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 - 2020.05.18
CITY v 0 ticow � � rPORATED Monday, May 18, 2020 City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda - Final City Council 7:00 PM BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers On March 17, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order N-29-20 suspending certain provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act in order to allow for local legislative bodies to conduct their meetings telephonically or by other electronic means. Pursuant to the Shelter -in -Place Order issued by the San Mateo County Health Officer on March 16, 2020 (which was then extended on March 31, 2020, and further extended on April 29, 2020), the statewide Shelter -in -Place Order issued by the Governor in Executive Order N-33-20 on March 19, 2020, and the CDC's social distancing guidelines which discourage large public gatherings, the Council Chambers will not be open to the public for the May 18, 2020 Burlingame City Council meeting. Members of the public may view the meeting by logging into the Zoom meeting listed below. Additionally, the meeting will be streamed live on Youtube and uploaded to the City's website after the meeting. Members of the public may provide written comments by email to publiccomment@burlingame.org. Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting, or note that your comment concerns an item that is not on the agenda or is on the Consent Calendar. The length of the emailed comment should be commensurate with the three minutes customarily allowed for verbal comments, which is approximately 250-300 words. To ensure that your comment is received and read to the City Council for the appropriate agenda item, please submit your email no later than 5:00 p.m. on May 18, 2020. The City will make every effort to read emails received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline which are not read into the record will be provided to the City Council after the meeting. All voters are unanimous unless separately noted for the record. City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 511412020 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final May 18, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Online To Join the Zoom Meeting (Note that the link below doesn't look like a hyperlink, but it is) https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89721111482? pwd=eEcyd292NDBNWC9uOGEvOG5FeUtJQT09 Meeting ID: 897 2111 1482 Password: 138174 One tap mobile +16699006833„89721111482# US (San Jose) +12532158782„89721111482# US (Tacoma) Dial by your location +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 929 436 2866 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown) Meeting ID: 897 2111 1482 Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kbw438bAQn 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION 5. UPCOMING EVENTS 6. PRESENTATIONS a. Update from the Youth Advisory Committee ("YAC") 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 2 Printed on 511412020 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final May 18, 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 the City Council Meeting Minutes for the May 4, 2020 Regular Meeting Attachments: Meeting Minutes b. Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Tentative and Final Parcel Map (PM 20-02), Lot Split of Burlingame Map No.1 Subdivision, Lot 17, Block 7, Polo Field Subdivision, and Lots 14, 15, 16, and a Portion of Lot 8, Block 7, Town of Burlingame Subdivision at 135 1 nrtnn Avani iP Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Final Parcel Map December 10, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment) a. Public Hearing to Renew the Levy and Collection of Assessments for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project for Fiscal Year 2020-21 Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Engineer's Report for FY 2020-21 b. Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Amendments to Chapter 25.59 (Accessory Dwelling Units), Chapter 25.60 (Accessory Structures in R-1 and R-2 Districts), Chapter 25.26 (R-1 District Regulations) and Chapter 25.70 (Off -Street Parking) of the Burlingame Municipal Code Related to Accessory Dwelling Units to be Consistent with Recently Adopted Amendments to California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 and Additional Changes to Remove Constraints to Creating Accessory Dwelling Units Attachments: Staff Report Draft Ordinance Proposed CEQA Resolution March 2, 2020 City Council Minutes Email submitted by Neel M. Mehta ADU Amendments - Clean 2019 State Legislation - ADU City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 511412020 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final May 18, 2020 C. Consideration of an Urgency Ordinance Suspending Current Penalties and Assessments for the Tourism Business Improvement District and Adoption of a Resolution Setting a Public Hearing to Modify the 2020 District Assessments in Response to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency Attachments: Staff Report Proposed Ordinance Proposed Resolution of Intent Letter from TBID Board 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) a. Adoption of a Resolution ADprovina the Draft Lvon Hoaa and Adiacent Neiahborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations Report Prepared by TJKM Transportation Engineers Attachments: Staff Report Resolution PowerPoint Presentation Lyon Hoag Draft Report BPD Lyon Hoag Education and Enforcement Campaign Report 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements. a. Mayor Beach's Committee Report Attachments: Committee Re 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any attendees who require special assistance or a disability -related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet, or other writings that may be distributed at the meeting, should contact Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, May 18, 2020 at 650-558-7203 or at mhasselshearer@burlingame.org. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting, the materials related to it, and your ability to comment. City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 511412020 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final May 18, 2020 NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING Regular City Council Meeting on June 1, 2020 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 via www.burlingame.org or by emailing the City Clerk at mhasselshearer@burlingame.org. If you are unable to obtain information via the City's website or through email, contact the City Clerk at 650-558-7203. City of Burlingame Page 5 Printed on 511412020 Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/18/2020 CITY C BURLINGAME $AaiEo JLNE � O BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting on May 4, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date online at 7:02 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by Mayor Beach. 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 Beach reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city. 6. PRESENTATIONS There were no presentations. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Beach asked the public and her colleagues if they would like to pull any item from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Brownrigg pulled item 8b. Burlingame resident Jenny Keleher pulled item 8f. 1 Burlingame City Council May 4, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/18/2020 Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to adopt items 8a, 8c, 8d, 8e, 8g, 8h, and 8i; seconded by Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 20, 2020 REGULAR MEETING City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve the Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2020 Regular Meeting. b. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 8.10 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 8.10 TO REGULATE THE USE OF DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE BY FOOD FACILITIES Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran recused herself from this item because of her work on the County's ordinance. Councilmember Brownrigg explained that the City's proposed ordinance refers to the County's ordinance in multiple locations. He asked if once the proposed ordinance is adopted and codified it would include the County ordinance language. City Attorney Kane stated that it will read as is and refer to the County ordinance. She explained that staff drafted the ordinance this way so that amendments at the County level would be automatically incorporated into the City's ordinance. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the need to conduct extensive public outreach to educate the public and business owners on this ordinance. He added that the City should assist business owners on what food service ware will be allowed and where they can purchase it. He asked when the ordinance goes into effect. City Attorney Kane stated that it would go into effect Spring 2021. City Manager Goldman stated that staff will be working with the County to create fact sheets for businesses. Mayor Beach discussed the City's decision to remove the County's requirement that businesses keep records of their disposable food service ware items. She asked if it was made clear in the City's ordinance that this wasn't required. