a fiscal "break- even" outcome for the City's budget. Depending on property tax share negotiations required for annexation, the tax sharing could create fiscal benefits to the City in excess of costs. Following Burlingame Hills annexation, dissolution and merger of BHSMD with the City, the analysis assumes that the City creates a Burlingame Hills sewer zone to allocate sewer operations and capital costs specific to that area. Therefore, there would be no significant fiscal impact on the City from the Burlingame Hills sewer system since the estimated $12.7 million capital improvements would be complete, residents of the zone would be responsible for all ongoing capital and operating costs, and the sewer zone's budget forecast includes establishment of reserves for future capital needs. OPTION 3: ANNEXATION OF BURLINGAME HILLS TO THE CITY AND BHSMD DISSOLUTION WITH COUNTY PARTICIPATION IN FUNDING FOR CITY COMPLETION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Under this option, the City would annex Burlingame Hills (and two other unincorporated areas). BHSMD would simultaneously be dissolved and its functions, assets and liabilities would be merged with the City's operations. The County, in addition to Burlingame Hills sewer ratepayers, would be responsible for participating in funding the estimated $12.7 million of needed capital improvements to the former BHSMD system. Following BHSMD dissolution and merger of sewer operations with the City, it is expected that the City will form a zone encompassing the area of the former BHSMD. In addition to County participation in the estimated $12.7 million of capital improvements, funding would come from ratepayers in this zone in order for the City to complete needed sewer system repairs, and to provide reserves for future capital improvements. Depending on property tax share negotiations required for annexation, property tax re- allocations could help fund capital improvements. The specific manner of financing and County participation could reduce rates required to help fund the estimated $12.7 million of improvements. Potential economies of scale from dissolution and merger of the BHSMD sewer system with the City could help minimize rate increases noted in CHAPTER IX. Operating efficiencies could be achieved utilizing the City's utility and management staff and other administrative functions. However, the City has indicated that its current staff is fully engaged, and the City's ability and cost to provide sewer services ix Executive Summary Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 to Burlingame Hills and achieve economies of scale is contingent on further detailed evaluation of the BHSMD system. Annexation of Burlingame Hills (and two other unincorporated areas) could produce a fiscal "break- even" for the City's budget. Depending on property tax share negotiations required for annexation, the tax sharing could create fiscal benefits to the City in excess of costs. The analysis assumes that the City creates a zone for Burlingame Hills in order to allocate sewer operations and capital costs specific to that area. Therefore, there would be no significant fiscal impact on the City from the Burlingame Hills sewer system since residents of the zone would be responsible for operating and capital costs, and the budget forecast includes establishment of reserves for future capital needs. Executive Summary Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 I. INTRODUCTION The Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District (BHSMD), operated by the San Mateo County Public Works Department (DPW), maintains the wastewater system serving the unincorporated Burlingame Hills Area. The area is largely unincorporated and most municipal public services are the responsibility of the County of San Mateo. On January 22, 2019 the San Mateo County Public Works Department (DPW) issued a Request for Proposals (RFP)Z to evaluate current BHSMD services and the fiscal viability of the district including operational and governance options that would create efficiencies. The objective is to improve the cost- effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of sewer services and other public services in the Burlingame Hills and nearby unincorporated areas. In addition to BHSMD and Burlingame Hills, the Study Area includes two other non-contiguous areas which are outside BHSMD and are unincorporated. In past years portions of the Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District (BHSMD) aging sewer system have failed due to multiple factors including grease, other non-flushable items, and tree roots, and these issues contributed to sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). While the County has worked diligently to make major needed repairs, due to the relatively small size of the system and number of ratepayers the District's sewer rates remain high compared to neighboring jurisdictions yet the rates are insufficient to fund all needed improvements. Identified improvements are likely to increase rates. Sewer rates and potential rate increases in the area served by BHSMD are high due to 1) the relatively small size of the sewer system, limited customer base and absence of commercial uses to help absorb costs; 2) age and condition of the system; and 3) the area's hilly topography and high proportion of sewer lines in easements on private property, which generally increase costs of maintenance and improvement. This Study investigates operational and governance options to improve system operations. The City operates its own system and currently collects, treats and disposes of sewer from Burlingame Hills and other nearby communities. All options assume the need to complete the estimated $12.7 million of priority capital improvements funded by ratepayers, net of any available grants or other sources of funding to be determined. The Study also examines annexation of Burlingame Hills and two other small unincorporated areas to the City. Annexation would eliminate unincorporated "islands" largely surrounded by cities. These "islands", governed and served by the County, inherently create public service inefficiencies. County Z RFP issued by the County of San Mateo Public Works Department, January 22, 2019. I. Introduction Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 service providers, for example fire and sheriff, may need to traverse City areas to serve these islands and may not be the nearest responders in any case. In addition, counties typically do not provide the same level of urban services as cities. A number of options are evaluated in this report: • Option 1: Status Quo Service Provider— Burlingame Hills (and two other unincorporated areas) remain unincorporated, governed by the County of San Mateo Board of Supervisors, and BHSMD's sewer services continue to be managed by the County Department of Public Works (DPW) as a County -dependent district governed by the Board of Supervisors. No changes in current property tax allocations are assumed. Option 2: Option 2: BHSMD remains until BHSMD completes capital improvements, then annexation and BHSMD dissolution/merger with the City — BHSMD remains intact and County - operated until BHSMD completes the estimated $12.7 million of needed capital improvements. Upon completion of the improvements, annexation of Burlingame Hills would occur and BHSMD would be dissolved; the City would be the successor agency to all functions, assets and liabilities of BHSMD, and may create a sewer "zone" specific to Burlingame Hills for financing purposes. • Option 3: Annexation of Burlingame Hills to the City and BHSMD dissolution with County participation in funding for City completion of capital improvements The City annexes Burlingame Hills (and two other unincorporated areas) and BHSMD would simultaneously be dissolved and merged with the City's sewer services. The County, in addition to Burlingame Hills sewer ratepayers, would be responsible for participating in funding the estimated $12.7 million of needed capital improvements to be completed by the City. Funds for improvements will not be subsidized by pre -annexation City of Burlingame sewer customers or by the City. The City may create a sewer "zone" specific to Burlingame Hills. If service and organization changes are implemented, further analysis and refinement of the options will occur. Negotiations over property tax sharing required prior to annexation will result in modifications and changes to potential impacts on ratepayers and residents of Burlingame Hills, and on the City and County, as described in this Study. 09 I. Introduction Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 II. OVERVIEW OF BHSMD & OTHER STUDY AREAS This study addresses Areas A-C shown in FIGURE II-1 and summarized in TABLE II-1 below. Area D on the map originally was evaluated because public records indicated their association with BHSMD; however, further analysis identified required corrections and exclusion from BHSMD designation, which included six parcels not identified on this map (see APPENDIX Q. Figure II-1 BHSMD Governance Options Study Areas Burlmggaa`(Incorporated) f f� f /J ry r f �1 it _Burlingame Hdls Sewer District t Fq Avea A Hi gartf Hdls (ani c'o�0orSted) r r i t arth Sk 0-111 yline- j ZZ Area AN N nmc rporat ` � !`�,l . , _f_illlsborough (Icorporated) i `�t <<? f �j f`rT i Legend Burlingame Hills Sewer Unincorporated Area f r fy ` �. �Ll�i Maintenance District Burlingame Hills Parcels Burlingame Parcels LLi Hillsborough Parcels A Area Sou<hSkylin; Skyline Parcels (Unincorporated ,Esn;-HERE, De Lonne,Mapmylnci mOpenStreatMap corRrmuto mid M661S user ccmmmity Burlingame Hills was subdivided in the 1910s and 1920s, and developed in the subsequent decades; approximately half the lots were developed by 1946, and the area was nearly fully developed by 1956.3 The possibility of annexation of Burlingame Hills to the City has been discussed multiple times over the years, partly responding to concerns that piecemeal annexations adversely affected the efficiency of public services and typically resulting in subdivided lots and increased density. The most recent inquiry by Burlingame Hills residents took place between 1991 and 1993. Input provided by Burlingame Hills residents during the City's General Plan Update in 2015-2019 resulted in General Plan wording that "the City, affected property owners, and San Mateo County — under the guidance of the Local Agency Formation Commission —will work cooperatively on annexation when mutually agreed upon by all parties." Burlingame's General Plan applies the land use designation 3 City of Burlingame CDD Response to 8/9/19 data request, 8/30/19. M 11. Overview of BHSIVID & Other Study Areas Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 "Low Density Residential —Sphere of Influence (LDR—SOI)" to Burlingame Hills, with permitted uses to include detached housing units on individual lots, accessory units and related ancillary structures, and residential density between 1.0 and 8.0 dwelling units per acre.' BHSMD BHSMD is the primary focus of this report, and includes Area A summarized in TABLE II-1. Area A, Burlingame Hills, is unincorporated and is included entirely within the BHSMD boundary. Areas B-C are unincorporated and outside the BHSMD boundary. TABLE II-1 SUMMARY OF STUDY AREAS Item Area A Burlingame Hills Study Area Area B North Skyline Area C South Skyline TOTAL Parcels Parcels in BHSMD/County 437 0 0 437 Parcels in BHSMD/City* 0 0 0 0 Subtotal, BHSMD 437 0 0 437 Unincorporated not in BHSMD 0 8 6 14 Total Parcels 437 8 6 451 Vacant Parcels 5 0 1 6 Residential Units 432 8 5 445 Residents Total Residents 1,032 19 12 1,063 Registered Voters 818 15 7 840 * Area D shown on Fig. II-1 is excluded (public record designations are being revised). 11125119 OTHER UNINCORPORATED AREAS Several other unincorporated parcels which are not within the boundary of the District are evaluated in this study: • Study Area B —"North Skyline" is an unincorporated area outside of BHSMD boundaries; its sewage is collected and treated by the City. Area B is included in this report as an area that could be annexed to the City in conjunction with Area A and Area C. • Study Area C —"South Skyline" is an unincorporated area outside of BHSMD boundaries; one of the parcels is connected to the BHSMD system. The remaining parcels, a mix of vacant parcels and residential uses, connect to septic tanks. Area C is included in this report as an area that ° City of Burlingame CDD Response to 8/9/19 data request, 8/30/19. 11 II. Overview of BHSMD & Other Study Areas Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 could be annexed to the City in conjunction with annexation of Area A and Area B. In the absence of its annexation, its sewer service could be affected if other areas are annexed and BHSMD is merged with the City. If a reorganization proceeds, issues related to ongoing sewer service and other items will be further analyzed and resolved. ii. Overview of BHSI-ID & Other Study Areas Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 III. CURRENT SERVICE PROVIDERS AND SERVICES This study focuses on sewage collection services provided by BHSMD, but governance options potentially could impact the provision and governance of other public services. The following sections briefly describe existing services and providers to the Study Areas as summarized on TABLE III-1. General Government Burlingame Hills and BHSMD are unincorporated and governed by the County of San Mateo Board of Supervisors.' The other Study Areas — Area B and Area C — are also unincorporated, but outside the boundaries of BHSMD. The County is responsible for oversight of sheriff and fire protection, and planning and code enforcement. Current County services are further described in the following sections. Sewer BHSMD is responsible for sewer within its boundary. The District is a "dependent district" and the County of San Mateo's Board of Supervisors serves as the District's Governing Board. The County's Department of Public Works (DPW) staff manage sewer services to BHSMD. The District maintains approximately 6.6 miles of pipe, of which approximately 40% is within easements and 60% within public streets.6 The County DPW oversees ongoing maintenance, operation and capital replacement of the BHSMD sewer system. The sewage flows into the City's collection system and the City's wastewater plant treats the sewage. The City's wastewater plant treats sewage from BHSMD, the City, and the Town of Hillsborough. The costs of services are paid through a combination of property taxes collected from a share of the basic one percent property tax levy within BHSMD boundaries, and service charges to BHSMD residents on their property tax bills. s Burlingame Hills is represented by Supervisor Dave Pine, District 1 (81,916 registered voters, County Registrar of Voters, Rpt. PDMR003, 9/3/19). 6 Presentation at Property Owners Meeting —Sewer Service Rates BHSMD, County of San Mateo DPW, May 14, 2018, pg. 18. III. Current Service Providers and Services Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 TABLE III-1 SUMMARY OF CURRENT STUDY AREA SERVICE PROVIDERS I Service Area A Burlingame Hills Study Area ® Area B North Skyline Area C South Skyline General Government County of San Mateo County of San Mateo I County of San Mateo Sewer BHSMD, City of City of Burlingame BHSMD & private Burlingame Collection and septic, Burlingame Treatment Plant Treatment Plant Water I City of Burlingame, I City of Burlingame Town of Hillsborough Town of Hillsborough , Police San Mateo County San Mateo County San Mateo County a Sheriff 3 Sheriff , Sheriff Fire CalFire (contract to CalFire (contract to CalFire (contract to County) County) County) Roads San Mateo County San Mateo County San Mateo County Dept. of Public Works DPW DPW Stormwater San Mateo County San Mateo County San Mateo County Dept. of Public Works DPW DPW Street Lighting na (no lights) na (no lights) na (no lights) Solid Waste South Bayside Waste SBWMA SBWMA Management I Authority (SBWMA) 3 3 Schools Burlingame School Burlingame School Burlingame School f District (K-8) District (K-8) District (K-8) San Mateo Union San Mateo Union San Mateo Union High School District High School District High School District (Burlingame HS) (Burlingame HS) (Burlingame HS) 1012511S III. Current Service Providers and Services 7 Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 BHSMD revenues pay for the following: • County administrative and DPW engineering services for BHSMD management • Contracts for engineering, design and testing • Costs for a share of the City's collection and treatment system • Repayment of debt for major BHSMD capital improvements • Capital improvements (including spot repairs) • Other expenses for District management and operation, and allocations to debt service reserves TABLE III-2 summarizes the BHSMD FY19 budget and the FY20 adopted budget. The budget shows a slight surplus before accounting for transfers to capital and allocations to contingency reserves. The latter allocations are not shown in the table but the beginning and ending fund balances effectively account for these allocations. N Ili. Current Service Providers and Services Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 TABLE III-2 SUMMARY OF BHSMD BUDGET Item Actuals 2018-19 2019-20 Adopted Beginning Fund Balance $2,563,304 $2,569,309 REVENUES Charges for Services $743,621 $734,724 Property Taxes (1) 81,982 80,467 Use of Money and Property, Other 54.149 35.000 Total Revenues $879,752 $850,191 EXPENDITURES Operations Sewage Treatment and Disposal (2) $269,917 $285,717 System Maintenance and Improvements Contract Design, Engineering, Construction, Testing $158,080 $230,000 DPW Engineering Services 315,580 182,275 Other Maintenance (3) 4.960 9.000 Subtotal, System Maintenance and Improvements $473,660 $421,275 Administration Other Overhead/Admin, Dept'[, Misc. (4) 3.945 34.025 Total Expenditures (before debt) $747,522 $741,017 NET INCOME BEFORE DEBT $132,230 $109,174 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal Debt Service (existing) 95,637 95,637 Coverage (Net/Total Debt) 138% 114% TOTAL EXPENDITURES INCLUDING DEBT $843,159 $836,654 NET AFTER DEBT SERVICE (before transfers) $36,593 $13,537 Capital Improvement Projects 20,403 1,000,000 Other Transfers Out 10,185 11,192 Ending Fund Balance $2,569,309 $1,571,654 of Operating Costs 344% 212% Note: codes below refer to County budget sub -account numbers. Source: County of San Mateo, Sub Unit 48425 BHSMD, FY19 8/05/19 (FY19 Actual); FY2019 Adopted 2-Year Budget Buildout used as basis for FY20 (adopted 9/24/19). (1) Property Taxes include Home Owners Property Tax Relief (HOPTR); no Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) rebate is budgeted but may add $35k-$45k by end of year. (2) Billed by City of Burlingame (5633). (3) Other Maintenance (5428, 5438, 5635, 5858) (4) Other Overhead and Admin (5191, 5197, 5872, 5955, 5959, 5966, 5969, 5974). 