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Ordinance 1976; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed by roll call vote, 4-0-1 (Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran was recused). c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE WASHINGTON PARK PLAYGROUND, SPORTS COURT, AND PICINIC AREA PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 85670, IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,289,924.51 Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 046-2020. 2 Burlingame City Council May 4, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/18/2020 d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SIDE LETTER AGREEMENTS TO THE BURLINGAME POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND BURLINGAME POLICE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING HR Director Morrison requested Council adopt Resolution Number 047-2020. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE EACT (PEMHCA) CALPERS HEALTH CONTRACT HR Director Morrison requested Council adopt Resolution Number 048-2020. f. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS INITIATING PROCEEDINGS TO RENEW THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 DBID Board of Directors member Jenny Keleher asked the City to explain the assessments for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project and whether there is an impact on DBID members. (comment submitted via publiccomment(d),burlin ag me.org). DPW Murtuza stated that the Burlingame Avenue Assessment District was established in 2012 and affects the properties fronting Burlingame Avenue between California Drive and El Camino Real. He explained that the assessments are for the improvements that were made to this area including the streetscape, landscape, and utilities. City Manager Goldman noted that the assessments are for the property owners that front Burlingame Avenue. She explained that the property owners voted in favor of these assessments for street improvements. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 049-2020, Resolution Number 050- 2020, and Resolution Number 051-2020; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ICF TO PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW SIX -STORY OFFICE BUILDING AT 220 PARK ROAD (FORMER POST OFFICE SITE) IN THE AMOUNT OF $239,154 CDD Gardiner requested Council adopt Resolution Number 052-2020. Burlingame City Council May 4, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/18/2020 h. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE TO REVIEW THE LIST OF DESIGNATED OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council adopt Resolution Number 053-2020. i. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT, PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31, 2020 Finance Director Augustine requested Council accept the Quarterly Investment Report for the period ending March 31, 2020. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 Finance Director Augustine stated that staff performed an annual review of the Master Fee Schedule to ensure that the fees reflect current cost. She explained that the process became easier with the development of the user fee cost recovery policy. Mayor Beach opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 054-2020; seconded by Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. 10. STAFF REPORTS a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DISTRIBUTION OF $250,000 IN FUNDING, PLUS ASSOCIATED FEES, TO NONPROFIT AGENCIES ASSISTING INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES IN RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ANY NECESSARY AGREEMENTS WITH THE NONPROFIT AGENCIES City Manager Goldman stated that at the March 25 Special City Council meeting, the Council agreed to provide an initial $30,000 in funding to assist individuals struggling during the COVID-19 public health emergency. She explained that $10,000 went to CALL Primrose, and $20,000 went to Samaritan House. City Manager Goldman stated that at the April 20 City Council meeting, the Council approved $250,000 for what was then called the "Kickstart Burlingame" debit card program and is now called "Burlingame Cares." She explained that Burlingame Cares provides $250 debit cards to eligible low-income residents. City Manager Goldman stated that at the April 20 City Council meeting, the Council also discussed additional measures the City could take to support low-income residents. After a thorough discussion, the 4 Burlingame City Council May 4, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/18/2020 Council directed staff to distribute $100,000 to Samaritan House, $100,000 to HIP Housing, and $50,000 to CALL Primrose from the General Fund. City Manager Goldman stated that Samaritan House is a core service agency that serves Burlingame. She noted that several cities on the Peninsula, including Menlo Park, San Carlos, and San Mateo, have or are in the process of contracting with Samaritan House to provide rental assistance to prevent lower -income households from becoming homeless and to provide temporary relief to households that have suffered a loss of income due to COVID-19. City Manager Goldman discussed SMC Strong and stated that $1 million of the original $3 million funding from Measure K went to supporting individuals and families. She explained that there are a lot of regulations concerning the County's funds and that they will be quickly depleted. Therefore, the Council discussed establishing a City rental assistance program. City Manager Goldman explained that Samaritan House requires the City to develop criteria for its rental assistance program. She stated that staff is suggesting the following: • Funding shall not exceed $5,000 per household • Funding may only be used for rental payment • Eligibility for funds will be based on a household's inability to pay rent due to economic conditions as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, with sufficient evidentiary support to the satisfaction of Samaritan House • Households must have an income at 120% or below of the Area Median Income ("AMI") for San Mateo County • Households must occupy a legal unit located in incorporated Burlingame • Households must have a current, valid lease agreement with the landlord City Manager Goldman noted that the City needs to negotiate an agreement with Samaritan House and that the proposed resolution vests the City Manager with this authority. She added that Samaritan House requires a 12% administrative fee. City Manager Goldman stated that at the April 20 City Council meeting, the Council discussed providing $100,000 in funding to HIP Housing. She explained that HIP Housing helps to match people that are looking for housing with people that are looking to rent out a room in their home. HIP Housing also has a Self Sufficiency Program which provides housing assistance and support services to low-income parents or emancipated foster youth who are in school to increase their earning power and help them become financially self-sufficient within one to five years. City Manager Goldman stated that she reached out to HIP Housing Associate Executive Director Laura Fanucchi to see if there was a way that the City could ensure that the $100,000 is utilized for Burlingame residents. Ms. Fanucchi replied in the affirmative but stated that HIP Housing does not serve many households in Burlingame. She noted that currently HIP Housing has 12 Burlingame households in their 5 Burlingame City Council May 4, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/18/2020 Home Sharing program and two Burlingame families in the Self Sufficiency Program. Therefore, HIP Housing asked for the funding to be reduced to $20,000. City Manager Goldman stated that at the April 20 City Council meeting, the Council also discussed providing $50,000 in funding to CALL Primrose. She explained that CALL Primrose is unable to ensure that City funds are spent only on Burlingame residents. However, she stated that the County's weekly calls have outlined the significant food insecurity issues that exist throughout the county. Second Harvest reported that over 35,000 families received grocery boxes the week of April 13, as compared to 10,000 families the week of March 16. She added that the City can expect that as the shelter -in -place continues, that the food insecurity challenge will grow. City Manager Goldman stated that the Council discussed providing $250,000 in funding to assist individuals and households. The funds were to be divided with $100,000 to Samaritan House, $100,000 to HIP Housing, and $50,000 to CALL Primrose. However, now that HIP Housing is only requesting $20,000, there are several options for the Council to consider, regarding the remaining $80,000: 1. Council could return the $80,000 to the General Fund for use in general City operations 2. Council could give the entire $80,000 to either the Samaritan House or CALL Primrose 3. Council could split the funding between the two agencies, either 50150 or in some other way 4. Council could direct staff to explore providing funding for another agency that receives City contributions through the annual Community Groups Funding process City Manager reviewed the fiscal impact of the overall funding. She stated that it would range from $182,000 to $271,600. She noted that the funding that is provided for housing could later be reimbursed to the General Fund from the Affordable Housing Fund. Councilmember Brownrigg asked about the $5,000 limit in rental assistance per household. He asked how this would be monitored. City Manager Goldman stated that her understanding from Samaritan House is that it is one-time funding. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if a family were $300 short on rent would they apply for $300 or $5,000. City Manager Goldman replied that she believed that this was something that the City could negotiate with Samaritan House. Councilmember Brownrigg asked what the timeframe would be for the rental assistance program. City Manager Goldman stated that the program would end when funds are depleted. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the Burlingame Cares program. He explained that originally, the subcommittee had determined that 1,020 households were eligible, 850 from Peninsula Clean Energy ("PCE") and 170 from Burlingame School District ("BSD"). He stated that the subcommittee believed that there would be some duplication from the PCE and BSD lists and therefore rounded the number to 1,000. However, BSD has informed the subcommittee that the need is higher than what they initially stated. He explained that BSD has increased their number from 170 to over 300. 6 Burlingame City Council May 4, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/18/2020 Councilmember Brownrigg stated that now, the total number of families that are eligible for the Burlingame Cares program, after duplicates were purged, is 1,107. He asked that the Council discuss allocating $25,000 to the Burlingame Cares program to purchase an additional 100 cards. Councilmember Colson asked if two families are living in a unit, is the unit considered a household, or is each family considered a household. City Manager Goldman stated that she was unsure. She explained that under the Samaritan House program, it would probably be whoever is on the lease. Councilmember Colson asked if the payments go to the landlord. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson suggested that instead of allocating an additional $25,000 to the Burlingame Cares program, the City could reduce the card amount from $250 to $200. She stated that the Council needs to be cognizant of how City funds are being spent as the City's unassigned funds are dwindling. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. There were no comments. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he was in favor of allocating an additional $25,000 to the Burlingame Cares program. He explained that if the cards are not all used, those funds will be returned to the City. Mayor Beach concurred with Councilmember Ortiz. Additionally, she suggested that the remaining $55,000 should go to CALL Primrose to assist with the food insecurity issues throughout the county. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran concurred with Councilmember Colson and stated that the City should decrease the amount on the debit cards in order to fund the additional 107 cards. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she was in favor of returning the $80,000 to the General Fund. She explained that the Council needs to keep in mind that City revenues will continue to decrease, and therefore the Council needs to carefully spend City funds. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he was in favoring of allocating an additional $25,000 to the Burlingame Care programs. Additionally, he suggested giving an additional $5,000 to CALL Primrose and then returning the remaining $50,000 to the General Fund. Councilmember Colson stated that she talked to a senior Legislator, who stated that City Councils need to think about staying in their lane. She explained that she understood how big the need is, but the Council's responsibility is to ensure that the City has the funds necessary to support the police, fire, fix sidewalks, support libraries, etc. Councilmember Colson explained that she thought the debit cards should be decreased to support all 1,107 households under the original $250,000 budget. She concurred with Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran that the $80,000 should be returned to the General Fund. She explained that the City Council could discuss additional funding after the Budget Study Session on May 13. Councilmember Colson explained that if the 7 Burlingame City Council May 4, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/18/2020 City goes too far out of their lane and in the future requests financial assistance from the State, this could come back to bite them. Mayor Beach stated that the Council's decision at the April 20 meeting to budget $250,000 to assist individuals and families was to match the City's funding of small businesses in the community. Councilmember Ortiz concurred with Mayor Beach. He explained that the City was in extraordinary times, and therefore he felt it was important for the City to step out of their lane and assist the community. He stated that he liked Councilmember Brownrigg's suggestion of $25,000 to Burlingame Cares, $5,000 to CALL Primrose, and returning the remaining $50,000 to the General Fund. City Manager Goldman stated that 107 extra debit cards for the Burlingame Cares program would cost $26,750. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he didn't think all eligible families would show up to obtain their cards. Therefore, he felt comfortable capping the additional allocation at $25,000. He added that while he appreciates fiscal responsibility, the City has built up substantial reserves over the years, and this is the time to utilize those reserves to help the community. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed what Councilmember Colson had heard from a senior Legislator and stated that he had heard a similar statement. He explained that a senior Legislator was irritated when a city that was in financial straps and was negotiating for a loan package gave the City Manager a raise. However, he explained that this isn't what Burlingame was doing. Councilmember Colson stated that helping small businesses helps people, as it allows them to pay their rent, buy food, etc. She explained that the City would be funding over $1 million to the community, and it is far and above what other cities have done on the Peninsula. She stated that she wanted to ensure that the City manages its budget properly to ensure that staff isn't furloughed, or program hours cut. She explained that the City will quickly run through its reserves. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran concurred with Councilmember Colson. She stated that the Council has the responsibility to make sure that Burlingame runs in the positive. She explained that the City will go through its reserves relatively quick as TOT and sales tax revenues will be low. She added that she didn't want the City to get to the point of discussing staff layoffs. Mayor Beach stated that she felt that the Council should donate the entire $80,000 to assist individuals and households to match the City's funding of the small business grant program. Councilmember Colson suggested having Samaritan House draw down on the $100,000 and get an update in a month on their need. She stated that in the meantime, the Council would have its Budget Study Session and then could decide whether it was necessary and economically plausible to further fund the rental assistance program. She noted that the City could fund this program through the Affordable Housing Fund. 8 Burlingame City Council May 4, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/18/2020 Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Cynthia Cornell stated that Housing for All Burlingame was against using Affordable Housing Funds to reimburse the General Fund. She explained that those funds should be earmarked to build affordable housing. Mayor Beach closed public comment. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if Councilmember Colson's proposal was to return the $80,000 to the General Fund with the notion that it may be utilized for additional funding to the Samaritan House at a later date, and no additional allocation to Burlingame Cares. Councilmember Colson replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 055-2020 with the following amendments: allocate an additional $25,000 to the Burlingame Cares program, additional $5,000 to CALL Primrose, and return the remaining $50,000 to the General Fund. Councilmember Ortiz stated that at the April 20 City Council meeting, the Council decided to earmark $250,000 in funding for different programs that would assist individuals and families. He explained that Council is now talking about reducing that donation to $200,000 and returning $50,000 to the General Fund. He stated that he felt that the Council was acting very conservatively and was putting back funds that were already on the table. Councilmember Ortiz seconded Councilmember Brownrigg's motion. The motion passed by roll call vote, 3-2 (Council Colson and Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran voted against). b. CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION REGARDING A PILOT PROGRAM TO PRIORITIZE LOCAL STREETS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACTIVITIES DURING THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC PERIOD DPW Murtuza stated that staff is requesting direction regarding a pilot program to prioritize local streets for neighborhood pedestrian and bicycle activities during the COVID-19 pandemic period. DPW Murtuza stated that the Burlingame Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (`BPAC") submitted a request to close off certain streets to through traffic and prioritize them for pedestrian and bicycle activities during the shelter -in -place order. He explained that the intent of the request was to support safe recreation activities for residents by creating additional space for physical distancing. He noted that many cities throughout the United States have adopted similar programs. For example, in the Bay Area; Oakland, San Mateo, Redwood City, and Foster City have adopted similar programs. DPW Murtuza stated staff reviewed BPAC's request and consulted with other cities that implemented street closure programs. He explained that staff believes a street closure program like the ones in San Mateo and Oakland could be implemented in the city. He stated that for the program to work there needs to be support 9 Burlingame City Council May 4, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/18/2020 from the affected residents on the street/block and an assurance that there will be no risk of crowding of streets as had recently occurred at parks and beaches in the County. DPW Murtuza stated that staff identified a list of streets eligible for closure: • Quesada Way: between Trousdale Drive and Davis Drive • Paloma Avenue: between Oak Grove Avenue and Palm Drive • Carolan Avenue: between Oak Grove Avenue and North Lane • Anita Road: between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue • Balboa Avenue: between Ray Drive and Adeline Drive DPW Murtuza stated that each eligible street would designate a block sponsor or block captain who would be responsible for providing the neighbors on their block with information flyers about the program. DPW Murtuza reviewed the elements of the pilot program: • The street would be closed to auto through traffic (residents, emergency vehicles, essential visitors, and delivery vehicles would be allowed). • All non -auto traffic would be welcome, which means cyclists, pedestrians, joggers, scooters, skateboards, wheeled vehicles, etc. People from other neighborhoods would be allowed on the closed streets • The speed limit would be lowered to 15 MPH for local essential neighborhood traffic (although unenforceable) • Residents agree to park off-street in driveways/garages as much as possible • Residents agree to maintain safe social distancing and comply with the County Health Order DPW Murtuza stated that the street closure would be terminated i£ • The people using the street for recreation purposes do not comply with the County Health Order (social distancing and face coverings), and • If the City receives three or more shut -down requests from residents of the closed street Councilmember Ortiz asked about the estimated cost of the pilot program. DPW Murtuza said staff is looking at five streets and staff time to create brochures and notification. He noted that he believed it would cost a few thousand dollars. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if the City would put up signage about the decrease in the speed limit to 15 MPH. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. Mayor Beach asked if the signage would be on the barricades, or if new speed limit signs would be installed. DPW Murtuza replied that staff was determining how best to proceed. Councilmember Colson asked if staff considered closing Burlingame Avenue. She noted that while she hasn't received any requests to close side streets, she has received 50 to 75 requests to close Burlingame Avenue. DPW Murtuza stated that staff can look into closing Burlingame Avenue. 10 Burlingame City Council May 4, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/18/2020 City Manager Goldman stated that staff hasn't looked into closing Burlingame Avenue because the shelter - in -place order was extended. Therefore, there is still some time before restaurants would be allowed to reopen. She explained that staff is focusing on present-day issues prior to future inquiries. She noted that once the City hears that restaurants can re -open, staff will tackle this issue. Councilmember Colson stated that she understood that the staff is working on present issues. However, she explained that she wanted to make sure that the City has a plan in place to assist the businesses prior to their re -opening. DPW Murtuza stated that he would note Councilmember Colson's concerns, and if the Council is interested in this issue, staff would reach out to the DBID and the Chamber of Commerce. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran suggested working with the Economic Development Subcommittee on this matter. Mayor Beach asked if the pilot program would require a block captain to close a street. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. Mayor Beach asked if other neighborhoods could apply to have their street, or a portion of their street, closed to through traffic. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. Mayor Beach asked for clarification about the face mask requirement for street closure. DPW Murtuza stated that the public needs to comply with the County Health Order, which requires face masks. He noted that individuals that are bicycling or walking need to keep social distance and have a mask available in case it is not possible for them to keep their distance. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. Samantha Stahl stated that she was in favor of the program as it would allow for more room to physically distance from others while outside. (comment received via publiccommentkburlin a�g). Mark Haberecht stated that he was initially in support of closing Balboa as part of the "Safe Streets" program. However, he received mixed reviews from his neighbors and therefore felt that the program should only be implemented on streets with overwhelming support from the neighborhood. (comment submitted via publiccomment(&,,burlin ag me.org). Ann Wallach voiced concern about the pilot program on Balboa as it would create more foot traffic. (comment submitted via publiccomment&burlin ag me.org). Adrienne Leigh voiced support for the program and discussed including a small driveway/street that is adjacent to the west side of the Washington Park tennis courts. (comment submitted via publiccommentkburlin- a�g). 11 Burlingame City Council May 4, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/18/2020 Emma Shlaes stated that the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition is in support of the pilot program and is ready to assist the City with implementation. (comment submitted via publiccomment(d),burlingame.org). Adam Glass stated his support for the program and noted that it would provide more room for families to get outside. (comment submitted via publiccommentgburlin a�g). Irvin Dawid voiced his support for the program. He suggested that the City target high density areas. (comment submitted via publiccomment(&burlin ag me.org). Lesley Beatty thanked the Council for considering the program and stated that the BPAC is willing to assist the City in implementing the pilot program. Craig Darling voiced his support for the program. Mayor Beach closed public comment. Councilmember Brownrigg asked what the current restrictions are at City parks. He noted that the County Health Officer recently relaxed the rules for County parks. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that the City's parks remain open for passive use. She explained that playgrounds, restrooms, tennis courts, the dog park, bocce ball courts, basketball courts, and fields are closed. She stated that with the County loosening up the restrictions, the City will be doing the same. She explained that staff will be undertaking some work on the fields in order to open them on Saturday (May 9). She added that one restroom would be opened in Washington Park that will be cleaned twice a day. She stated that the tennis courts, the dog park, and the infields of the baseball park will remain closed. Mayor Beach asked if the playgrounds would reopen on May 9. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad replied in the negative. Councilmember Ortiz stated his support for the pilot program. However, he explained that he has concerns about obtaining neighbor buy -in. He added that he would like to further explore closing Burlingame Avenue. Councilmember Colson stated that while she appreciates the notion of closing some streets to through traffic, she lives on a busy pedestrian street. She noted that she believed everything was working well how it is. She stated that she thought the City should focus on closing Burlingame Avenue. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that closing streets could create gathering places. She explained that she lives on a dead-end, and more people have been coming to her block. She noted that she would hate to see this happen throughout the city. Additionally, she voiced her support for closing Burlingame Avenue. Mayor Beach stated that she believed that the pilot program was a good idea. She noted that in walking in her neighborhoods, she spends a lot of time entering the street to allow for social distancing. She stated that the purpose of the program is not to create block parties but to allow for social distancing. Mayor Beach 12 Burlingame City Council May 4, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/18/2020 stated that she supported closing Burlingame Avenue to assist the small businesses. She explained that this should be explored with the assistance of the DBID and the Chamber of Commerce. Mayor Beach stated that staff should consider Irwin Dawid's comment about closing streets in the denser residential areas to allow for social distancing. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed Mr. Haberacht's comment where he assumed his neighbors would be in favor of the program until he talked to them. He stated that he would be more in favor of this program if there was ground support instead of a top down approach. He discussed the need for neighborhoods to buy - in. He added that with parks rules being loosened, he didn't know if there was a need to close streets. He explained that the cities that have implemented this program are those with higher density like Oakland. Councilmember Brownrigg noted that he didn't like the idea of asking a senior citizen that is driving to get out of their car and move cones in order to enter their block. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he was in favor of closing Burlingame Avenue. However, he stressed the need to talk with the businesses first in order to understand their needs. Mayor Beach asked Councilmember Brownrigg if staff s proposal for block captains would create community buy -in. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he had read the staff report to state that if approved by Council, the City would be immediately closing those five streets. DPW Murtuza replied in the negative. He explained that if approved, staff will work with BPAC to identify block captains on each street. After that, the block captain will work on outreach in order to reach a consensus. Only if a consensus is reached would the block be closed. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he applauded the streamlining. However, his concern is gathering consensus would take a week or two. He noted that the County is loosening regulations and has reopened parks. Therefore, he thought that the program would require a lot of work for not a lot in return. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that if the pilot program moves forward, staff should reconsider closing Quesada Way between Trousdale Drive and Davis Drive, as it is a main thoroughfare. Councilmember Colson suggested having neighborhoods first obtain approval from 80% to 90% of the street, and then the City could consider closing their street. Mayor Beach asked DPW Murtuza his thoughts on having neighborhoods undertake a petition in order to get their street closed. DPW Murtuza stated that this was considered by staff. He noted that it was essentially a block party permit type closure. However, staff came to the determination that this process would be challenging under the shelter -in -place order. 13 Burlingame City Council May 4, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/18/2020 Mayor Beach asked if she was correct that only after finding a block sponsoriblock captain would the program be implemented on a street. DPW Murtuza stated that Carolan Avenue does not have any residents in front of the high school; therefore, the City could block off that portion without a captain. He noted that staff would need to coordinate with the community center construction so that the closure didn't impact the project. Mayor Beach asked if she was correct that Council is being asked to vote on Carolan being immediately decreed a safe street and Quesada, Paloma, Anita, and Balboa being eligible if they have a block captain who is willing to reach out to their neighbors and build a consensus to carry out the program. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the pilot program proposes to close all of Balboa. City Manager Goldman replied in the negative and specified that Balboa would be closed between Ray Drive and Adeline Drive. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the program envisions a block captain for every block or could one individual have control over three blocks. DPW Murtuza stated that it would be a captain for each block. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if there is utility in closing Carolan. He asked if there is recreational interest in biking and walking on Carolan. DPW Murtuza stated that he doesn't have any direct information outside of what BPAC has communicated. Councilmember Colson discussed how prior to COVID-19, the County utilized Canada Road for "Bicycle Sunday." She noted that as a result of the shelter -in -place order, Canada Road has been closed. She asked if the City received permission from the County to undertake this pilot program and if it complies with the County Health Order. City Manager stated that the City hasn't directly contacted the County. However, she noted that three other cities have done it, and it was in the Daily Journal with lots of media attention. She added that she believed that Canada Road was closed in order to ensure that people stayed within five miles of their residence. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he believed the pilot program was a good idea but shared some of the concerns about the buy -in from neighbors. He explained that without resolving that issue, he wouldn't be able to support the program. Mayor Beach stated that she was comfortable with the fact that the block captains would have to get consensus for the program to go forward. Mayor Beach made a motion to accept staff s recommendation. There was no second. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to close Carolan Avenue between Oak Grove Avenue and North Lane to include the little parking strip next to the tennis courts; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed by roll call vote, 4-1 (Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran vote against). 14 Burlingame City Council May 4, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/18/2020 c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE A SALARY INCREASE AND APPROVING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PAY RATES AND RANGES (SALARY SCHEDULE) HR Morrison stated that staff is recommending that the Council adopt a Resolution to increase the City Attorney's salary by 3% due to her positive performance evaluation and adopt the City's salary schedules. HR Morrison explained that Kathleen Kane completed her seventh year of City service. She stated that Council met in closed session on April 20 to review her performance and subsequently made the recommendation to increase her salary by 3%. She noted that this is the same salary increase that the Department Heads and the Unrepresented Unit received. She added that the City Attorney also receives the same benefits as the Department Heads. HR Morrison stated that any adjustment to the City Attorney's compensation requires a contract amendment. Additionally, any changes to the City's salary schedule require adoption at a City Council meeting. She noted that changes in executive compensation cannot be done on consent. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. There were no comments. The Council thanked the City Attorney for her service. They discussed her work, partnership with the City Manager, and assistance on moving the Council's agenda forward. City Attorney Kane thanked the Council. She discussed the work of all City staff and stated that they have been doing an excellent job. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 056-2020; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS a. MAYOR BEACH'S COMMITTEE REPORT b. COUNCILMEMBER COLSON'S COMMITTEE REPORT 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no future agenda items. 15 Burlingame City Council May 4, 2020 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/18/2020 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlin-a�g. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Beach adjourned the meeting at 9:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk 16 Burlingame City Council May 4, 2020 Unapproved Minutes BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8b MEETING DATE: May 18, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 18, 2020 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Tentative and Final Parcel Map (PM 20-02), Lot Split of Burlingame Map No.1 Subdivision, Lot 17, Block 7, Polo Field Subdivision, and Lots 14, 15, 16, and a Portion of Lot 8, Block 7, Town of Burlingame Subdivision at 135 Lorton Avenue RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the tentative and final parcel map (PM 20-02) for the lot split of Burlingame Map No.1 Subdivision, lot 17, block 7, Polo Field Subdivision, and Lots 14, 15, 16, and a portion of lot 8, block 7, Town of Burlingame Subdivision, subject to the following conditions: 1. A final parcel map for the lot split must be filed by the applicant within the two-year time period as allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 2. All property corners shall be set in the field and be shown on the map. 3. The final map shall show the widths of the right-of-way for Park Road, Lorton Avenue, Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue including the centerlines of right-of-way, bearings, and distances of centerline and any existing monuments in the roadway. 