10125119 BHSMD recently completed several major capital improvements in accordance with a consent decree issued as a result of a case brought by San Francisco Baykeeper against the County and BHSMD to 0J Ill. Current Service Providers and Services Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 eliminate several sources of sanitary sewage overflows.7 BHSMD has a multi -year plan for additional improvements needed to replace an aging system and has been performing repairs on the system identified in its Capital Improvement Program. The CIP and repairs are further described in CHAPTER VI. This report considers areas outside of BHSMD, as described at the start of this chapter. Area B (North Skyline) is served by the City's sewer collection and treatment system. Area C (South Skyline) is also outside the boundary of the BHSMD, but one parcel is connected to the BHSMD system; other parcels are served by septic systems. Water The City provides potable water to parts of Area A and Area B. The Town of Hillsborough serves portions of Area A— Burlingame Hills, and Area C —South Skyline. Sheriff Protection The San Mateo County Sheriff's Department has primary responsibility for serving unincorporated areas including Burlingame Hills. TABLE III-3 summarizes the number of calls for service to the area.$ The California Highway Patrol is responsible for traffic enforcement in unincorporated areas. TABLE III-3 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF CALLS To BURLINGAME HILLS Year (1) Incidents 2016 376 2017 330 2018 338 2019 (1) 158 (1) Calendar years shown; 2019 partial year through 5/31/19. Source: County of San Mateo Public Safety Communications San Francisco Baykeeper v. County of San Mateo, and the BHSMD, Civil Case No.: CV 08-03951 BZ. B Sheriff response data from correspondence with Robert Bustichi, Systems Management Supervisor, County of San Mateo Public Safety Communications, 2019-06-12. m Ill. Current Service Providers and Services Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 Fire Protection The San Mateo County Fire Department ("County Fire") is the agency having jurisdictional authority (AHJ) and is responsible for structural fire protection and rescue services in the unincorporated Burlingame Hills area and other unincorporated areas considered in the current study. As reported by CAL FIRE's local Unit website, "...San Mateo County Fire provides service in the unincorporated areas of the County not protected by other local government fire agencies. County Fire is a full -service fire agency that provides fire protection, emergency medical service (Advance Life Support), fire prevention, fire marshal, and public education. The Department responds to over 2,000 emergency incidents a year."'All four County Fire stations participate in a county -wide mutual aid program which sends the closest engine to any event regardless of the jurisdiction in which the incident occurred. The County contracts with CAL FIRE for staffing the county fire department. This includes fire administration, support services, training, fire prevention and fire suppression line personnel. All personnel are CAL FIRE employees funded by the County under contractual agreement with the State.10 The nearest CAL FIRE station is Fire Station #17 (San Mateo Highlands), at 320 Paul Scannell Drive, seven miles from Burlingame Hills. In accord with an auto -aid agreement, Central County Fire is the fire agency expected to respond to the Burlingame Hills area up to and including the sixth responding station because of the proximity of its stations; the nearest station is Central Fire Station #35 (Burlingame), located at 2832 Hillside Drive in Burlingame adjacent to the border of Burlingame Hills as shown in FIGURE III-1. CAL FIRE at Fire Station #17 would not respond to Burlingame Hills incidents until it became the sixth station due," which would typically occur when a second alarm fire12 had already requested assistance from the five closer non -CAL FIRE stations.13 County Fire is responsible for all fire investigations and _conducts a full fire cause and origin report for all fire in the unincorporated areas. Additionally, San Mateo County is ultimately responsible for all financial responsibility for fire suppression costs. 9 CAL FIRE website, San Mateo Division, June 22, 2019 (cached), www.fire.ca.gov/CZU/SanMateo_Division 10 Reso. No. 076642, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, Authorizing a Cooperative Fire Protection Agreement with the California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection for Fire Protection Services for the Term of July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2025, June 4, 2019. 11 For any given area, a list of the 50 closest stations is maintained in order of proximity (Bustichi, 2019-08-19). 12 Alarm levels range from 1 through 8. At each alarm level, a pre -determined number of apparatus are dispatched. A Vt alarm structure fire will get 4 engines, 1 truck, and 2 battalion chiefs. If the structure fire is more than the 15t alarm apparatus can handle, then a 211 alarm is called. This could be due to the size of the fire or numerous other factors including hazmat, rescue, large occupancy building, etc. At the 2"d alarm, 3 engines, 1 truck, and 2 battalion chiefs are added. Additional alarm levels are called as needed (Bustichi, 2019-08-19). 13 Fire response data and responder information from correspondence with Robert Bustichi, Systems Management Supervisor, County of San Mateo Public Safety Communications, 2019-06-12 and 2019-08-19. 11 Ill. Current Service Providers and Services Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 Under its contract, the County funds an engine, truck, and battalion chief at CAL FIRE Station #17. CAL FIRE also stages additional state resources seasonally, not being paid by the County including a wildland engine and bulldozer available to respond to wildfire in the region.14 TABLE III-4 shows that Central County Fire provides nearly all of the resources dispatched to calls originating from Burlingame Hills. The on -duty Battalion Chief at Fire Station #17 will be dispatched on either the first or second alarm. FIGURE III-1 LOCATION OF CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE STATION #35 (BURLINGAME) c A D 4 Peninsula' ` )le Sholom �� 4p� P Ma }S Central County Fire Dept Parr Burlingame Station 35 a y� EM ( Mrfis canyon Ar teiia fjew% Hms,a°o i o� H DES i <° BURLINGAME HILLS �o o Hillsborough c 5�F b Hillside Dr t�,'Vista Dr TABLE III-4 FIRE INCIDENTS AND RESOURCES DISPATCHED TO BURLINGAME HILLS Resources Dispatched Central City of San Mateo Year(1) Incidents County Fire Fire(2) CalFire(3) San Bruno Fire Total 2016 68 88 1 0 0 89 2017 82 93 0 4 3 100 2018 70 76 0 0 0 76 2019 (1) 30 32 0 0 0 32 (1) Calendaryears shown; 2019 partial yearthrough 5/31/19. (2) Also known as San Mateo Consolidated Fire. (3) CalFire Contract Units dispatched by San Mateo County Public Safety Communications. Source: County of San Mateo Public Safety Communications 10125119 14 Ibid, Bustichi 2019-08-19 12 III. Current Service Providers and Services Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 The County's budget shows that property taxes provide $6.2 million of revenues, or about sixty percent of the Structural Fire Fund's $10.1 million operating budget (before appropriations to reserves)." The remainder largely derives from "Intergovernmental Revenues"16 and charges for services. Planning and Building The County of San Mateo's Planning and Building Department processes development permits, inspects construction, and updates and enforces land use plans and regulations. About 60 percent of the Department's activities are funded through permits, fees and charges for service; the remaining 40% is funded by the General Fund.17 TABLE III-5 summarizes County's Planning/Development Review and Building Inspection activity in Burlingame Hills in 2018. TABLE III-S PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPT. PERMIT ACTIVITY— BURLINGAME HILLS, 2018 Project Type Permits Finaled Assessed Value of Projects Permit Information Home Value Projectsas%of (2018) Home Value Fee Revenue Remodel, Other (deck, charger, electrical) 7 $156,275 $10,442,317 1.5% $12,108 Addition/Remodel 8 $2,048,217 $14,433,796 14.2% $95,683 New Single -Family Dwelling 1 $1,005,400 $4,000,000 25.1% $23,085 Repair(pool, retaining walls, foundation, etc) 6 $154,000 $13,358,680 1.2% $15,832 Bathroom Remodel 4 $103,461 $4,659,897 2.2% $6,347 Fire Sprinkler Installation 3 $25,200 na na $0 TOTAL 29 $3,492,553 $46,894,690 7.4% $153,055 In FY18 and FY19 there were three to four code violation actions per year undertaken by the County including construction without permits, tree violations, junk and debris, and erosion control.18 15 County of San Mateo FY2018-19 Adopted Budget, Structural Fire (3550B) pg. B-63. 16 "Intergovernmental Revenues" are an allocation of Public Safety Half -Cent Sales Tax (Proposition 172). 17 County of San Mateo FY2018-19 Adopted Budget, Budget Unit Summary (3800B), pg. B-69. 18 Code violation information from R. Bartoli, 8/9/19, 13 III. Current Service Providers and Services Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 Roads The County of San Mateo's Department of Public Works (DPW) is responsible for road maintenance in unincorporated areas, including Burlingame Hills and the other Study areas. The County's Road Division performs tree trimming as necessary to maintain vehicular and pedestrian clearance; $15,000 was budgeted for FY19 (roadside mowing is "negligible" according to the County and the cost minimal).19 Street sweeping every two weeks was budgeted in FY19 at $35,000.20 DPW utilizes a Pavement Management System to "identify appropriate surfacing treatments consistent with annual budget allocations."21 While the topography in Burlingame Hills may contribute to maintenance costs, generally narrower road widths and absence of sidewalks and curbs helps offset costs. Road maintenance is funded entirely by various local, State and Federal funds; there is no Net County Cost. Approximately 6.3 centerline miles, or 717,000 square feet, of County -maintained roads traverse Burlingame Hills including local streets, minor arterials, and major collectors." The weighted average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is 76,23 or "Very Good" (PCI of 70-89). FIGURE III-2 shows the County maintained streets in Burlingame Hills. Approximately 14% of the total street area has a PCI less than 65 but greater than a PCI of 50 ("Good"). About four percent of the road area is a "Poor" PCI, (25 to 49) and none are rated as "Very Poor" (PCI of 0-24). 19 County DPW Data Request Response 1, 6/3/19. 20 County DPW Data Request Response 1, 6/3/19. 21 County of San Mateo FY2018-19 Recommended Budget, Road Construction and Operations (4520B) pg. 4-123. 22 Burlingame Hills Road Section Description, correspondence from San Mateo DPW 6/1/19 (file: "Road Section_Description_PMS_BH Area - 6-3-19.xlsx" 23 ibid, Burlingame Hills Road Section Description. 14 III. Current Service Providers and Services Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 FIGURE III-2 COUNTY -MAINTAINED ROADS IN BURLINGAME HILLS The County of San Mateo DPW estimates that a maintenance program from 2019 through 2025 would treat 3.3 lineal miles at a total cost of about $1 million.24 This program assumes that revenues are available to fund a level of maintenance which would maintain and improve current pavement conditions. The only road treatment currently programmed is the $93,000 cape seal of Canyon Road in 2020 with "One Bay Area Grant" (OBAG) funding.21 Stormwater According to the County of San Mateo's DPW, there are some gutters and pipes in Burlingame Hills area roads that convey water towards the creek, and some large diameter pipes that would be more costly to replace. There are some formal drainage pipes at the upstream end of the area (Skyline), but generally 24 Burlingame Hills Road Treatment Program 2019-2025, correspondence from San Mateo DPW 6/1/19 (file: "Unconstrained —Needs— PMS_2020-2025 (12-18-2018) BH Area.xlsx" 25 County DPW Data Request Response 1, 6/3/19. OBAG funds are allocated by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to cities and counties approving new housing construction and meeting housing targets, and to Priority Development Areas. 15 III. Current Service Providers and Services Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 stormwater runoff is handled by drains crossing under driveways, catch basins, and ditches and gutters for surface water flow." Street Lighting Study Areas A-C are not within any of the County's eleven lighting maintenance districts. Burlingame Hills has no streetlights. Solid Waste Solid waste services are provided by the South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA), also known as "RethinkWaste", a joint powers authority of twelve public agencies in San Mateo County. RethinkWaste owns and manages the Shoreway Environmental Center which receives all of the recyclables, organics, and garbage collected in its service area. RethinkWaste also provides strategic oversight, support and management of service providers that collect, process, recycle and dispose of materials for the 12 Member Agencies.27 Schools Potential governance options would not affect school districts. Burlingame Hills and the City are part of the Burlingame School District (K-8) and the San Mateo Union High School District (Burlingame HS). Other Services A range of other public agencies serve Burlingame Hills but will be unaffected by governance options. These include utility companies, cable service, healthcare/hospital districts, and others. 26 Correspondence from A.Stillman, County DPW, 9/24/19. Z' https://www.rethinkwaste.org/about/about-us 16 III. Current Service Providers and Services Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 IV. BHSMD REVENUES Wastewater operations are primarily funded by sewer service charges and a small contribution from property taxes generated within the District. Property Tax Property tax accounts for about nine percent of the District's FY20 budget, or $80,000.28 In addition, the District is likely to receive excess ERAF, approximately $44,000 in FY19.29 The revenue to the District is generated from a 2.2 cent share of each dollar of Prop. 13 property tax produced by the District's total assessed value of approximately $615 million.30 Taxes grew about six percent in FY18 as assessed value within the District increased.31 Service Charges The sewer collection service program is primarily funded by Sewer Service Charges levied on properties receiving sewer service from the District. The County of San Mateo Board of Supervisors, acting as the Governing Board of the District, sets the Sewer Service Rates which are used to calculate the Sewer Service Charges collected annually on the property tax bi11.32 The District's Master Plan, prepared in 1999, recommended a range of rates based on current and anticipated operating and capital needS.33 The impact of the rate increases was acknowledged in the Master Plan to be significant due to the magnitude of required capital improvements. Rates of $451 per equivalent residential unit in 1999 were proposed to increase to $1,029 to $1,056 per unit in FY2003- 04.34 If a midpoint rate had been adopted at that time and increased 3% annually, current rates would be about $1,400 per unit. However, the rates were left unchanged at that time.35 Subsequent rate adjustments encountered opposition and were twice defeated by a Prop. 218 property owner protest, keeping rates below those needed to fund necessary improvements. Rates for FY19 were 28 County of San Mateo, Sub Unit 48425 BHSMD, FY19 8/05/19, 2-Year Budget Buildout. 29 The Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) provides refunds back to source agencies when initial ERAF property tax revenue shifts to ERAF exceeds ERAF requirements. The refunds vary annually. 30 County of San Mateo Tax Rate Book for FY 2018-2019, Acct. 72140, pg. 15. 31 FY18 budget (OFAS) report compared to FY17, current year secured property taxes before including secured taxes, ERAF rebate and other misc. taxes. 32 County Code Section 4.32 of the County Ordinance Code. 33 Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Master Plan, Brown and Caldwell, 1999. 34 Ibid, BHSMD Master Plan 1999, pg. 15-2. 35 R.Berkson interview with A.Stillman, Deputy Director, San Mateo County Public Works, 8/7/19. 17 IV. BHSMD Revenues Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 established in July 2018.36 The rate per residential unit is $1,675 annually, or $139.58 per month, an increase of $6.67 per month or 5 percent above the prior rate which had been unchanged since rates were set in 2011.37 The rates were established for FY19 and were not changed for FY20. The current rates were set without adopting rates for future years "due primarily to the uncertainty of the cost of major capital improvements in the districts and the downstream agency system."38 As shown in FIGURE IV-1, BHSMD sewer rates are higher than neighboring cities with the exception of Hillsborough. For example, BHSMD $139.58 monthly rate equivalent is nearly double the typical $73.31 monthly rates39 paid by City residents. The City plans a sewer rates review in FY19-20.40 The BHSMD rates are "flat" rates, whereas other cities' rates include a fixed and variable component depending on water consumption.al FIGURE IV-1 COMPARISON OF MONTHLY SEWER RATES Burlingame San Mateo Millbrae Burlingame Hills Hillsborough $0.00 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 $200.00 $250.00 $300.00 Enterprise districts are legally allowed rates sufficient to fund the cost of service. Rates typically are not expected to exceed 2.0 to 2.5 percent of household income, for a sewer or water utility.42 36 Ordinance No. 4802, July 24, 2018. 37 County of San Mateo, Inter -Departmental Correspondence from James C. Porter,, Director of Public Works to the Board of Supervisors, Board Meeting Date 7/24/2018. 38 County of San Mateo, Inter -Departmental Correspondence from James C. Porter, Director of Public Works to the Board of Supervisors, Board Meeting Date 6/5/2018. 39 City of Burlingame FY18-19 Master Fee Schedule (eff. 1/1/18), pg.76. 40 City of Burlingame Response to 8/9/19 data request, 8/30/19. 41 Rate comparisons assume average monthly water use per residential unit of 8 CCF (1 CCF is one -hundred cubic - feet, or 748 gallons). 42 Teodoro, et al, (2018) cite USEPA's Financial Capability Guidebook (USEPA 1984) as original source for the use of personal income as a measure, although it was not applied to rates in the 1984 document. 18 IV, BHSMD Revenues Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 Sewer charges of $1,675 annually are approximately 1.4 percent of median household incomes (based on the City of Burlingame — data is unavailable for Burlingame Hills), which is less than the 2 percent measure.43 BHSMD currently does not have a "Low -Income Resident Rate Option", however, the County is evaluating the option,44 which could not be subsidized by sewer rates charged to other customers and therefore would require an unrestricted source of funding for the subsidy. 43 Assumes Burlingame Hills household incomes are similar to (or greater than) City of Burlingame median household income ($118,410) and mean household income ($173,049). Incomes are from the 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 44 R.Berkson interview with A.Stillman, Deputy Director, San Mateo County Public Works, 8/7/19. IN IV. BHSiVID Revenues Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 V. BHSMD EXPENDITURES Sewage transport, treatment and disposal, billed to the District by the City, accounts for nearly half of BHSMD expenditures before debt service, capital expenditures and reserves. System maintenance and improvements, including contract engineering and County DPW engineering services, comprise the remaining expenditures along with District administration. OPERATIONS Sewage Collection, Treatment and Disposal The City's sewage collection system conveys sewage from the BHSMD system to the City's treatment plant. The City bills the District annually for the District's share of collection and treatment costs based on a billing rate and formula in a 1975 agreement." The annual bill consists of two components: 1. BHSMD pays 1.7 percent of the "total actual cost of the operation and maintenance of the City's collection system, as well as improvements thereto, for each fiscal year, and 15% for overhead and supervision.""The billing for FY17-18 totaled $144,840 for collection system charges.47 2. BHSMD pays a share of sewage treatment costs, including upgrade costs for treatment facilities (cash and/or debt service), proportionate to the amount of sewage emanating from the BH5MD based on the water supplied to BHSMD properties relative to total water supplied to all properties discharging to the Burlingame treatment facilities, and 15% for overhead and supervision.48 The billing for FY17-18 totaled $125,077 for sewer treatment charges.49 Bills from the City are paid by the District in the year following the year of service. Total City collection, treatment and disposal costs billed for FY17-18 (and paid by the District in FY18-19) were $269,917. The bill to the BHSMD for the period covering FY18-19 to be paid in FY19-20 totals $246,382.50 Future billed costs depend on City sewer operating and capital costs. The billings could also change if the City and BHSMD renegotiate a billing methodology different from the 1975 agreement. 45 Sanitary Sewer Agreement between the Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District and the City of Burlingame, July 1975. File received from DPW: "Agreement BHSMD and City of Burlingame 1975-Treatment.pdf'. 46 Ibid, Sewer Agreement 1975, Section 4, pg. 3. 47 Request for Payment from the City of Burlingame, Invoice No. BR14090, Acct. No. 527-12110, 8/17/18. 48 Ibid, Sewer Agreement 1975, Section 3, pg. 2. 49 Ibid, Request for Payment, 8/17/18. 50 Request for Payment from the City of Burlingame, Invoice No. BR15740, Cust. No. 1820, 9/20/19. IM V. BHSMD Expenditures Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 The City anticipates future capital improvements to its sewer collection and treatment system ranging from $4 million to $5 million per year over the next five years.51 A share of these costs is factored into the BHSMD bill from the City and varies each year. These billings represent about 34 percent of total District expenditures (including debt service). Contract Design, Engineering and Testing The District's FY20 budget projects about $230,000 for "Contract Design, Engineering and Testing"12 largely related to ongoing District operations. The amount includes $200,000 annually for spot repairs plus $30,000 for contract services; the $30,000 is not typical, but is budgeted to provide a contingency in the event the services are required.S3 This expenditure represents about 27 percent of total District expenditures (including debt service). DPW Engineering Services The District's FY20 budget projects about $182,275 for "DPW Engineering Services" 54 largely related to staff (office and sewer maintenance crew) costs for operations and maintenance of the sewer system." This expenditure represents about 22 percent of total District expenditures (including debt service). Overhead and Administration The District's FY20 budget projects about $34,000 for various District overhead and administrative costs. This expenditure represents about four percent of total District expenditures (including debt service). DEBT SERVICE The District obtained a loan from the State of California's Water Resources Control Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF).56 Draws from March 2017 through August 2018 totaled $2,299,898 and accrue interest at a 1.5% rate over 30 years.57 Interest and principal payments totaled about $96,000 annually. The payments represent about 11 percent of total expenditures. 51 Email from City of Burlingame Public Works/Engineering to County of San Mateo DPW, 5 year Sewer and WWTP CIP, 3/27/18. 52 County of San Mateo, Sub Unit 48425 BHSMD, FY19 8/05/19, 2-Year Budget Buildout. 53 Correspondence from A.Stillman, County DPW, 9/24/19. 14 Ibid, BHSMD FY19 2-Year Budget Buildout. ss Correspondence from A.Stillman, County DPW, 9/24/19. 56 Project No. C-06-7810-110, Agreement No. 14828-550-0. 57 Payment schedule dated 1/3/2019 provided by County of San Mateo DPW. PAI V. BHSIViD Expenditures Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 OTHER APPROPRIATIONS Infrastructure Assets The District is budgeting $1 million in FY20 for infrastructure capital improvements, drawing on fund balances. This amount is the first year of a two-year program for the Hillside/Adeline Area sewer project.s8 The District's two-year budget planning also provides for $230,000 per year for spot repairs which would be funded from reserves. Contingency The District's FY20 budget allocates $1.5 million as "Contingency Appropriations." This allocation essentially enables a fund balance to be carried forward in the District's budget. The fund balance at the end of FY19 was approximately $2.4 million.59 The District has set a goal for the reserve to equal 50% of annual operations and maintenance plus 3% of asset replacement value.6o General Reserves The District's FY20 budget allocates approximately $96,000 to "General Reserves." The SRF Loan Agreement requires that the District reserve the amount of the annual SRF Loan Payment in the budget.61 Other Transfers Out The District's FY20 budget projects about $11,000 of "Other Transfers Out" to contribute towards the purchase of sewer equipment that benefits all County -dependent sewer districts.61 sa Correspondence from A.Stillman, County DPW, 9/24/19. 59 County of San Mateo, Sub Unit 48425 BHSMD, FY19 8/05/19, 2-Year Budget Buildout. 60 Correspondence from A. Stillman, Deputy Director, San Mateo County Public Works, 8/8/19. 61 Correspondence from A. Stillman, Deputy Director, San Mateo County Public Works, 8/8/19. 62 Correspondence from A.Stillman, County DPW, 9/24/19. 22 V. BHSMD Expenditures Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 VI. BURLINGAME HILLS SEWER BUDGET FORECAST A number of factors will influence BHSMD's future budget and the sewer rates required to improve and sustain the system. The primary factor is the need for significant capital improvements. The impact on rates depends on the magnitude and timing of required improvements, and method and cost of financing. It may be possible to moderate short-term impacts on rates using long-term, low-cost State financing of improvements and related engineering services. The District has evaluated future cash flows and the required sewer rates, and anticipates the need to increase rates for FY20-21 in order to meet minimum fund reserve requirements. This study provides a Budget Forecast to evaluate long-term sewer rates and the system's financial sustainability. The Budget Forecast estimates rate increases, in the absence of grants, other non -rate sources, and other County funds or property tax re -allocations, necessary to fund increased operating costs, new debt service for priority capital improvements, and establishment of reserves to help fund capital replacement on an ongoing basis. Actual future rates will vary depending on reorganization options considered in this report, financing mechanisms and their cost, and future costs for operations and improvements. Property tax share negotiations, required if annexation proceeds, could help provide a share of required financing. These potential additional funding sources would reduce the amounts required from ratepayers. FORECAST ASSUMPTIONS The Budget Forecast developed for the purpose of this report utilizes assumptions consistent with current BHSMD practices and recent budget experience. As noted above, the Budget Forecast has been prepared for planning purposes for the purpose of this Study, and actual future costs and rates will vary. This chapter includes a budget forecast for the Status Quo Service Provider option, assuming BHSMD continues as a County -dependent district and San Mateo DPW continues to manage and operate BHSMD. Subsequent chapters describe other governance options and budget implications; those budget forecasts utilize similar forecast assumptions with specific differences noted in each chapter. Revenues No rate increase is assumed for FY19-20. Increases in subsequent years vary depending on annual costs, funding and whether work has started on Phase #3 of the Capital Projects Plan. Potential annual rate increases largely depend on the timing, magnitude and type of capital financing for future priority capital improvements; this projected capital component of rates is shown separately from operations. Proposition 218 notice and protest proceedings provide that rate increases "may not be imposed or 23 VI, Burlingame Hills Sewer Budget Forecast Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 increased if a majority of 'owners of identified parcels' submit written protests;1163 it is unknown whether BHSMD ratepayers will accept future rate increases to fund needed improvements. The revenue forecast assumes 439 units initially paying $1,675 annually initially. The operating component of current rates (including current debt service) is assumed to increase three percent annually to cover future operating cost increases. Property taxes are assumed to grow at 5 percent annually, which is slightly below recent District trends. No change in "Use of Money and Property" is assumed, although these revenues will vary slightly depending on timing and magnitude of cash flows and reserves. Operating Expenditures "Sewage Treatment and Disposal Costs" billed by the City are assumed to grow at 3 percent annually. The costs could vary by the timing and type of funding required for City capital costs and the District's relative share of costs (which depends on water consumption of District residents and other entities served by the City). The billing methodology may change for those options involving a merger of BHSMD's sewer system with the City's operations. Engineering Services "Contract Design, Engineering and Testing" costs shown in the current District budget are assumed to continue in amounts similar to current annual costs (plus 3 percent annual inflation) for two years, at which point the spot repair program will be complete and costs will decline significantly. "DPW Engineering Services" are assumed to continue at current levels plus inflation. Administration No changes in current administrative costs are assumed in the Status Quo budget forecast other than inflationary increases of three percent annually. This assumption varies with other governance options. Debt Service Currently budgeted debt service is assumed to continue as existing SRF loans are repaid. Other key assumptions related to capital improvements and the use of debt include: • Consistent with the current BHSMD budget, the Hillside/Adeline Area project is assumed to be funded over a two-year period beginning in FY20 using reserves. • An estimated $12.7 million of priority capital improvements are constructed over a ten-year (including inflation and contingency). Actual timing depends on the availability of funding and possible rate increases. If improvements are distributed over a longer period, annual debt service and corresponding rate increases would be less than projected. 63 Proposition 218 Guide for Special Districts, California Special Districts Association, 2013. 24 Vi. Burlingame Hills Sewer Budget Forecast Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 • New debt is issued to fund priority improvements, which are amortized over 30 years at a 1.5 percent annual interest rate. Rates may need to be raised in order to meet required debt coverage ratios (i.e., net revenue, after expenditures, must exceed debt service by 10% or a ratio of 1.1). The use of debt financing depends on the availability of low -interest State and federal loans; interest rates will be higher for conventional financing. Higher -cost financing will require greater rate increases. • 10% issuance costs are included in the debt (in addition to the items listed above). The issuance costs depend on the size of the debt and staff time required for the application process. If not required for debt issuance these allocations could provide additional contingency. In addition to new debt service for future capital improvements, the Budget Forecast assumes a budget contribution towards annual reserves equal to three percent of the cost of new infrastructure, which provides for the eventual repair and replacement of newly constructed infrastructure. This reserve could fund future capital improvements and reduce debt service and related interest costs. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) DPW has identified high priority capital improvements for BHSMD totaling an estimated $12.7 million as summarized in TABLE VI-1.64 The improvements were documented in a technical memorandum prepared in 2011, and originally phased over a 5-year period beginning in 2015 after completion of the Adeline Drive/Canyon Road capacity improvements.65 In FY20, the BHSMD is beginning the Hillside/Adeline Area Project shown in the table. The Project currently is budgeted by the BHSMD over a two-year period using funding drawn from reserves. Completion will reduce the estimated $12.7 million. The Budget Forecast assumes the estimated $12.7 million are spread over a 10-year period beginning in FY20 (see APPENDix D); a more extended schedule would slow the projected rate increases but would increase the possible risk of pipe failures and sewer overflows. A 2012 CCTV inspection of the pipelines, included in the Capital Improvement Program described in the 2011 memorandum, identified 48 point repair locations; the County completed approximately half of those repairs through May, 2017,66 and continues to undertake and complete its planned program of spot repairs through FY21.67 The BHSMD is budgeting approximately $200,000 annually in FY20 and FY21 towards completing spot repairs. 64 Presentation at Property Owners Meeting — Sewer Service Rates BHSMD, County of San Mateo DPW, May 14, 2018, pg. 18. 65 Wastewater Collection System Capacity Assurance Plan and Master Plan Update, Final Technical Memorandum, Brown and Caldwell, June 24, 2011. 66 County DPW Repairs List, BHSMD, 11/6/2014-5/13/2017 revised 3/19/2018 (file: "Point Repairs List-20180319—Rev. pdf'. 67 County DPW Data Request Response 6/3/19. 25 VI. Burlingame Hills Sewer Budget Forecast Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 TABLE VI-1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS— BHSMD Capital Item TOTAL Hillside/Adeline Area (-6,800 feet) $2,300,000 Upper Canyon Area (-6,400 feet) 2,500,000 Fey Area (-6,100 feet) 2,600,000 Tiara Area (-4,600 feet) 2,000,000 Alturas/La Mesa Area (-3,700 feet) 1,700,000 Lower Canyon Area (-3,200 feet) 1,600,000 Total $12,700,000 Source: Presentation at Property Owners Meeting — Sewer Service Rates BHSMD, County of San Mateo DPW, May 14, 2018, pg. 18. Other Allocations No transfers to reserves are assumed other than the amount required by SRF loans and amounts to maintain other minimum reserves. Capital expenditures are assumed to be funded through debt service as described below, supplemented by reserves. BUDGET FORECAST The budget forecasts assume ongoing capital improvements to replace aging infrastructure to help avoid sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) incidents; aging infrastructure is one of several factors that contribute to SSOs. Key assumptions were described above; other factors could affect future rates, for example, significant unanticipated system failures, changes in City treatment and disposal costs, and future economic conditions that could affect cost inflation and property tax revenues. The inability to obtain low-cost State or other capital financing will also change the forecasts. TABLE VI-2 indicates rates increases are likely to be required, primarily due to the cost of future capital improvements. The forecast assumes that the estimated $12.7 million of priority capital improvements are completed over a ten-year period and funded by existing reserves and rate increases to pay new debt. Annual allocations towards capital reserves provide for future repair and replacement of capital (after the estimated $12.7 million improvements are complete). Vl. Burlingame Hills Sewer Budget Forecast Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 TABLE VI-2 SEWER BUDGET FORECAST- BHSMD STATUS QUO SERVICE PROVIDER OPTION Item FY19-20 FY20-21 FY21-22 FY22-23 FY23-24 FY24-25 FY25-26 FY26-27 FY27-28 FY28-29 FY29-30 Operations & Existing Debt Service Rate $1,675 $1,675 $1,424 $1,424 $1,210 $1,331 $1,464 $1,464 $1,464 $1,464 $1,538 Future Debt & Capital Reserves Rate $0 lu 521 521 969 969 S1.31S $1,315 $1,608 iLm Avg. Combined Rate $1,675 $1,764 $1,944 $1,944 $2,180 $2,301 $2,779 $2,779 $3,073 $3,073 $3,422 Charges for Services 735,325 774,325 853,534 853,534 956,868 1,009,995 1,220,042 1,220,042 1,348,907 1,348,907 1,502,334 Property Taxes 80,467 84,490 88,715 93,151 97,808 102,699 107,833 113,225 118,886 124,831 131,072 Use of Money and Property, Other 35,000 36,050 37,132 38,245 39,393 40,575 41,792 43,046 44,337 45,667 47,037 Total Revenues 850,792 894,865 979,380 994,930 1,094,069 1,153,269 1,369,667 1,376,312 1,512,130 1,519,405 1,680,443 EXPENDITURES Operations Sewage Treatment and Disposal 285,717 294,289 303,117 312,211 321,577 331,224 341,161 351,396 361,938 372,796 383,980 System Maintenance and Improvements Contract Design, Engineering and Testing 230,000 270,000 31,827 34,778 35,822 36,896 38,003 39,143 40,317 41,527 42,773 DPW Engineering Services 182,275 187,743 193,376 199,177 205,152 211,307 217,646 224,175 230,901 237,828 244,962 Other Maintenance 9 000 9 270 9,5_48 9 835 10,130 10,433 10,746 11,069 11,401 11,743 12,095 Subtotal, System Maintenance 421,275 467,013 234,751 243,790 251,103 258,636 266,395 274,387 282,619 291,098 299,830 Administration Other Overhead/Admin, Dept'l, Misc. 34,025 35,046 36,097 37,180 38,295 39,444 40,628 41,846 43,102 44,395 45,727 Total Expenditures 741,017 796,348 573,965 593,180 610,976 629,305 648,184 667,630 6879659 708,288 729,537 Net Operating Income 109,775 98,518 405,415 391,750 483,093 523,964 721,483 708,683 824,472 811,116 950,906 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal Debt Service (existing) 95,637 95,637 95,637 95,637 95,637 95,637 95,637 95,637 95,637 95,637 95,637 Subtotal Debt Service (New) 0 0 114,508 114,508 233,596 233,596 325,202 325,202 403,067 403,067 476,352 Coverage 115% 103% 193% 186% 147% 159% 171% 168% 165% 163% 166% Total Expenditures (inc. debt) $836,654 $891,985 $784,110 $803,325 $940,209 $9S8,538 $1,069,023 $1,088,469 $1,186,363 $1,206,993 $1,301,526 NET AFTER DEBT SERVICE (before CIP) $14,138 $2,881 $195,271 $181,605 $153,861 $194,731 $300,644 $287,844 $325,767 $312,412 $378,917 Fund Transfers to Capital Projects 1,000,000 1,300,000 Other Transfers Out 11,192 11,528 11,874 12,230 12,597 12,975 13,364 13,765 14,178 14,603 15,041 Ending Fund Balance $1,572,255 $224,608 $294,005 $349,380 $298,644 $288,400 $323,680 $345,759 $354,349 $349,158 $362,033 % of Operating Costs (50% target) 212% 28% 51% 59% 49% 46% 50% 52% 52% 49% 50% Cumulative Reserves for Future Capital $39,000 $153,000 $267,000 $459,000 $651,000 $903,000 $1,155,000 $1,458,000 $1,761,000 $2,122,000 10125119 27 VI. Burlingame Hills Sewer Budget Forecast Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 VII. OPTION 1: STATUS QUO SERVICE PROVIDER Under the Status Quo Option, no change in the current provider of service or governance would occur. The County would continue current services to unincorporated study areas as described in CHAPTER III, and BHSMD would continue providing sewer services to its current service area. The Status Quo Service Provider Option presumes no change in current service provision or organization and therefore no improvements in efficiencies or operational savings. Continuing the status quo assumes that ongoing capital improvements in the District and downstream to the City's collection and treatment system will be factored into future rates. Completing the estimated $12.7 million of priority capital improvements is likely to increase current BHSMD sewer rates. Required rate increases could nearly double current rates in order to fund improvements, in the absence of grants, other non -rate sources, or other County funds. No changes in current property tax allocations are assumed in this option. Non -rate funding sources will reduce projected rate increases. IMPACTS ON SEWER SERVICE RATES As described in CHAPTER VI of this report, the Status Quo Service Provider Option is likely to require rate increases of 100 percent in order to complete the estimated $12.7 million of priority capital improvements over the next ten years, unless non -rate funding sources are obtained. A more protracted timeline, e.g., 20 years, would reduce the increases by half, however, the BHSMD would continue to risk sewer system failures and repairs to the aging system. The rate increases estimated in the Budget Forecast include an annual contribution to capital reserves to help reduce future finance costs and provide increased rate stability after priority capital improvements are completed and beyond the forecast period. FISCAL IMPACTS BHSMD incurs no net County cost; sewer service costs are allocated entirely to BHSMD ratepayers. Therefore, there will be no change to current County fiscal conditions or services as a direct result of the status quo option. VII. Option 1: Status Quo Service Provider Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 VIII.OPTION 2: BHSMD REMAINS UNTIL BHSMD COMPLETES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, THEN ANNEXATION AND BHSMD DISSOLUTION/MERGER WITH THE CITY Under this option, BHSMD would remain intact. BHSMD would be responsible for funding the estimated $12.7 million of needed capital improvements to be completed by BHSMD. Funds for improvements will not be subsidized by City of Burlingame sewer customers or the City's General Fund. Upon completion of the improvements, Burlingame Hills and the two additional unincorporated areas would be annexed, BHSMD would be dissolved and the City would be the successor agency to all functions, assets and liabilities of BHSMD. After annexation and dissolution of BHSMD, potential economies of scale from expanded City sewer functions could enable the City to spread its current operating costs over a larger service base if City staff capacity permits. To the extent that City costs are less than comparable County DPW costs, potential BHSMD rate increases attributable to operations indicated in CHAPTER VI could be moderated. However, the City has indicated that its current staff is fully engaged, and the City's ability and its cost to provide services to BHSMD would be contingent on its future detailed evaluation of the BHSMD system. IMPACTS ON SEWER SERVICE RATES Similar to the Status Quo Service Provider Option, prior to BHSMD dissolution current costs to administer District functions and overhead would remain, and this option is likely to require rate increases of 100 percent in order to complete the estimated $12.7 million of priority capital improvements over the next ten years as shown in TABLE VI-2. The Study estimates potential burdens on ratepayers to fully fund the estimated $12.7 million, however, the specific manner of financing, for example County participation in funding, could reduce rate impacts. A more protracted timeline, e.g., 20 years, would reduce the increases by half, however, the BHSMD would continue to risk sewer system failures and repairs to the aging system. The rate increases estimated in the Budget Forecast include an annual contribution to capital reserves to help reduce future finance costs and provide increased rate stability after priority capital improvements are completed and beyond the forecast period. After the improvements are completed, annexation occurs and the District is dissolved and operations merged with the City, it is possible that the operating cost component of rates in the dissolved BHSMD area (assuming the area continues as a zone of the City's sewer operations for rate purposes) could be reduced. Cost savings may occur by the reduction of District overhead and other potential efficiencies. I VIII. Option 2: ;Annexation to the City followed by BHSMD Dissolution upon Completion of Capital Improvements by BHSMD Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 However, the City indicates that currently it does not have available staff capacity to increase its current sewer services,68 which reduces the likelihood of achieving significant economies of scale. A more detailed analysis of the BHSMD system by the City is required for the City to provide an estimate of potential operating cost savings and efficiencies.69 Changes in City billing methodologies compared to current BHSMD bills from the City could also affect future rates. CHANGES IN SERVICE PROVIDERS Following completion of the estimated $12.7 million of capital improvements, annexation of the BHSMD territory and other unincorporated areas to the City would shift responsibility for municipal services in the annexed area from the County of San Mateo to the City. The City of Burlingame is a California general law city70 and provides a range of public services to its 30,300 residents.'' TABLE III-1 shows current service providers to unincorporated areas and the service providers within the City that would serve all annexed areas. Sewer As described above under "Impacts on Sewer Service Rates", BHSMD would remain intact under the management of the County's DPW until the estimated $12.7 million of improvements are completed. Following completion, annexation would occur and BHSMD would be dissolved and its operations and facilities merged with the City's sewer system. The City may create a sewer "zone" for the Burlingame Hills area for the purpose of cost allocation and sewer rate determinations. Water Annexation would trigger no changes in current provision of water. The City DPW's Water Division currently provides drinking water to Area A, Burlingame Hills, and Area B, North Skyline. The Town of Hillsborough serves portions of Area A, Burlingame Hills, and Area C, South Skyline. Rates charged by the City to Burlingame Hills residents are the same as City residents' rates.72 68 City of Burlingame Response to 8/9/19 data request, 8/30/19. 69 City of Burlingame Response to 8/9/19 data request, 8/30/19. 70 A "general law city" is a municipality that is limited to governmental structures and powers specifically granted by state law (California Government Code commencing with Section 34100). Cities that adopt their own charter may adopt their own procedures for various matters, e.g., manner of conducting local elections and the city's dealings with its municipal officers and employees. Approximately one -quarter of California cities are charter cities. 71 Dept. of Finance, population as of January 2019. 72 City of Burlingame 8/30/19 response to 8/9/19 data request. 30 VIII. Option 2: Annexation to the City followed by BHSMD Dissolution upon Completion of Capital Improvements by BHSMD Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 Police Protection Following annexation, the City of Burlingame's Police Department will patrol and respond to calls from the annexed areas currently served by the San Mateo Sheriff's Department. The City's police department of 60 Full -Time Equivalents (FTE) provides community patrol, 911 communications and dispatch, crime prevention, K-9 Program, traffic safety, parking enforcement, and community outreach.73 The Department reported 41,172 calls for service in 2018.74 TABLE III-3 in CHAPTER 3 of this report summarizes incidents in Burlingame Hills to which the Sheriff's Department responded. In 2018, the County responded to 338 incidents. The County's General Fund's net cost for all criminal justice functions represents about 55 percent of total cost for those functions.75 Fire Protection The Central County Fire Department (CCFD) currently serves the City through a Joint Powers Agreement with the Town of Hillsborough. CCFD would be responsible for fire protection services, including post - fire inspections, to currently unincorporated areas after annexation instead of the County of San Mateo ("County Fire"). The CCFD would also be likely to implement a Wildland Urban Fire Interface (WUI) program to inspect parcels in Burlingame Hills, which has areas that include high fire severity zones.76 All City prevention ordinances would apply to BH, possibly affecting planning and building approvals and projects. Although the County of San Mateo ("County Fire") currently is responsible for fire protection services to the unincorporated Burlingame Hills area and other unincorporated areas considered in the Study, CCFD responds to nearly all of the reported incidents due to the proximity of its stations to Burlingame Hills per its "Automatic Aid and First Response" agreement with other fire protection agencies in the County.77 For example, in 2018 CCFD responded to all 70 incidents reported in the Burlingame Hills area as shown in TABLE III-4 in CHAPTER III. County fire services in FY20 are funded entirely by its Structural Fire Fund (SFF); SFF property taxes are the primary source of revenue to the Fund. The Central County Fire Department (CCFD) was established through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the City and the Town of Hillsborough with essential support services provided by the two cities. As described in the CCFD budget, the Department is governed by a Board of Directors ("Board") 73 Fiscal Year 2019-20 Adopted Budget, City of Burlingame, June 17, 2019, pg. 119-127. 74 Ibid, City of Burlingame FY20 Budget, pg. 122. 75 County of San Mateo FY2019-21 Recommended Budget, Criminal Justice, pg. 1-2. 76 City of Burlingame 8/30/19 response to 8/9/19 data request. 77 Agreement for Exchange of Emergency Medical, Rescue and Fire Protection Services Automatic Aid and First Response, June 15, 2009. 31 Vill. Option 2: Annexation to the City followed by BHSMD Dissolution upon Completion of Capital Improvements by BHSMD Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 consisting of two representatives from each city, representing the cities in determining the level of fire, emergency medical and disaster preparedness services to be provided by the Department.78 The CCFD also provides contract services to the City of Millbrae. Community Development Following annexation, residents of Burlingame Hills and other annexed areas will seek review and obtain approvals of building and remodeling plans from the City's Community Development Department (CDD) instead of the County of San Mateo's Planning and Building Department. The City's CDD consists of the Planning Division (which includes Economic Development) and the Building Division. The Department is responsible for long-range and current planning activities, plan checking, building permit issuance, code enforcement and field inspections of all buildings and structures in Burlingame. As summarized in TABLE III-5 in CHAPTER III, the County issued 29 permits in 2018 in Burlingame Hills for improvements valued at $3.5 million and generated $153,100 in permit fee revenue. Overall, about 60 percent of the department's activities are funded through permits, fees and charges for service; the remaining Net County Cost funds the remaining 40 percent of total expenditures.79 According to the City's CCD, in the event of annexation, all properties would be subject to R-1 zoning standards in Burlingame Municipal Code (Code Sec. 25.26); any deviations would be considered existing non -conforming conditions. Various uses would be subject to design review by the City's Planning Commission (Code Sec. 25.57). The CDD assumes that Burlingame Hills would be subject to Hillside Area Construction Permit review (Code Sec. 25.61) regulating obstruction of views. Parks and Recreation The City's Parks and Recreation Department includes the Parks, Recreation, and Aquatics Divisions. The Department is responsible for offering a wide variety of programs, classes, and events and maintaining open spaces, parks, athletic fields, playgrounds, and the landscape of City facilities and the City's urban forest, which includes City park trees and City street trees. In FY 2019-2020, the Department will begin the construction of anew Community Center.80 Charges for services fund about 30 percent of expenditures; Burlingame Hills residents are charged resident rates.81 No changes to current County parks services are likely following annexation. 78 Central County Fire Department Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Adopted Budget, pg. 1. 79 County of San Mateo FY2018-19 Adopted Budget, Budget Unit Summary (3800B), pg. B-69. 8o ibid, City of Burlingame FY20 Budget, pg. 109. 81 City of Burlingame 8/30/19 response to 8/9/19 data request. 32 Vill. Option 2: Annexation to the City followed by BHSMD Dissolution upon Completion of Capital Improvements by BHSMD Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 Library Services The City provides a range of library programs and services at its main library and its Easton Branch; its circulation is a reported 688,058 and attendance is 48,128.82 The services are largely funded by the General Fund, with approximately 11 percent of funding from the Town of Hillsborough. Because the Burlingame Library is part of a consortium of 32 Libraries and branches (Peninsula Library System) for all of San Mateo County, including the community colleges, most library services are free to anyone with a valid card at any library in the system.83 The City reports that its library serves 535 patrons from Burlingame Hills, or approximately half of the estimated 1,063 total Burlingame Hills residents. Of the 535 Burlingame Hills library patrons, 286 have used their library cards in some way (checked out materials, used a computer, downloaded an eBook) in the last year.84 The County of San Mateo is a member of the San Mateo County Libraries Joint Powers Authority (JPA) which does not include the City. The JPA is partially funded by a share of property tax. The JPA property tax funds operation in member libraries, and members fund library maintenance. Road Maintenance The City's Department of Public Works (DPW) will become responsible for maintenance of the 6.3 centerline miles of Burlingame Hills roads following annexation. The City's DPW maintains the City's 84 centerline miles of road. The City's average pavement condition index (PCI) was a 76 (a PCI from 70-89 is "Very Good") in FY18 and expected to further improve to a PCI of 81 in FY19.85 The City's policy is to achieve an average rating of 65 for all streets.86 Road maintenance and improvements are funded by Measure A sales tax, State gas taxes, and State S61 revenues, which total about $2.2 million annually.87 The City estimates that road resurfacing in FY19-20 will be $1.75 million.88 As noted in the "Roads" section of CHAPTER II, the County -maintained roads in Burlingame Hills have an average PCI of 76. The County's CIP proposes total expenditures of approximately $1 million through 2025, assuming funding is available. The County's Road Construction and Operations are primarily 82 Ibid, City of Burlingame FY20 Budget, pg. 4. 83 City of Burlingame 8/30/19 response to 8/9/19 data request. 84 City of Burlingame 8/30/19 response to 8/9/19 data request. 85 Ibid, City of Burlingame FY20 Budget, pg. 137. 86 FY18 CAFR City of Burlingame, Note 4, pg. 117. 87 Ibid, City of Burlingame FY20 Budget, pg. 32. 88 City of Burlingame 8/30/19 response to 8/9/19 data request. 33 y'Ill. Option 2; Annexation to the City followed by BHSMD Dissolution upon Completion of Capital Improvements by BHSMD Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 funded by taxes and intergovernmental revenues and there is no Net County Cost in FY20.89 Annexation would result in a shift of a portion of gas taxes and Measure A revenues from the County to the City. Solid Waste Annexation would result in the City rather than the County overseeing a contract for services. The County and the City are members of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA), a joint powers authority that contracts with Recology and South Bay Recycling for solid waste collection and disposal, inert recyclable materials collection, and yard and organic waste collection and composting.90 A portion of the fees charged for garbage collection and disposal is used to fund cleaning of downtown sidewalks, parking lots, and public trash receptacles. Burlingame residents are charged different rates, and services differ slightly from those currently provided to unincorporated area residents. Storm Drainage Following annexation, the City would become responsible for maintenance of storm drainage associated with the annexed areas and streets. Currently the City operates and maintains 50 miles of storm drain systems and creeks, including regular cleaning of creeks, channels, catch basins, trash capture devices, and pipe systems, and maintaining five pump station facilities to prevent flooding.91 The City also sweeps its streets weekly. The City funds storm drainage programs using storm drainage fee revenue92 projected to be $3 million in FY20. The fee is based on the square footage of impervious surface; for example, a lot size of 6,000 square feet and a typical 60% impervious surface would pay $183 annually,93 and a 10,000 square foot lot (with 50% coverage) would pay $300 or more. The fee can be increased by the City Council up to 2 percent annually. The fee will apply to all parcels annexed to the City. Management and Administration Following annexation, the Burlingame City Council will be the five -member governing body, elected at large, who will represent newly annexed City residents. The Council "provides political leadership, enacts laws, adopts resolutions, and establishes policies for the City government. The City Council adopts an annual budget and conducts an annual audit of the City's finances."94The Council is supported 89 County of San Mateo FY2019-20 Recommended Budget, Road Construction and Operations (4520B), pg. 4-124. 90 Ibid, City of Burlingame FY20 Budget, pg. 143. 91 Ibid, City of Burlingame FY20 Budget, pg. 144-145. 92 Storm Drainage Fee approved by voters, Ordinance No. 1836 adopted January 20, 2009. 93 Rate applicable to FY19-20 is $0.05086 per square foot of impervious surface, per City Response 8/30/19 to Data Request 8/9/19. 94 Ibid, City of Burlingame FY20 Budget, pg. 55. 34 VIII. Option 2: Annexation to the City followed by BHSMD Dissolution upon Completion of Capital Improvements by BHSMD Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 by management and administrative staff and departments including the City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, Finance and Human Resources. The Study Areas currently are represented by one member of the County Board of Supervisors.95 The unincorporated population of the Study Area is about 1,100. The number of voters is about one percent of the total District 1 electorate. The Board of Supervisors oversees Countywide services provided to all cities and unincorporated areas, and municipal services to unincorporated areas. The County Manager directs County departments that include Criminal Justice, Health Services, Social Services, and Community Services. Administrative departments include the Assessor -County Clerk -Recorder, Controller, Treasurer -Tax Collector, County Counsel, Human Resources, and Information Services. IMPACTS ON OTHER RATES AND CHARGES TO RESIDENTS Following annexation, Burlingame Hills and other study area residents will face a different set of fees and charges for services currently provided by the County. TABLE VIII-1 summarizes changes, following annexation, to various taxes and fees currently paid by unincorporated area residents, in addition to sewer rates. 95 Burlingame Hills is represented by District I Supervisor Dave Pine. 35 Vill. Option 2: Annexation to the City followed by BHSMD Dissolution upon Completion of Capital improvements by BHSMD Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 TABLE VIII-1 SUMMARY OF RATES AND CHARGES - STATUS QUO vs. ANNEXATION Governance Option/Jurisdiction Status Quo (Option 1) Annexation (Options 2-3) Item County of San Mateo City of Burlingame Property Tax €1.0% Basic Property Tax and :Same as Status Quo, except that iapprox. 0.12% additional for :sewer charges maybe billed various fees and school bonds :monthly by the City and not appear E(BHSMD charges are also collected :on annual tax bill. Allocations to Ion annual property tax bill). :County agencies, City and BHSMD :will change. Sales and Use Taxes State and local taxes including 1% :Same as Status Quo PLUS 1/4 'to County and 1/2% Measure A :percent Measure I use tax on :Countywide Transportation sales ;,purchase of vehicles that are then Itax. :registered in City. NPDES Storm Fee $7.10/parcel $7.10/parcel Burlingame Storm : `No Storm Drainage Fee (other $0.0492 per sq.ft. of impervious Drainage Fee than NPDES fee). :surface. Typical 6,000 sq.ft. lot ( :would pay $150/yr (typically $300 or more in BH) billed on property itax bill. Business License :No business license required 1$100 annually €'except certain types of businesses €(eg, pawn brokers, massage, fortune telling). Sewer 1$1,675/year current rates will :Typical City charge of $880/yr lincrease in order to fund $12.7 : (assuming about 6,000 mill. priority capital improvements [gal./month) likely higher in 1 € Burlingame Hills zone to fund :$12.7 mill. priority capital 1 :::improvements. Same as City of Burlingame (for :$9.79-$10.98/1,000 gal. per month most parcels, which currently are :depending on usage. Typical SFD served by the City). :charge of $103/month inc. service :charge Solid Waste 1$39.99/month (32 gal.) :$25.28/month (32 gal.) :$61.95/month (64 gal.) Residential $50.57/month (64 gal.) (eff. 2/1/19) Residential 11118119 36 VIII. Option 2: Annexation to the City followed by BHSMD Dissolution upon Completion of Capital Improvements by BHSMD Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 FISCAL IMPACTS ON THE CITY OF BURLINGAME Upon annexation, the City would become responsible for providing municipal services to the area, replacing the County's responsibility to provide, for example, police and fire protection services, planning and permitting functions, and road maintenance. The County would continue to provide services that it provides Countywide. An evaluation of potential fiscal impacts indicates that annexation could produce a "break-even" outcome for the City. Over the longer -term, the addition of property value and the ability to spread City costs over a larger base could enhance City revenues. Depending on property tax share negotiations required for annexation, fiscal benefits to the City could be improved, for example, depending on the re- allocation of County Fire Fund property taxes to the City to reflect the provision of fire protection to Burlingame Hills by the City. There would be no significant fiscal impact on the City from sewer operations since BHSMD would have completed capital improvements, residents of the sewer zone would be responsible for ongoing costs, and the budget forecast includes contributions to reserves for future capital needs after completion of the estimated $12.7 million of improvements. TABLE VIII-2 summarizes the potential fiscal impacts on the City resulting from annexation of the Study Areas. The estimated fiscal impacts are intended to represent "marginal" costs or revenues, or actual budget changes; only those items potentially affecting the City's budget are allocated — existing costs and revenues unaffected by annexation are not allocated. Additional detail is contained in APPENDIX C. TABLE VIII-2 shows that estimated revenue increases from annexation slightly exceed marginal cost increases. If a City share of the County's Fire Fund property tax revenue is negotiated between the County and the City to help fund City fire protection services to Burlingame Hills as part of the annexation tax share agreement, the City's fiscal surplus would increase. The full amount of Fire Fund property tax may not be transferred to the City, for example, if a share contributes to continued funding of existing County fire service costs. Property tax sharing is further described below. 37 Vlll. Option 2: Annexation to the City followed by BHSMD Dissolution upon Completion of Capital Improvements by BHSMD Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 TABLE VIII-2 SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACTS OF ANNEXATION ON THE CITY Budget Item Area A Area B Area C Total GENERAL FUND REVENUES Property Tax (1) $445,031 $7,176 $1,475 $453,682 (less) BHSMD Prop. Tax to Sewer (2) (78,953) 0 0 (78,953) Other Revenues (inc. storm drainage) 264,527 4.899 3,062 272,487 Total Revenues $630,606 $12,075 $4,537 $647,217 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (Net of Service Charges) General Government (3) $111,482 $2,064 $1,290 $114,837 Public Safety (4) 0 0 0 0 Public Works (inc. storm drainage) 278,376 8,436 8,436 295,247 Community Development 37,075 687 429 38,190 Leisure and Cultural Services(5) 0 0 0 0 Total Expenditures 426,932 11,187 10,155 448,274 GENERAL FUND NET $203,673 $888 ($5,618) $198,943 ROAD FUND (6) Revenues $72,641 $1,345 $841 74,827 Expenditures 184,643 not est. not est. 184,643 NET ($112,002) $1,345 $841 ($109,816) TOTAL GENERAL FUND AND ROAD FUND $91,671 $2,233 ($4,778) $89,127 Fire Fund Re -Allocation (to be negotiated) (7) S413,727 S6,671 $1,371 $421,770 TOTAL if maximum share of Fire Fund $505,399 $8,905 ($3,406) $510,897 (1) Property tax net of City& current BHSMD allocations to the State Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund. Amount shown excludes share of County Fire Fund to be negotiated. Maximum shown at bottom of table. (2) Assumes current BHSMD property tax continues to be allocated to sewer operations for an interim period. (3) General Government cost impacts estimated proportionate to increase in City population. (4) City indicated no significant impact on City police services; Central County Fire currently serves the area. (5) Burlingame Hills residents already utilize City library and recreation facilities & pay current City resident fees. (6) Road fund assumestransferofcertain road -related taxes from County. (7) Amount of Fire Fund property tax re -allocation dependent on County -City annexation tax share negotiations. Property Tax Sharing The LAFCO annexation process requires a tax share agreement between the County and the City that determines the transfer of a share of the property taxes currently generated in the annexed area. TABLE VIII-3 summarizes the property taxes generated within the District and the other study areas, and includes agencies affected by a potential annexation that could shift property taxes to the City. Other agencies receiving a share of property tax from the area will continue to serve the residents regardless of whether or not the area served shifts from unincorporated to city boundaries, and their share of property tax will be unaffected. 38 VIII, Option 2: Annexation to the City followed by BHSMD Dissolution upon Completion of Capital Improvements by BHSMD Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 In the event of an annexation, the District's current share of property taxes would be subject to transfer to the City. LAFCO Terms and Conditions and the tax share agreement can specify the disposition of current property taxes and their continued (or interim) use for sewer services to the former BHSMD area within a City sewer service zone. In addition, property taxes accruing to other public entities serving the unincorporated areas to be annexed would be subject to transfer to the City. Other agencies' property tax revenues subject to transfer include: • County General Fund — In the event of annexation, the County will transfer certain service responsibilities for the annexed area to the City as described in CHAPTER IX. A transfer of a portion of property tax from the County to the City, in addition to other new City revenues from the annexed areas, would help fund increased City services to annexed areas. • County Free Library — The City maintains and funds its own library services and residents' tax bills do not include a share of property tax to the Free Library system. • County Structural Fire Fund —The City is responsible for fire service within its jurisdiction (and to neighboring communities through mutual aid) by its participation in the Central County Fire Department. Currently, the County's fire service responsibilities to the unincorporated areas are partially funded by a share of property tax, however, Central County Fire has primary responsibility for responding to calls in the annexation areas due to its stations' proximity. The amount and nature of the property transfer will depend on the tax sharing agreement between the County and the City. This Governance Options Study provides an initial assessment of potential property tax sharing based on achieving current shares of property tax to the County and to the City within City boundaries. TABLE VIII-4 shows the resulting reduction of property tax revenues to County entities if annexation results in the property tax shift shown in TABLE VIII-3. The amounts shown in TABLE VIII-4 are adjusted for ERAF allocations to indicate the net impacts post-ERAF changes. VIIL Option 2: Annexation to the City followed by BHSMD Dissolution upon Completion of Capital Improvements by BHSMD Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 TABLE VIII-3 PROPERTY TAXES SUBJECT TO NEGOTIATION (FY18-19) ......................................................................................................................................................... Area A Item Burlingame Hills Annexed'Service Area Area B Area C N. Skyline S. Skyline A-C Total % Assessed Value Total Assessed Value $595,277,604 $9,598,753 $1,973,048 $606,849,405 Tax Increment Subiect to Negotiation (1) County General Fund $1,798,086 $29,657 $6,100 $1,833,842 30.2% County Free Library 262,113 4,323 889 267,325 4.4% County Structural Fire 487,328 8,037 1,653 497,019 8.2% Subtotal County 2,547,527 42,017 8,642 2,598,186 42.8% Burlingame Hills Sewer Maint. Dist. 131,589 0 0 131,589 2.2% Subtotal Increment $2,679,115 $42,017 $8,642 $2,729,774 45.0% Other Agencies' Tax Increment $3,273,661 $53,971 $11,088 $3,338,720 55.0% Total Increment $5,952,776 $95,988 $19,730 $6,068,494 100.0% Tax Increment Post -Annexation County General Fund (2) $1,665,749 $26,860 $5,521 $1,698,130 28.0% County Free Library 0 0 0 0 0.0% County Structural Fire 0 0 0 0 0.0% Subtotal County $1,665,749 $26,860 $5,521 $1,698,130 28.0% Burlingame Hills Sewer Maint. Dist. 0 0 0 0 0.0% City of Burlingame (2) 1,011,972 16,318 3,354 1,031,644 17.0% Other 3,275,055 52,810 10.855 3,338,720 55.0% Total $5,952,776 $95,988 $19,730 $6,068,494 100.0% (1) Adjustments to property tax subject to a sharing agreement between the County and City. Increment shown is prior to shift to Educational Augmentation Revenue Fund. Taxes shown based on increment factors times assessed value. This methodology assumes that Prior Year's property tax to each entity ("Base") represents approximately the same share of total taxes as its incremental share ofthegrowth in taxes to the current year. (2) County & City increment factors post -annexation are comparable to current average factors in the City. Property tax allocations and increment factors are to be negotiated as part of a County -City tax share agreement. Other Revenues Other City revenues potentially affected by annexation include: • Franchise Tax — Revenues to the City are generated by various franchises from payments by various utilities including PG&E, Comcast, AT&T, and Astound. The Budget Forecast assumes these revenues could increase proportionate to the increase in City population added by the annexation, an increase of approximately $60,000 annually. ON VIII. Option 2: Annexation to the City followed by BHSMD Dissolution upon Completion of Capital Improvements by BHSMD Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 • Transfer Taxes —The re -sale of homes in Burlingame Hills could produce about $39,000 of additional annual transfer tax revenue to the City. The Budget Forecast assumes a five percent turnover rate of homes, average sales price of $2.3 million, and a tax rate of $0.55 per $1,000 of value. • Storm Drainage Fees —After annexation, the new residents will be subject to the City's storm drain fees, which are based on lot coverage. The Budget Forecast assumes an average lot size of 10,000 square feet, 60% average coverage, and a current annual fee of $0.0586 per square foot of coverage. An estimated $136,000 annually would be generated to the City. Other potential revenues not estimated include local sales tax (Measure I, a % cent sales tax) that could increase with the addition of City residents, for example, upon purchase of a vehicle outside of the City. Otherwise, the analysis assumes that Burlingame Hills residents already make purchases in the City that result in the 1% rate that accrues to the City, and their expenditure patterns won't change or increase City tax revenues. Expenditures Estimated additional City expenditures include: • General Government —The Budget Forecast assumes that overhead functions would increase proportionate to the increase, or fraction of the increase, in the number of City residents due to annexation. The analysis projects general government costs to increase at 50 percent of the current per capita cost multiplied by the additional residents, an annual increase of about $115,000. No significant increase is assumed due to the merger of the BHSMD system, although it is likely that transition costs will be incurred to integrate the BHSMD sewer system, e.g., merging operations and billing into the City's structure. • Public Safety —The City has indicated that the annexation of Burlingame Hills alone will not require additional police staff, however, "annexation, coupled with current and anticipated growth in other areas of the city, would factor into potential personnel additions in the future."96 No additional fire protection costs are assumed, since Central County Fire already provides most responses to calls in Burlingame Hills. Some additional costs may be incurred for fire prevention inspections to the area. • Public Works (Streets and Storm Drainage) —The Public Works General Fund costs are estimated proportionate to the increase in lineal road miles. The public works costs, including storm drainage costs, are estimated at $295,000 annually and are partially offset by storm 96 City of Burlingame 8/30/19 response to 8/9/19 data request. 41 Vill. Option 2: annexation to the City followed by BHSMD Dissolution upon Completion of Capital Improvements by BHSMD Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 drainage fees. Road costs, an estimated increase of $185,000 annually, are funded by non - General Fund sources (see below). • Community Development --The Budget Forecast assumes that Community Development costs would increase proportionate to the increase in City residents. The City has indicated that annexation could create a need for an additional 0.25 Full -Time Equivalent employee (FTE);97 the per capita estimate totaling $38,000 in the Budget Forecast approximates this additional staff. • Leisure and Cultural Services — No impact to library or recreation services is estimated; it is assumed that Burlingame Hills residents already utilize City programs and facilities and therefore will not have an additional impact following annexation. • Roads — Increases in road maintenance costs are estimated based on the City's total resurfacing costs of $1.75 million annually98 per lineal road miles (84 lineal miles), multiplied by Burlingame Hills lineal road miles. The City provides a broad range of municipal services; the services and costs noted above focus on those services potentially directly affected by the addition of residents. Other City budget expenditures, for example, existing debt service and net pension and OPEB liabilities, depreciation and maintenance of existing facilities are assumed to be unaffected directly by annexation. FISCAL IMPACTS ON THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO TABLE VIII-4 estimates the shift of property tax revenues from various County funds and entities to the City, if annexation occurs. The estimates are further described in this chapter in the section "Property Tax Sharing" and in TABLE VIII-3, above. The losses are partially offset by reduced service costs described below. The actual property tax impacts depend on an annexation tax share agreement that would be negotiated between the City and the County. 97 City of Burlingame CDD Response to 8/9/19 data request, 8/30/19. 98 City of Burlingame 8/30/19 response to 8/9/19 data request. 42 Vlll. Option 2; Annexation to the City followed by BHSMD Dissolution upon Completion of Capital Improvements by BHSMD Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 TABLE VIII-4 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO PROPERTY TAX REDUCTIONS DUE TO ANNEXATION (NET OF ERAF) Budget Item Area A Area B Area C Total Fund or Government Entity (net of ERAF) (1) County General Fund (2) $79,588 $1,313 $270 81,171 County Free Library (3) 209,169 3,450 710 213,328 County Structural Fire (3) 524,025 8,643 1,778 534,445 Subtotal County $812,782 $13,405 $2,757 $828,944 Burlingame Hills Sewer Maint. Dist. (3) 78,953 0 0 78,953 Total, Property Tax Reductions $891,735 $13,405 $2,757 $907,897 (1) Amounts shown include adjustments to deduct allocationsto theState's Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). (2) County General Fund rate declines from 30.2%to 28.0%. City receives 17.0% post -annexation. (3) Rates eliminated in City -annexed areas include the County Free Library, County Structural Fire Fund, and BHSMD. Fire Fund receives ERAF, so net taxes (and potential loss) after ERAF are greater than amount subject to transfer (before ERAF). Note: Transfer amounts are estimates only for the purpose of the Governance Options Study; actual property tax allocations wil I be determined in a tax sharing agreement between the City and the County. Estimates based on FY19 assessed values which would be revised depending on annexation timing. 11/19/19 The revenue reductions will be partially offset by corresponding service and cost reductions, although the cost reductions are likely to be minimal. • County General Fund — Following annexation, the County Sheriff will no longer be responsible for responding to calls in Burlingame Hills. As described in CHAPTER III, the number of calls is minimal; the City does not anticipate any change in staffing required by taking over police services to the area due to the relatively low number of calls from the area. No significant cost savings to the County for the shift is assumed. • County Free Library — Burlingame Hills residents currently utilize the City's library system; no change in use patterns is likely, and no cost savings to the County Free Library. • County Structural Fire — The City is the primary fire service provider to the Burlingame Hills area due to the proximity of its stations, so no significant cost savings is likely to the Structural Fire Fund. County structural fire will experience a revenue loss identified above and the property tax negotiation could include a transfer of Fire Fund property tax revenues to the City to fund emergency response currently provided by the City to Burlingame Hills. • Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District— BHSMD does not incur a net County Cost, as it is entirely funded through property taxes and service charges; therefore, a shift of sewer services to City responsibility, and shift of BHSMD's current property taxes, will have no impact on the Vlll. Option 2: Annexation to the City followed by BHSMD Dissolution upon Completion of Capital Improvements by BHSMD Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 County. Eliminating the need for County DPW services to BHSMD would enable County DPW staff to serve the remaining County -dependent districts and provide other County public works services more efficiently and effectively. • Other Services — Responsibility for street sweeping to the area, estimated at $35,000 annually,99 will be shifted to the City, reducing County costs. The only road treatment currently programmed is the $93,000 cape seal of Canyon Road in 2020 with "One Bay Area Grant" (OBAG) funding.10° Future road maintenance costs to the area will become the City's responsibility, although the cost reduction will be offset by a shift of approximately $33,500 of road -related revenues to the City.iol The City is likely to receive additional gas taxes with additional population, however, these revenues are not all directly shifted from the County's share of gas tax receipts. 99 County DPW Data Request Response 1, 6/3/19. ioo County DPW Data Request Response 1, 6/3/19. OBAG funds are allocated by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to cities and counties approving new housing construction and meeting housing targets, and to Priority Development Areas. 101 County DPW estimates a shift of Measure A allocations to local roads and transportation of $33,500 (County DPW, 9/10/19). There may be a minimal impact on other gas tax and road revenues. M VIII. Option 2: Annexation to the City followed by BHSMD Dissolution upon Completion of Capital Improvements by BHSMD Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 IX. OPTION 3: ANNEXATION TO THE CITY AND BHSMD DISSOLUTION WITH COUNTY PARTICIPATION IN FUNDING FOR CITY COMPLETION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Under this option, the City would annex Burlingame Hills (and two other unincorporated areas). BHSMD would simultaneously be dissolved and its functions, assets and liabilities would be merged with the City's operations. The County, in addition to Burlingame Hills sewer ratepayers, would be responsible for participating in funding the estimated $12.7 million of needed capital improvements to the former BHSMD system. Following BHSMD dissolution and merger of sewer operations with the City, it is expected that the City will form a zone encompassing the area of the former BHSMD. In addition to County participation in the estimated $12.7 million of capital improvements, funding would come from ratepayers in this zone in order for the City to complete needed sewer system repairs, and to provide reserves for future capital improvements. Depending on property tax share negotiations required for annexation, property tax re- allocations could help fund capital improvements. The specific manner of financing and County participation could reduce rates required to help fund the estimated $12.7 million of improvements. Potential economies of scale from dissolution and merger of the BHSMD sewer system with the City could help minimize rate increases noted in CHAPTER IX. Operating efficiencies could be achieved utilizing the City's utility and management staff and other administrative. However, the City has indicated that its current staff is fully engaged, and the City's ability and cost to provide sewer services to Burlingame Hills and achieve economies of scale is contingent on further detailed evaluation of the BHSMD system. Annexation of Burlingame Hills (and two other unincorporated areas) could produce a fiscal "break- even" for the City's budget. Depending on property tax share negotiations required for annexation, the tax sharing could create fiscal benefits to the City in excess of costs, depending on the use of property tax re -allocations to fund the estimated $12.7 million of capital improvements to the BHSMD system. The analysis assumes that the City creates a zone for Burlingame Hills in order to allocate sewer operations and capital costs specific to that area. Therefore, there would be no significant fiscal impact on the City from the Burlingame Hills sewer system since the County would have completed capital improvements, residents of the zone would be responsible for ongoing costs, and the budget forecast includes establishment of reserves for future capital needs. 45 IX. Option 3; Annexation to the City and BHSMD Dissolution with County Participation in Funding for City Completion of Capital Improvements Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 IMPACTS ON SEWER SERVICE RATES Sewer service rates to current Burlingame Hills residents for Option 3 are likely to increase similar to the Status Quo Option 1 and Option 2 in order to fund capital improvements, although potential economies of scale due to merger with City operations could help mitigate rate increases attributable to operating costs. TABLE IX-1 provides a Budget Forecast for Option 3 that shows that potential rate increases required, primarily due to the cost of future capital improvements. The operating component of rate increases for Option 3 are slightly less than shown for the Status Quo Budget Forecast because the Option 3 sewer system merger with the City assumes: • Current District administration expenses are eliminated. • Existing City overhead costs are spread over a greater rate base. Cost savings and continued allocation of current BHSMD property taxes shown in the Budget Forecast could help to fund transition costs (e.g., system planning, billing, GIS, etc.). Annual contributions to capital reserves equal three percent of infrastructure cost; these funds are not utilized during the forecast period so they can be accumulated and reduce future interest costs for capital replacement on an ongoing basis. Current City charges to BHSMD for sewer collection and treatment, which include an administrative component, are assumed to continue at current costs increased by inflation. Future costs will differ from those shown to the extent that City costs and allocations change. Costs for office staff and sewer crew are assumed to continue at a cost level (inflated) similar to current County DPW charges to BHSMD, although City sewer and administrative staff will be utilized; the costs are likely to differ from the forecast depending on City staff allocations and costs. Cost savings are possible if current City staff have the capacity to provide services to the annexed area, however, the City has indicated that staff capacity currently is unavailable.loz 102 City of Burlingame Response to 8/9/19 data request, 8/30/19. IX. Option 3: Annexation to the City and BHSMD Dissolution with County Participation in Funding for City Completion of Capital Improvements Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 TABLE IX-1 SEWER BUDGET FORECAST -ANNEXATION AND BHSMD DISSOLUTION/MERGER WITH THE CITY Item FY19-20 FY20-21 FY21-22 FY22-23 FY23-24 FY24-25 FY25-26 FY26-27 FY27-28 FY28-29 FY29-30 Operations & Existing Debt Service Rate $1,675 $1,675 $1,424 $1,424 $1,139 $1,162 $1,220 $1,281 $1,345 $1,412 $1,483 Future Debt & Capital Reserves Rate L 89 521 521 969 969 $1,315 $1,608 $1,608 51,885 Avg. Combined Rate $1,675 $1,764 $1,944 $1,944 $2,108 $2,131 $2,535 $2,596 $2,953 $3,021 $3,367 Charges for Services 735,325 774,325 853,534 853,534 925,617 935,617 1,112,725 1,139,501 1,296,481 1,326,002 1,478,283 Property Taxes 80,467 84,490 88,715 93,151 97,808 102,699 107,833 113,225 118,886 124,831 131,072 Use of Money and Property, Other 35,000 36.050 37,132 38,245 39,393 40,575 41,792 43,046 44,337 45,667 47,037 Total Revenues 850,792 894,865 979,380 984,930 1,062,818 1,078,890 1,262,350 1,295,771 1,459,704 1,496,499 1,656,393 EXPENDITURES Operations Sewage Treatment and Disposal 285,717 294,289 303,117 312,211 321,577 331,224 341,161 351,396 361,938 372,796 383,980 System Maintenance and Improvements Contract Design, Engineering and Testing 230,000 270,000 31,827 34,778 35,822 36,896 38,003 39,143 40,317 41,527 42,773 DPW Engineering Services 182,275 187,743 193,376 199,177 205,152 211,307 217,646 224,175 230,901 237,828 244,962 Other Maintenance 9_`00 9,270 9 548 9535 10,130 10,433 10,746 11,069 11,401 11,743 12,095 Subtotal, System Maintenance 421,275 467,013 234,751 243,790 251,103 258,636 266,395 274,387 282,619 291,098 299,830 Administration Other Overhead Admin De t'I Misc. 1 34,025 35,046 n v \S Total Expenditures 741,017 796,348 537,868 556,000 572,680 589,861 607,556 625,783 Haxao0�soru„ 644,557 omOQ,,, 663,893 a\o\ 683,810 Net Operating Income 109,775 98,518 441,513 428,930 490,138 499,030 654,793 669,988 815,148 832,606 972,582 DEBT SERVICE Subtotal Debt Service (existing) 95,637 95,637 95,637 95,637 95,637 95,637 95,637 95,637 95,637 95,637 95,637 Subtotal Debt Service (New) 0 0 114,508 114,508 233,596 233,596 325,202 325,202 403,067 403,067 476,352 Coverage 115% 103% 210% 204% 149% 149% 156% 159% 163% 167% 170% Total Expenditures (inc. debt) $836,654 $891,985 $748,013 $766,145 $901,913 $919,094 $1,028,396 $1,046,622 $1,143,261 $1,162,598 $1,255,800 NET AFTER DEBT SERVICE (before CIP) $14,138 $2,881 $231,368 $218,785 $160,905 $159,797 $233,954 $249,149 $316,443 $333,902 $400,593 Fund Transfers to Capital Projects 1,000,000 1,300,000 Other Transfers Out 11,192 11,528 11,874 12,230 12,597 12,975 13,364 13,765 14,178 14,603 15,041 Ending Fund Balance $1,572,255 $224,608 $330,102 $422,658 $378,966 $333,788 $302,378 $285,763 $285,028 $301,327 $335,879 % of Operating Costs (50% target) 212% 28% 61% 76% 66% 57% 50% 46% 44% 45% 49% Cumulative Reserves for Future Capital $39,000 $153,000 $267,000 $459,000 $651,000 $903,000 $1,155,000 $1,458,000 $1,761,000 $2,112,000 (1) Merger option assumes that District overhead is eliminated. City will require overhead expenditures, but it is assumed these are offset through rates and efficiency gains. 11120119 47 Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 CHANGES IN SERVICE PROVIDERS Annexation of the BHSMD territory and other unincorporated areas to the City would shift responsibility for municipal services in the annexed area from the County of San Mateo to the City. TABLE III-1 shows current service providers to unincorporated areas and the service providers within the City that would serve all annexed areas. The service provider changes for Option 3 resulting from annexation are the same as those described for Option 2 (following completion of improvements and subsequent annexation) and described in CHAPTER VIII. Sewer service will become a City responsibility following annexation and dissolution/merger of BHSMD. The change in sewer service in Option 3 occurs simultaneous with annexation rather being deferred until completion of the estimated $12.7 million of BHSMD improvements. Sewer Annexation of the BHSMD territory would include the dissolution of BHSMD and merger of its facilities and operations with the City's sewer operations. The City maintains the sewer system within the City boundaries and treats sewage flows, including flows from the area to be annexed , at the City's treatment plant. The City would also become responsible for serving areas currently served by the BHSMD which are outside BHSMD boundaries whether or not these unincorporated areas are annexed. Following the dissolution and merger of BHSMD, the City could create a separate zone and/or assessment district to encompass the former BHSMD to allocate sewer service and capital costs specific to the area without adverse impacts upon current City residents or subsidy from the City. The method of billing may transition from a fixed payment on property tax bills to a system of monthly billings based on water consumption as well as charges to fund the estimated $12.7 million in capital improvements. Changes in Other Service Providers As noted above, service provider changes for Option 3 resulting from annexation are the same as those described for Option 2 after annexation, and are described in CHAPTER VIII. IMPACTS ON OTHER RATES AND CHARGES TO RESIDENTS Annexation will change various rates and charges to Burlingame Hills residents. The changes will be the same for Option 3 as shown for Option 2 following annexation, described in Chapter VIII and summarized on TABLE VIII-2. M IX. Option 3: Annexation to the City and BHSMD Dissolution Followed by County Completion of Capital Improvements Operational and Governance Options Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District Admin. Draft Report 12/5/19 FISCAL IMPACTS ON THE CITY OF BURLINGAME Upon annexation, the City would become responsible for providing municipal services to the area, replacing the County's responsibility to provide, for example, police and fire protection services, planning and permitting functions, and road maintenance. The County would continue to provide services that it provides Countywide. The effects on the City's budget are estimated to be similar to those described in CHAPTER VIII and summarized in TABLE VIII-2. Annexation could produce a "break-even" outcome for the City. Over the longer -term, the addition of property value and the ability to spread City costs over a larger base could enhance City revenues. Depending on property tax share negotiations required for annexation, fiscal benefits to the City could be improved, for example, depending on the re -allocation of County Fire Fund property taxes to the City to reflect the provision of fire protection to Burlingame Hills by the City. Assuming the City creates a sewer zone for Burlingame Hills upon dissolution and merger of BHSMD, residents of the zone would be responsible for ongoing operating and capital costs. Option 3 assumes County participation in funding the estimated $12.3 million of capital improvements, in addition to Burlingame Hills sewer rate increases. There would be no impact on the City's budget from Burlingame Hills sewer operations or on City residents outside the annexation area. FISCAL IMPACTS ON THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Annexation will shift services from the County to the City in the same manner described for Option 2 (following annexation) in CHAPTER VIII. TABLE VIII-4 estimates the shift of property tax revenues (post-ERAF adjustments) from various County funds and entities to the City, if annexation occurs. The estimates are further described in CHAPTER VIII in the section "Property Tax Sharing" and in TABLE VIII-3. The losses are offset by reduced service costs described in CHAPTER VIII . The actual property tax impacts depend on an annexation tax share agreement that would be negotiated between the City and the County, and will depend on the use of property tax re -allocations for capital improvements and continued support of County Fire. 49 IX. Option 3: Annexation to the City and BHSMD Dissolution Followed by County Completion of Capital Improvements COMPARISON OF LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS % U070-TORM Zoning R-1/S-9 R-1/5-10 R-1/SS-103 Resources Management R-I(Potential) Medium Low Density Low Density Residential - Medium Low Density General Plan Land Use Residential -Urban Urban Residential -Urban Open Space Minimum Lot Size 10,000 sq. ft. 20,000 sq. ft. 14,000 sq. f.t N/A 5,000-10,000 sq. ft. Lot Dimensions 50 ft. width 50 ft. width N/A N/A 50 -60 ft. in width Height Requirements 36 ft., 3 stories 36 ft., 3 stories 35 ft., 2-1/2 stories 36 ft., 3 stories 30 ft., 2-1/2 stories Lot Coverage 30% 25% N/A N/A 40% 32% plus additonal square footage based on if the parcels is a corner or interior lot and has an attached or deached garage (No home shall Floor Area Ratio (FAR) N/A N/A N/A N/A exceed 8,000 sq. ft.) For First Floor:15 ft. or the average front setback of properties with front setbacks on the same side ofthe street ofthat block, whichever is greater; For Garage: 20-35 ft.; For Second Front Yard Setbacks 20 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. 50 ft. Floor: 20 ft. Rear Yard Setbacks 20 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. For First Floor: 15 ft.; For Second Floor 20 ft. 3-7 ft., depending on lot width, corner lots Side Yard Setbacks 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 20 ft. are subject to greater setbacks 1 covered parking space for 1 covered parking space for 1 covered parking space for 1 covered parking space for houses with one bedroom; houses with one bedroom; houses with one bedroom; houses with one bedroom; 2 covered parking spaces for 2 covered parking spaces for 2 covered parking spaces for 2 covered parking spaces for Off -Street Parking houses with 2 or more houses with 2 or more houses with 2 or more houses with 2 or more 2 parkingspaces, 1 ofwhich must becovered Requirements bedrooms bedrooms bedrooms bedrooms by a garage or carport. and building requirments, and buildingrequirments, and building requirments, Resources Management no planning permit no planning permit no planning permit Permit may be required for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Review Process required required required developmnet Permits may required Accessory Dwellling Units Permitted Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes * If any unincorporated parcels are to be annexed into the City of Burlingame, the City'sZoning Regulations statethat, "no lands annexed to the city of Burlingame after May 31,1960, which are thereupon classified for residential uses shall be divided into lots having areas ofless than ten thousand (10,000) squarefeet each." (Ord.1863 § 10, (2011)). Table B-1 Estimated Average Monthly Sewer Rates Item BHSMD City of Burlingame City of San Mateo City of Hillsborough City of Millbrae Water Usage 8 CCF 8 CCF 8 CCF Units per month 31 days) 5.98 units (1,000 gal.) 5.98 units (1,000 gal.) 5.98 units (1,000 gal.) 5,984 gal/month 5,984 gal/month 5,984 gal/month SEWER Sewer Service Charge $139.58 $1,675/yr(FY19) $36.59 meter charge (3) $257.92 fixed (4) Other Charges S ewe r V a ria ble Charge Max HH Units 7.00 5,984 gal. 8 CCF 8 CCF Charge per Unit per HCF $12.25 per 1,000 gal. $7.15 per CCF per CCF Charge per person Total Variable Charge $0.00 $73.31 $57.20 $0.00 TOTAL SEWER CHARGES $139.58 $73.31 $93.79 $257.92 Annual Sewer Charge $1,675.00 $879.71 $1,125.48 $3,095.00 Rates as of December 2018. (1) City of Burlingame, Water Rate Handout, eff. January 1, 2019 (single-family now charged at a tiered rate; all others are $11.46/1,000 gal) note: meter charge is higherthan shown on FY18-19 Master Fee Schedule (eff. 1/1/18). (2) City of Burlingame FY18-19 Master Fee Schedule (eff. 1/1/18). (3) City of San Mateo Website, 6/7/19, https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/1085/Sewer-Service-Charge (4) City of Hillsborough website, eff. July 1, 2018, https://www.hillsborough.neV188/Water-Service-Rates (5) City of Millbrae, eff. 7/1/2018, https://www.ci. millbrae.ca.us/departments-services/utility-services/water-and-sewer-service 8 CCF 5.98 units(1,OOOgal. 5,984 gal/month $54.90 fixed monthly 8 CCF $6.23 per CCF $49.84 $104.74 $1,256.88 APPENDIX C BURLINGAME FISCAL IMPACT ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY C-S4 Appendix C Table C-1 City of Burlingame Fiscal Impacts Budget Item Area A Area B Area C Total GENERAL FUND REVENUES Property Tax $858,758 $13,847 $2,846 $875,452 (less) Fire Fund (negotiated) (413,727) (6,671) (1,371) (421,770) (less) BHSMD Prop. Tax to BH Sewer (78,953) 0 0 (78,953) Sales Tax 0 0 0 0 Transient Occupancy Tax 0 0 0 0 Other Taxes - Franchise Tax 581685 1,087 679 60,451 Other Taxes - Business Licenses 0 0 0 0 Other Taxes - State HOPTR 0 0 0 0 Other Taxes - Transfer Tax 38,016 704 440 39,160 Licenses & Permits 2,706 50 31 2,788 Fines, Forfeitures & Penalties 33,291 616 385 34,293 Use of Money & Property 0 0 0 0 Charges for Services Storm Drain Fees 131,829 2,441 1,526 135,796 Other Charges for Services See Table C-2a forService Charge Offsets (deducted from costs) Other Revenue 0 0 0 0 Federal & State Subventions 0 0 0 0 Total Revenues $630,606 $12,075 $4,537 $647,217 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (NET OF SERVICE CHARGES) General Government 111,482 2,064 1,290 114,837 Public Safety 0 0 0 0 Public Works (inc. storm drainage) 278,376 8,436 8,436 295,247 Community Development 37,075 687 429 38,190 Leisure and Cultural Services 0 0 0 0 Total Expenditures 426,932 11,187 10,155 448,274 GENERAL FUND NET 203,673 888 -5,618 198,943 ROAD REVENUES & EXPENDITURES Revenues $72,641 $1,345 $841 74,827 Expenditures 184,643 not est. not est. 184,643 NET ($112,002) $1,345 $841 ($109,816) TOTAL GF AND ROAD FUND $91,671 $2,233 ($4,778) $89,127 Potential Fire Fund (negotiated) S413,727 $6,671 $1,371 $421,770 TOTAL (if 100% of Fire Fund) $505,399 $8,905 ($3,406) $510,897 10125119 Table C-2a City of Burlingame General Fund Revenues (Mid -year Budget) Item Population Units Adopted Budget FY19-20 Annexation Impacts Property Tax $23,270,000 (less) Fire Fund (subject to negotiations, shown "below the line") (less) BHSMD Property Tax to BH Sewer Sales Tax 12,760,000 Transient Occupancy Tax 28,700,000 Other Taxes - Franchise Tax 1,724,000 Other Taxes - Business Licenses 1,020,000 Other Taxes - State HOPTR 60,000 Other Taxes - Transfer Tax 420,000 Licenses & Permits 79,500 Fines, Forfeitures & Penalties 978,000 Use of Money & Property 2,100,000 Charges for Services Storm Drain Fees (1) 3,328,000 Other Charges for Services 2,162,000 Other Revenue 30,000 Federal & State Subventions 140,000 Total Revenues $76,771,500 ROAD REVENUES Measure A & Gas Tax Fund $2,232,000 Factor Tax Share Agreement 17.0% of am. less 15.1% ERAF Tax allocated to Fire Fund Fire Fund Tax (net of ERAF) Tax initially allocated to BH Sewer BHSMD tax (net of ERAF) na na na na per capita $56.87 per resident na na Included in property tax na 5 %Tumove r*$3.2m i 11.*$0.55/$1,000 per capita $2.62 per resident per capita $32.26 per resident na Deducted from related expenses $305 per lot (average) 10,000 sq.ft. lot (avg), 60.0% FY20 Final Budget Adopted June 17, 2019, pg. 29-30. City population of 30,317 from Dept. of Finance, Jan., 2019. (1) Storm Drain Special Revenue Fund; Other Charges are the remainder. na na per capita $70.39 per resident 9127119 Table C-2b City of Burlingame General Fund Revenues Item Adopted Budget FY19-20 Annexation Impacts Factor Area A Measure A & Gas Tax Fund per cap (Note: County estimated Measure A $860,000 $33,500 per Lococo 9/10/19) $28.37 per resident $29,274 Interest Income 58,000 na Section 2103 -- Excise Tax 258,000 per cap $8.51 per resident $8,782 Section 2106--New Construction 124,000 per cap $4.09 per resident $4,221 Section 2107--Maint/Construction 221,000 per cap $7.29 per resident $7,523 Section 2107.5 - Administration 6,000 na Section 2105--Proposition 111 Gas Tax 170,000 per cap $5.61 per resident $5,787 Road & Maintenance Rehab (RMRA S61) 501,000 per cap $16.53 per resident $17,054 Loan Repayment SB1 34.000 na Total $2,232,000 $70.39 per resident $72,641 9127119 Table C-3 Burlingame General Fund Expenditures Adopted Budget Charges for Budget Net of Item FY19-20 Services Service Chrgs Annexation Impacts Factor General Government City Attorney 1,124,164 City Clerk 420,929 City Council 433,961 City Manager 896,772 Elections 150,000 Finance 2,585,227 Human Resources 939,016 Subtotal 6,550,069 6,550,069 50% per capita $108.03 Public Safety Central County Fire District 11,782,359 11,782,359 na Police (inc. Dispatch, Parking) 17,554,148 112,000 17,442,148 no impact (per City) Subtotal 29,336,507 112,000 29,224,507 Public Works Public Works -Engineering 3,689,976 included in City/BHSMD budget Public Works -Streets & Storm Drainage 3,542,964 per centerline mi. 42,178 Public Works Allocation to CIP (880,000) Subtotal 6,352,940 570,000 5,782,940 Community Development Community Development -Planning 2,019,157 930,000 1,089,157 100% per capita $35.93 Subtotal 2,019,157 930,000 1,089,157 Leisure and Cultural Services Library 5,740,951 758,000 4,982,951 Parks 5,243,082 120,000 5,123,082 Recreation 4,705,230 3,000,000 1,705,230 Recreation -Aquatics Center 309,000 0 309,000 Subtotal 15,998,263 3,878,000 12,120,263 no impact ... BH pay same rates/no increase in use TOTAL, General Fund 60,256,936 5,490,000 54,766,936 FY19-20 Adopted Budget, pg. 44. (1) Approximately equal to 0.25 FTE. 10125119 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND FUNDING BHSMD GOVERNANCE OPTIONS BUDGET FORECAST r Table D-1 Summary of Options Study Budget Forecast - Ten -Year CIP Project Buildout Capital Improvement Projects and Funding - BHSMD Governance Options Budget Forecast Capital Item TOTAL FY20-21 FY21-22 FY22-23 FY23-24 FY24-25 FY25-26 FY26-27 FY27-28 FY28-29 FY29-30 Improvement (1) Hillside/Adeline Area (-6,800 feet) $1,300,000 1,300,000 Upper Canyon Area (-6,400 feet) 2,500,000 2,500,000 Fey Area (-6,100 feet) 2,600,000 2,600,000 Tiara Area (-4,600 feet) 2,000,000 2,000,000 Alturas/La Mesa Area (-3,700 feet) 1,700,000 1,700,000 Lower Canyon Area (^3,200 feet) 1,600,000 1,600,000 Total $11,700,000 1,300,000 2,500,000 0 2,600,000 0 2,000,000 0 1,700,000 0 1,600,000 Cumulative 1,300,000 3,800,000 3,800,000 6,400,000 6,400,000 8,400,000 8,400,000 10,100,000 10,100,000 11,700,000 (less) Reserve Funds Applied ($1,300,000) (1,300,000) New Debt Issued $10,400,000 0 2,500,000 0 2,600,000 0 2,000,000 0 1,700,000 0 1,600,000 Issuance Costs $1,040,000 0 250,000 0 260,000 0 200,000 0 170,000 0 160,000 Total Issuance $11,440,000 0 2,750,000 0 2,860,000 0 2,200,000 0 1,870,000 0 1,760,000 Cumulative Issued 0 2,750,000 2,750,000 5,610,000 5,610,000 7,810,000 7,810,000 9,680,000 9,680,000 11,440,000 Debt Service 0 114,508 114,508 233,596 233,596 325,202 325,202 403,067 403,067 476,352 Source: Costs from Presentation at Property Owners Meeting — Sewer Service Rates BHSMD, County of San Mateo DPW, May 14, 2018, Priority of Remaining Capital Improvements, pg. 18.; $1 million budgeted to Hillside/Adeline Area in FY19 and balance of cost in FY20. Note: costs are estimated and may change depending on future conditions. (1) Note: Hillside/Adeline Area Project is partially completed in FY19-20 budgeted at $1 million. 9126119 APPENDIX E PARCELS REQUIRING REVISIONS TO PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATIONS During the course of preparing the Study, the author identified a number of parcel property tax discrepancies; these parcels are under review by the County and adjustments are being made to reconcile and correct for required changes. The discrepancies were an outcome of past parcel annexations to the City. The text and table on the following pages list parcels under review based on information available at the time of preparation of this report. The historical context and the estimates of property tax implications were prepared by the County of San Mateo Controller's Office. The current report has been revised to exclude those parcels erroneously identified in public records as being within the Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District (BHSMD). Initial maps prepared for the Study included an "Area D" with parcels identified as being in BHSMD and in the City boundaries; these parcels are actually not in BHSMD. In addition, there are other parcels in the City with incorrect tax allocations, although these parcels were not shown as Area D on the original Study maps. It is expected that these errors will be corrected prior to formal actions, if any, are taken related to the service and governance options described in this study. E-58 Appendix E Source: This page was prepared by the County of San Mateo Controller's Office; San Mateo LAFCO provided Table E-1. Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District (BHSMD) Annexations to City of Burlingame Tax Rate Areas (TRAs): 004-005, 004-008, 004-009, 004-012, & 004-015 During the review of the BHSMD, there were a few anomalies discovered in relation to the assignment of TRAs. The Controller's Office will undertake action to resolve these inconsistencies including taking an appropriate resolution(s) before the Board of Supervisors. A. TRAs 004-005 and 004-008: Lands of Sisters of Mercy In 1979 TRA 004-005 and 004-008 were annexed to the City of Burlingame. • At the time of annexation, all properties in both TRAs were tax exempt. • Neither the City nor the County, approved a Property Tax Exchange Agreement, perhaps because of the properties' tax exempt status. • Subsequent to the annexation, some of the properties owned by Sisters of Mercy (which were previously tax exempt) were sold and became taxable. • County Fire, Free Library, and BHSMD receive property taxes from the TRAs 004-005 and 004-008 (approximately $17,400 for FY 2019-20). B. TRAs 004-009, 004-012, and 004-015: Lands of Heerman & Spanier, Lands of O'Connor, and Lands of Sommer, respectively In 1980, 1981, and 1990 TRAs 004-009, 004-012, and 004-015 were annexed from the County to the City of Burlingame. • Property Tax Exchange Agreements were approved by both the County and City. • A tax exchange amount was negotiated and agreed to. However, the tax exchange agreements only included amounts to transfer from County Fire, Free Library, and County General to the City of Burlingame. • The tax exchange agreements did not state that property taxes from the BHSMD should be transferred to the City of Burlingame; although it is unclear whether this was intended or whether additional tax amounts were simply taken from County General. • In any event, BHSMD still receives property taxes from these TRAs (approximately $2,900 for FY 2019-20). FMM Table E-1— Parcels Requiring Review of Property Tax and Sewer Billing Status* TRA Improved BHSMD I City Billing for TRA APN Address Includes City County In BHSMD BHSMD Parcel 2019-20 SSC Sewer Service 027-370-020 2750 ADELINE Yes Yes Yes No No No 7 004-005 027-370-010 2300 ADELINE Yes Yes Yes No No No 7 027-093320 12 Vista Lane Yes No Yes No No No 7 004-008 027-093330 8 vista Lane Yes Yes Yes No No NO No 027-093-310 2843 Adeline Drive Yes Yes Yes No No No No 027-091-080 2838 Adeline Drive Yes Yes Yes No No No No 004-009 027-104310 2840 Canyon Road Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes 027-104-300 2844 Canyon Road Yes Yes Yes No No No No 027-103-060 1445 Alvarado Ave Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes 004-012 027-103-070 1441 Alvarado Avenue Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes 027-104-400 2811 Hillside Drive Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes 004-015 027-1134390 2108 Summit Drive Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes * City sewer billing status is under review. Table data is subject to change and shown for informational purposes only. E-60 BURLINGAME Memorandum To: City Council Date: January 21, 2020 From: Councilmember Donna Colson Subject: Committee Report City Council Meeting CEO Update * Hired two new professionals • $10 MM resiliency issue program - will have more information in January • Focusing on the most vulnerable communities • Reach Codes - Some of the Cities have adopted. Will ask our Burlingame staff to get an update as to which cities have adopted and what • EV Incentive Program - VOLT no longer available and BOLT no longer available due to strike and that reduced -number of people purchasing EV • Expected 120 and ended up at 66 verified • The low-income program had 27 cars purchased • Met with Senator Hill and Assemblyman Berman both big supporters CAC Report • Lot of talk about getting the gas generators out of the picture • Many spoke about the full resiliency picture has to do with obtaining the micro -grid network Finance and Audit • Three topics - consolidated quarterly financial report, review of reserve policy and also submitting and RFP for cash management firm to diversity First Republic Bank position • Question on Retained Earnings - should be greater than the budget expectation Calpine Discussion - Contract amendment Have a 2 year agreement set to expire June 30 of 2020 and did have an option to extend another two years, or could amend and extend or get a new competitive bid. Market has not dramatically changed. Colson Committee Report January 21, 2020 PGE Update - Comments from Dan Richard • $25 billion in wildfire victims and then another $25 billion in upgrades - to get totally out of bankruptcy. • Serve 16 million people - and need to understand if this is a company that can raise the capital to re -engineer and reimagine their business in the time of climate action. The only thing that changes their earnings is the rate of return on the $45 billion rate base. They need to spend $28 billion over the next four years of new investment. When this company comes out it needs to be financially strong and have access to the lowest cost of capital. If they can figure out how to get to a non-profit or tax-exempt firm could save $15 billion in taxes and what it takes to raise $50 billion out of bankruptcy and then another $50 billion to invest in their equipment. • One entity who has put forward a plan to retain as much equity as possible and the hedge funds are trying to retain as much equity as possible. • Second is the private debt team that is trying to secure their debt positions. • When PGE reached fire victim settlement and had a provision that the Governor could veto if did meet complex needs of AB 1054. Governor sent out a letter on Friday saying your plan is woefully inadequate because the PGE plan is laden with debt and the Governor said you will be mortgaging your assets and you are counting on the legislature to bail out the operator, and to get tax -benefits - so Governor • Bankruptcy judge approved fire victims, but not the firm debts otherwise. • Judge has indicated full support for the wildfire victims - plan was $13.5 and behind the scenes it was $8 billion and in the end they jumped up the $5 billion (but it was all in debt). IDEAS - • CA law does allow for electrical cooperatives. A private mutual company that is regulated by the PUC - similar to REI, or even Vanguard as examples. Use this to set mutual benefit company and then get the rating agencies to start their own companies. They would graft on transparency and accountability measures. Worked very closely with labor - mainly IBEW. Want to keep the entire company intact - for purposes of keeping labor on our side, need to convert and then get a rating organization. • Issue is governance - policy questions and need weigh-in from local leaders - need skill sets - operations, business, marketing etc. • PGE focus on infrastructure and the CCAs or some of the co-ops could fill in the business. • THIS STRUCTURE DOES NOT change inverse condemnation - Mayor Licardo says this already happens and it flows through to the rate payer. SB 901 - after stress level customers are on the hook. But the question becomes if we spread the risk over the ratepayers, then should we not also spread benefits 1. Working on collation of elected officials, users etc. 2. Making concrete these governance principles into concrete terms (what does the Board look like, etc.) 3. Talking to financial institutions to raise $35 billion to payoff that gap $6.5 billion EBITDA - for PGE 2 Colson Committee Report January 21, 2020 Or if you could do a securitization then you could get to the 3.5% rates for capital - first and foremost could we do a direct bond raise for the capital. No one has said we cannot raise this funding through traditional public markets. Inverse Condemnation - Should it be eliminated? - probably, but the Interpretation by the courts of the due process laws and so that unless challenged to higher levels of the court, even the legislature may not be able to regulate this - courts supersede. Residents want safe, reliable and lowest priced consistent service Item 7 - CPUC Process for Setting PGE 2020 PCIA • Review of rulemaking - complicated process overall • Many policy changes happening at this time • March 1 is most likely earliest rate adjustments • June filing and then November update. January 9, 2020 Home for All Housing and Climate Change Update on four other groups - o Traffic and parking solutions - how do we start to discuss this? Best practices from out toolkit that San Jose City did. o Housing funding - how do we use the new state funds to build more housing and better housing o Second Units - new fairs and open houses (Burlingame Hillsborough) o Partnership for Educator Workforce and Housing Climate Ready Sub -Topics (Climate Ready Collaborative) o Wildfire o Flooding and Seal Level Rise o Risking Temperatures o Vision and Strategic Planning The Intersection of Housing and Resilient Climates - Report by Graduate Student from UCI - Masters Urban Planning o Question - What are the initiatives that SMC can ADU pot to ensure the sustainability of its housing supply o Used extensive document review to see what agencies have released reports on climate change and housing - work exists in both, but very few work together. ID structural and non-structural such as land use and urban design. SLR Vulnerability Assessment - flooding and erosion (coast) o State - projections for 2030, 2050, 2100 were used for baseline o BCDC - In the bay - risk assessment and if risk to safety then resilient to mid- century SLR if beyond need Adaptation Plan o In 100- foot Shoreline, authority is more limited to ensuring maximum feasible public access and public access must be viable. 3 Colson Committee Report January 21, 2020 PCE Saturday, January 11, 2020 - Strategic Planning Session Monday, January 13, 2020 - Executive Session • Strategic Planning session focused on Mission and then Vision as well as priorities for the BOD and direction for staff. • Worked on four areas - programs, legislation, marketing and advocacy to develop direction for staff • Annie Gallagher will then coordinate the feedback and begin the development of the strategic plan work • Discussing PCE with Merced County - to see how we might want to partner or help them develop their own CCA. Have met, but we do not have a champion on the ground as of yet and there was confusion about the role PCE would take and how we would relate. • EV incentive program is done for the fall and have about 170 cars that were purchased using the program. • News about PGE bankruptcy and will have a call this afternoon. 1. Amendment to Supply Procurement Policy - Revised to allow more nimble contracting with proper controls 2. Oct 9-12 first event and three events that shutdown power. Advocated $10mm for more power shutdown resiliency * 57,000 PCE customers impacted - objectives * Priority - medically fragile residential customers * Community Scale response centers * Infrastructure - police, fire, water treatment etc. 1. Reach Code Assistance and Customer Awareness Program * Support includes developed EV and Building Reach codes model * Did $10,000 outreach and 14 cities did this * Key learnings - technical assistance has been for cities, but also a huge help for developers. Significant amount of education needed across the board. There is a consumer demand issue around gas stoves, but these are being addressed. January 13, 2020 Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District Meeting 1. Review of two current MOUs - Belmont Creek $70 min and then 2. Navigable Slough in San Bruno / SSF at $42 min 3. Bayfront Canal Atherton Channel - RWC, Atherton, and Menlo Park - not a four way split - flow contribution model and contributed by how much your water flow contributed to the work at the watershed. Town of Atherton has a modification to their contribution - also includes SMC. About $21 min in flood mitigation measures. 4. Option A - With no grants to offset costs $9 min approximate 5. Option B - If we received $1 min RWC grant and if they get an extension and may be able to use this funding for the project. Awaiting a FEMA grant of $4 min and if you include 4 Colson Committee Report January 21, 2020 the existing $1 mm that could get rolled in, then the numbers can really be reduced. This is why you can break a small part of the project away to get started. Private funding may also be an important part to this. 6. Future MOUs will include project administration - amendments for existing MOUs for design are under development Item 7.2 Budget • There is a high level of retained earnings due to contingency and to move forward and not have to finance improvements. There is allocation for administration and project management - need resources available for local agencies to obtain assistance. • Also need Operations and Maintenance at maybe Countywide Area with what can be done from contributions from cities and agency. • We have $500,000 in Measure K funding and expectation is staff will be added to advance/expand staffing can occur. There is another $2.3 mm from the cities for the administration and funding. • Underlying costs office space For existing MOUs there is a funding gap. 4.5 FTE - CEO and Finance, some administration and then engineering. May not need to have an administrative person. Senior accountant to PT position? This may need to be enhanced so that we have proper checks and balances. Interviewing senior accountant person next week. The new CEO may want to make a few changes as to where the dollars are sent and how that might work. Budget will come back next meeting and there will be adoption for the January 27 meeting. Budget total is $1.5 mm of which half is from SMC. Item 7.2 - Army Corps of Engineers and depends on funds in Water Resources Development Act of 1975. Work on study to create targets of opportunity. The Congresswoman co -signed a letter for ACE to complete the enhanced study. This is the best way to work on getting the long-term federal support needed for these projects. Some of these projects can take decades so it is important to start on this work and get the study. Wednesday, January 15, 2020 C/CAG Resource Management and Climate Protection Committee Update on RICAPS 2030 template document and SMC energy Strategy Discussion 2025 Feb 2020 have edits to CAP template finished and then available late spring for jurisdictions to customize for 2030 CAPs with the idea that all the sections are the parts required for a complete scoping of what we are all doing and need to do to meet goals. Will be revived by OOS, BAAQMD, C/CAG, RICAPS with copy edit and design by Cartwright Studios. Brisbane Building Energy Program and Ordinance o Benchmarking buildings to determine energy and water use and allows comparisons on an annual use basis o Auditing - Checking to see what is going on in the buildings o Retro-Commissioning - Making sure lights are off if you are not home for example. 5 Colson Committee Report January 21, 2020 • CA AB 802 - Allows these programs to go forward and it allows the use of and collection of data from utilities and established a program - requires commercial buildings 50,000 SF or more must report data to state. Also, allows for local exceptions where city collects data and then reports • Who has done - mostly large cities across the country. Goes back to the 2015 CAP for City of Brisbane - focused on City of Brisbane and took on commercial and industrial as well as Direct Access total 30%. • Looked at largest building owners/renters and identified those. And found out that you must include industrial be that is a significant portion. • Target size of building was 1 Ok SF which covered 69% of the building total (included SFD and multi -family) as well. To go smaller you get huge increase in number of buildings, but only small % of additional contributing assets. So not worth it on a smaller scale. So target was all buildings (retail, industrial office, multi -family) • Focused on tenants and requiring the tenants to provide control over data and allowed green lease compliance option. Allows cost of greening infrastructure to be shared with the tenant and landlord. In single or two tenant buildings the utility does not have right to ask for data. • Asked about any planned distributed energy resources Compliance Pathway - Benchmarking every 5 years • Who is exempt? If your energy score 80 or higher or if improved by 20 points then except. • If you have energy star water school of 80 or higher then you are good. If you do not meet standards for buildings 40K or bigger. To meet the five year goals - Can retro- Commission, or Green Lease, one energy e=measure and one water or green lease. • City option for voluntary and will also audit on city properties as well • Costs are recouped in about one year, but then the savings continue down the road • Impacts - 2700 MTCO2e reduction and about a 14.4% reduction and 4% in city wide reduction, and so this is double the impact of what PCE is providing • There will be a city toolkit that can move over to other cities. This may be sent out via RICAPS and then open up our energy watch program Stanford Codina Resource Recovery Center testing of Fluence sanitary sewer wastewater treatment center and system and potential for SMC. Basically using a new membrane technology that provides more oxygen to the system as it is now and that enhances the process to comply with Title 22 standards from the state. Have been far below on the test cases. Can implement decentralized facilities in the county Did put system together for some of these... 0