4. All frontage sidewalks, driveways, and curb and gutter within in the public -right-of-way shall be replaced with new improvements. 5. No raised structures shall be constructed in the public right-of-way. 6. Permanent stormwater treatment measures and maintenance agreement is required for parcel one. Agreement shall be recorded with the County prior to building permit sign -off. 7. Parcel Two will remain as a City Property, as a public park with a 10' private storm drain easement (PSDE) for the benefit of parcel one. 8. The development on Parcel One was granted a nonemergency rear direct access to the public park. The lot split accounts for the twenty-one foot protruding staircase and landing that will be part of Parcel One. 1 Tentative and Final Parcel Map (PM20-02) May 18, 2020 BACKGROUND The project consists of construction of a new five -story, 132-unit affordable workforce and senior apartment development and a public park at City Parking Lot F (135 Lorton Avenue). On December 19, 2018, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the tentative parcel map. Staff has reviewed the map and recommends its approval subject to the above conditions. Exhibits: • Resolution • Final Parcel Map • December 10, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP (PM 20-02), LOT SPLIT OF BURLINGAME MAP NO.1 SUBDIVISION, LOT 17, BLOCK 7, POLO FIELD SUBDIVISION, AND LOTS 14, 15, 16, AND A PORTION OF LOT 8, BLOCK 7, TOWN OF BURLINGAME SUBDIVISION AT 135 LORTON AVENUE The City Council of the City of Burlingame resolves as follows: WHEREAS, City staff recommends City Council approve the parcel map with the following conditions: 1. A final parcel map for the lot split must be filed by the applicant within the two-year time period as allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 2. All property corners shall be set in the field and be shown on the map. 3. The final map shall show the widths of the right-of-way for Park Road, Lorton Avenue, Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue including the centerlines of right-of-way, bearings, and distances of centerline and any existing monuments in the roadway. 4. All frontage sidewalks, driveways, and curb and gutter within in the public -right-of-way shall be replaced with new improvements. 5. No raised structures shall be constructed in the public right-of-way. 6. Permanent stormwater treatment measures and maintenance agreement is required for parcel one. Agreement shall be recorded with the County prior to building permit sign -off. 7. Parcel two will remain City Property as a public park with a 10' private storm drain easement (PSDE) for the benefit of parcel one. 8. The development on parcel one was granted a nonemergency rear direct access to the public park. The lot split accounts for the twenty-one foot protruding staircase and landing that will be part of parcel one. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED BY THE COUNCIL, AS FOLLOWS: The Final Parcel Map (PM 20-02) with the conditions described above is approved. 2. Staff is directed to verify that all conditions of approval are met and arrange for the recording of the tentative and final parcel map. 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 18t—" day of May, 2020, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk OWNER'S STATEMENT I (WE) HEREBY STATE THAT WE ARE THE OWNERS OF OR HAVE SOME RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST IN AND TO THE REAL PROPERTY INCLUDED WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION SHOWN ON THE MAP; THAT WE ARE THE ONLY PERSONS WHOSE CONSENT IS NECESSARY TO PASS A CLEAR TITLE TO SAID REAL PROPERTY; THAT WE HEREBY CONSENT TO THE MAKING OF SAID MAP AND SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINE; AND THAT WE HEREBY OFFER FOR DEDICATION TO PUBLIC USE ALL STREETS AND PORTIONS OF STREETS NOT PREVIOUSLY EXISTING AS SHOWN ON THE MAP WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION, AND ALSO DEDICATE TO PUBLIC USE EASEMENTS FOR ANY AND ALL PUBLIC USES UNDER, UPON AND OVER SAID STREETS AND SAID PORTIONS THEREOF. THERE IS ALSO SHOWN ON THE HEREON MAP, EASEMENTS FOR STORM DRAINAGE PURPOSES, DESIGNATED AND DELINEATED AS "PSDE" (PRIVATE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT) FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PRIVATE STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES. THESE EASEMENTS ARE TO BE KEPT OPEN AND FREE FROM BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES OF ANY KIND, EXCEPT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS AND APPURTENANCES THERETO, LAWFUL FENCES AND ALL LAWFUL UNSUPPORTED ROOF OVERHANGS. THE MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND/OR REPLACEMENT OF PRIVATE STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES SHALL BE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LOT OWNERS BENEFITED, AS DETERMINED BY THE APPROPRIATE COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS. SAID EASEMENT IS NOT OFFERED, NOR IS IT ACCEPTED FOR DEDICATION BY THE CITY OF BURLINGAME. AS OWNER: BY: DATE: NAME: TITLE: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER COMPLETING THIS CERTIFICATE VERIFIES ONLY THE IDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED, AND NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS, ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT. STATE OF CALIFORNIA SS. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ON , 20 BEFORE ME, , A NOTARY PUBLIC, PERSONALLY APPEARED WHO PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON(S) WHOSE NAME(S) IS/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE/SHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN HIS/HER/THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IES), AND THAT BY HIS/HER/THEIR SIGNATURES) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON(S) ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT. I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT. WITNESS MY HAND: NOTARY'S SIGNATURE: PRINTED NOTARY'S NAME: NOTARY'S PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS: NOTARY'S COMMISSION NUMBER: EXPIRATION OF NOTARY'S COMMISSION: A.P.N. 029-224-270 CITY LAND SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT I HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THE HEREON PARCEL MAP AND I AM SATISFIED THAT SAID MAP IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT. DATE: MARK A. HELTON, LS 7078 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA LICENSE EXPIRES 12-31-2020 CITY ENGINEER'S STATEMENT SAND SG\ o J � NO. L7078 * EXP. 12-31-20 \rF OF I HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THE HEREON PARCEL MAP; THAT THE SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN HEREON IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS IT APPEARED ON THE TENTATIVE MAP, IF ANY AND ANY APPROVED ALTERATIONS THEREOF; THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, AS AMENDED, AND OF ANY LOCAL ORDINANCE APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP, IF REQUIRED, HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH. DATE: ART MORIMOTO, RCE# 42634 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION AND IS BASED UPON A FIELD SURVEY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCE AT THE REQUEST OF (NAME OF PERSON AUTHORIZING MAP) ON (DATE). I HEREBY STATE THAT THIS FINAL MAP SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS TO THE APPROVED OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP, IF ANY; THAT THE SURVEY IS TRUE AND COMPLETE AS SHOWN; THAT ALL MONUMENTS ARE OF THE CHARACTER AND OCCUPY THE POSITIONS INDICATED, OR THAT THEY WILL BE SET IN THOSE POSITIONS ON OR BEFORE (INSERT DATE); THAT THE MONUMENTS ARE, OR WILL BE, SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRACED. DATE: 1,AND SU,p SIGNED \���o�R V I CTito GF`o ALEXANDER V, FONG PLS 9252 a PLS EXPIRES 3-31-2022 No. 9252 F OF Cp`\�o���Q CITY CLERK'S STATEMENT I HEREBY STATE THAT THIS PARCEL MAP, CONSISTING OF TWO (2) SHEETS, WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY RESOLUTION NO. AT A DULY AUTHORIZED MEETING OF SAID CITY COUNCIL HELD ON THE DAY OF , 20 , AND THAT BY SAID RESOLUTION ALL STREETS AND PORTIONS THEREOF, AND ALL EASEMENTS SHOWN ON SAID MAP AND OFFERED FOR DEDICATION, WERE REJECTED ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC, SAVE AND EXCEPT NONE, AND TO THE LIMITED EXTENT THAT ANY OFFERS FOR EASEMENTS FOR UTILITY PURPOSES ALONG OR BENEATH SAID STREET RIGHTS —OF —WAYS, THEN AS TO SUCH EXPRESS OR IMPLIED OFFERS OF EASEMENTS FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, THE SAME ARE ACCEPTED. BY: MEGHAN HASSEL—SHEARER, CITY CLERK DEPUTY CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA DATE: PARCEL MAP "VILLAGE AT BURLINGAME" LOTS 14, 15, 16, 17 AND A PORTION OF LOT 8 OF BLOCK 7 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE POLO FIELD SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE TOWN OF BURLINGAME", FILED MAY 1, 1905 IN MAP BOOK 3, PAGE 64, SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. BELLECCI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONCORD, CA APRIL 2020 VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S STATEMENT I HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS PARCEL MAP AND HAVE DETERMINED THAT SAID PARCEL MAP SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS TO THE TENTATIVE MAP AS APPROVED ON AND THE CONDITIONS THEREON. DATE: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA RECORDER'S STATEMENT FILE NO. FEE $ PAID. ACCEPTED FOR RECORD AND FILED IN BOOK OF MAPS AT PAGE(S) , SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS, THIS DAY OF 20 , AT M. AT THE REQUEST OF MARK CHURCH, COUNTY RECORDER SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA BY: DEPUTY SHEET 1 OF 2 HOWARD AVENUE (PUBLIC ROW) 5' WIDE STRIP DEEDED TO THE CITY N41'30'30"W --FND CUT X PER - - N41'30'30"W OF BURLINGAME PER 272 OR 160 —�* 6.00' 61 PM 72 6.00' AS SHOWN PER 61 PM 72 N48'29'30"E / — 50.00' 50.00' - N48'29'30"E 200.00' RIGHT OF WAY 5 \�C� /raj <ts1� 1 ��� �� r C� PARCEL A 11 E oo — rj�f THE TUB �� �r � � CQ 0 o �� B U 1 L D 1 l\l r I C C�� r2� 1 - 0 EXISTING `�i �� i 0 ~ BUILDING C� O 2 9 - 2 241 3OO s�� J EXISTING NAIL & TAG FIND NAIL & TAG L.S. 5102 5' UP AT o 3 z PER 61 PM 72 THE SECOND STORY CONC BULDING rn o BUILDING ON FL' _ S.F.N.F. PER 61 PM 72 0 3 �J r 50.00' , , 50.00' 50.00' _ u- N48'29 30 E 150.00 o IJ `8'29'30"E 150.00' ZEE 0 9 1 OLn LC) rp r Rr��\1rJ 1 R. O 1 �l• 0 029- 2 -070 � ,-. � p Z N4R& U Q 21.00129.00' m w� 0 0 0_' PARCEL TWO o a w "' 0 5,805 Sq.Ft. Gross 10.00' o J 1 Y m 0 1 J 0 0 c� P.S.D.E. W p PARCEL ONE 4,515 Sq. Ft. Net > p 30,945 S Ft. 21.00�------------ -- Z Q Qv Z; q' 129.00' z J N48'29 30 E 150.00 0 R POLO FIELD SUBDIVISION W m . 0 B'K. 3 0FO MAPS PC]. 64 f 0 0 r 16 1 ° 0 o THE HIC-iHI��I\IDS L LC o 029- 241-090 0 _J 0 1) o 0 0 17 0, Z THE H1rH L ANDS LLC 17 029-224- 100 -- BLOCK WALL ONLINE WITH PL iMERRI r r TR. PER 61 PM 72 O 19 J 2 24 J 1 10 PARK PL aZA TO�J\IERS 1 3 CON DO]YJ11\11UM 105-350-030 A.P.N. 029-224-270 PARCEL MAP "VILLAGE AT BURLINGAME" LOTS 14, 15, 16, 17 AND A PORTION OF LOT 8 OF BLOCK 7 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE POLO FIELD SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE TOWN OF BURLINGAME", FILED MAY 1, 1905 IN MAP BOOK 3, PAGE 64, SAN MATED COUNTY RECORDS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. BELLECCI & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONCORD, CA APRIL 2020 40 20 0 40 80 SCALE IN FEET 1 "=40' _.►SIS OF BEARINGS THE BEARINGS OF THIS SURVEY ARE BASED ON THE LINE BETWEEN FOUND CUT CROSSES ON THE CONCRETE WALK OF HOWARD AVENUE AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 61 PM 72 BEARING TAKEN AS N48°29'30"E. LEGEND SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY LINE LOT LINE EXISTING RIGHT—OF—WAY LINE FACE OF CURB LINE X FOUND CUT X AS NOTED FOUND NAIL & TAG AS NOTED FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED 0 SET %" REBAR W/PLASTIC CAP PLS 9252 SET NAIL AND TAG STAMPED PLS 9252 BDY BOUNDARY S.F.N.F. SEARCHED FOR, NOT FOUND (T) TOTAL 0 CLI \4D )U) 0� co t-1 t� a 0 CLI NOTES: 1. ALL DISTANCES AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF. 2. THE AREA WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINE OF PARCEL ONE IS 30,000 SQUARE FEET, AND PARCEL TWO 5,805 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS. 3. THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINE DENOTES THE BOUNDARY OF THE SUBDIVISION. 4. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PARCEL MAP IS TO MERGE ALL LOTS INTO TWO LOTS, TO FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE VILLAGE AT BURLINGAME AND A CITY PARK. SHEET 2 OF 2 CITY ryc�l 11 o� - 9 RPORATE Monday, December 10, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioner Gaul arrived at 7:09 p.m. Present 7 - Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA > Item 8a - Consideration of an Ordinance Adopting Residential Impact Fees for New Residential Development has been continued to the January 14, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA There were no public comments on non -agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS a. 1101 Rosedale Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Special Permit and Parking Variance for reduction of off-street parking on site. (Martin Miller, applicant, property owner, and designer) (91 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Attachments: 1101 Rosedale Ave -Staff Report 1101 Rosedale Ave - Attachments 1101 Rosedale Ave -Plans All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. > If we were to consider a Variance for parking within the front setback, would that then eliminate the need for the Variance for parking being requested? (Hurin: Yes, it would eliminate the Variance for not providing the number of parking spaces required.) > The applicant is not applying for a Variance to legalize the parking within the front setback, correct? (Hurin: That is correct. The proposed application includes adding a planter strip along the edge of that City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 311212019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2018 parking space to prevent someone from parking there.) Acting Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Martin Miller, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no questions from the Commission. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Acting Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > See no issues with the Special Permit to reduce the number of parking spaces on -site. This is a unique lot and this is a reasonable way to use the space and provide full enjoyment of the property. > Not meeting the minimum parking requirement is difficult to support. See the downside of using the alternate parking space in the front setback, however think the benefit to the community outweighs that. Therefore, would be in support of having the applicant return with a Variance for parking within the front setback rather than providing just one parking space on -site. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar with the direction to the applicant to change the Variance application from reducing the parking on -site to providing a parking space in the front setback not leading to a garage or carport. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse Absent: 1 - Gaul 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Terrones was recused from Item 7e - 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Avenue, as he lives within 500 feet of the subject properties. a. Adopt Planning Commission Calendar for 2019 — Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 2019 Planning Commission Memorandum 2019 Planning Commission Schedule 2019 City Council Calendar - Draft b. 1304 Mills Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for One Year Extension of a previously approved application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Melina Copass, applicant and designer; Matt and Lauren Fleming, property owners) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 311212019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2018 Attachments: 1304 Mills Ave - Staff Report & Attachments 1304 Mills Ave - Plans C. 1648 Barroilhet Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a new two-story single family dwelling (existing detached garage to be retained). This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (TRG Architects, Randy Grange, applicant and designer; Debbie and William Clifford, property owners) (105 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal Attachments: 1648 Barroilhet Ave - Staff Report 1648 Barroilhet Ave - Attachments 1648 Barroilhet Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 1648 Barroilhet Ave - Plans d. 1547 Los Altos Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for attached garage, and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new attached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e) (1). (Studio 797, Jared Kuykendall, architect; Flora Lee and Jonathan Wan, applicant and property owners) ( 73 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal Attachments: 1547 Los Altos Dr - Staff Report 1547 Los Altos Dr - Attachments 1547 Los Altos Dr - Plans Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve Items 7a through 7d on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse e. 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for a One Year Extension for a previously approved application for a Conditional Use Permit for re-emerging lots, Design Review and front setback Variances for two new duplex residential units on two separate lots. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Ed Breur, TRG Architects, applicant and designer; Kurt Steil, property owner) (70 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Attachments: 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Ave - Attachments 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Ave - Plans Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve Item 7e on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Tse City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 311212019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2018 Recused: 1 - Terrones 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a. Consideration of an Ordinance Adopting Residential Impact Fees for New Residential Development - This item has been continued to the January 14, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting. > Item 8a - Consideration of an Ordinance Adopting Residential Impact Fees for New Residential Development has been continued to the January 14, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting. b. 1245 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Amendment to Design Review for changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Eric and Jennifer Lai, applicants and property owners; Chu Design Associates Inc., designer) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 1245 Cabrillo Ave - Staff Report 1245 Cabrillo Ave - Attachments 1245 Cabrillo Ave - Plans Commissioner Kelly was recused from this item as he lives within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto indicated that she had met with the adjacent neighbor to the south. Commissioner Sargent indicated that he had also met with the adjacent neighbor to the south and the applicant. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. > Understand that the applicant was directed to stop work on the nonconforming wall. Was a stop work order issued for the entire project? (Hurin: The Building Division issued a partial stop work order for the nonconforming wall along the left side of the house; applicant was allowed to work on the remaining portion of the house at their own risk.) > On existing walls that are located within the required setback, how much of the wall can be removed before it needs to conform to current code setback requirements? (Hurin: The foundation and framing needs to be kept; the exterior siding and drywall may be removed.) > It appears that the framing between foundation and lower floor on a portion of a nonconforming wall at the front of the house has been replaced, so is that considered to be a wall replacement and therefore subject to current code requirements? (Hurin: Planning and Building Division staff would need to review the details of what has been replaced in order to determine if it is considered to be a new wall.) James Chu, represented the applicant, along with Eric Lai, property owner. Commission Questions/Comments: > You are proposing to comply with the required side setback of four feet along the left side property line and to maintain the existing plate height by changing the roof pitch to accommodate the narrower house width, correct? (Chu: Correct.) > The cripple wall along the living room at the front of the house has been replaced. The floor framing in this area is rotted as well and the window header will need to be replaced. It appears that most of the living room wall will need to be replaced. (Chu: The original purpose of preserving the existing wall was to City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 311212019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2018 retain the existing nonconforming front setback; could reframe the wall to make the house better.) > Who is maintaining responsible control over the work site and its current condition? (Chu: The contractor is the person responsible over the work site. Designer has not been hired to oversee the project during construction.) Is the contractor present tonight? (Chu: No.) > Would like to note that there are several conditions of approval that require milestones to be verified both by the surveyor and architect, so there are multiple people involved. > At various points during construction, certain verifications are required. Concerned that property owners don't do this for a living, so they are at the mercy of the contractor and professionals completing the construction. Concerned that the contractor has made a gaffe like this and still expected that they will maintain control. (Chu: One of the conditions of approval includes that prior to the framing inspection, a professional needs to inspect the construction to make sure that the architectural elements are built according to the approved plan and that the project is in compliance with FAR. In this case, everything happened during the demolition stage, prior to requiring any sort of verification.) > Moving forward, what gives us the confidence that whatever gets approved will be built? Not feeling confident about that right now. (Chu: Contractor is a local developer who has lived in Burlingame for many years and has built several new homes in Burlingame. However, he may not have had experience with a remodel/addition project as detailed as this, requiring existing nonconforming walls to be retained.) > Is contractor licensed? (Chu: Yes.) (Lai: Asked contractor to attend the meeting tonight, but he did not come.) > When originally approved project, quite a bit of the house was going to remain. There were a lot of pre-existing conditions, including the setbacks and plate heights which were in place but not being specifically reviewed. Can't see us approving a nearly 10-foot plate height on a raised floor. Have you looked at lowering the plate height to 9 feet? (Chu: Yes, we can consider doing that if it would help us get an approval.) > On the proposed Left Elevation, there is a window well towards the rear of the house with a shoulder on the Rear Elevation, so it may force the end window in a bit. Shoulder on long, tall gable along left side will be fine because it will help dormers settle into the roof. But will be limited with gabled dormer towards the front of the house along the left side with how much roof you have cutting into just below the sill. May want to think about reducing the height of the windows, making them smaller, so you have enough roof to cut into the bottom dormer and bring up the bottom edge up a bit. (Chu: Yes, will consider doing that.) > Did you see letter from Sally Brown and Philip Ross regarding stabilizing the creek at the rear of the lot for construction of the garage? (Chu: Yes, we made some changes to the foundation of the garage, instead of a spread footing will be using a pier and grade beam foundation to disturb less of the soil in the area. There is also erosion control in place.) > Will there be a soils report submitted? Who would validate the stabilization of the creek? (Lai: Hired Precision Engineering to prepare the soils report.) (Hurin: The Engineering Division is reviewing this issue and will contact the applicant if any additional measures are required.) Public Comments: Frank and Robin Knifsend, 1243 Cabrillo Avenue: Appreciate modifications made, but the changes are small and don't directly address key concerns about the massing and scale of the project. From our view the house is massive and is built to the maximum allowed criteria. One of the biggest issues we have is that we don't trust the plans, there are many inconsistencies. The path they took to get to this point was making misleading statements directly to us, as well as in the planning process, about keeping the existing structure. 85% or more of the existing structure is gone and down to the subfloor, that's a pretty big accident that took place over several weeks. There are a lot of call -outs on the plans and labeled existing on the proposed structure, and would contend that not one element on the back 80% of the house is to the original existing floor heights, ceiling heights, and plate heights. On proposed building elevations, indicated plate height lines don't match to what is drawn. Took them at their word, see the proposed plans with many references to existing conditions, used the existing structure as a story board for the plans that they were going to build. Now see what has actually been framed, measured wall myself and determined that it was built one foot taller than approved. Concerned with what the plans do and don't shown, questionable communication from the applicant, and what the contractor has done up to this point. Don't City of Burlingame Page 5 Printed on 311212019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2018 have a lot of confidence going forward that we're not going have this massive structure next to us. Gene Bordegaray, neighbor across the street: Realize there have been some mitigations measures to try to get the project back into conformance. However, in looking at the proposed plan, the massing of the wall adjacent to the left side neighbor is huge, measuring 25 feet tall and 50 feet long and only 4 feet away from the fence. Can't really appreciate how that will look because there is nothing to show us that right now. Suggest installing story poles and netting to show massing along left side property line to give a better sense of how intrusive that wall will be from their side of the property line. Bill Howell, 1424 Benito Avenue: When we remodeled house, our contractor made us stick to the rules. This is an intimidating process, but there is a fundamental trust that when plans are approved, one expects that the house will be built as shown on the approved plans; most people abide by that rule. Was at neighbor's house and saw the wall near the fence, doesn't feel natural because it's so high relative to the driveway. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Glad to be reviewing these revisions and not the revisions previously proposed. Also glad to see that the intent is to comply with the side setback. > What is before us now is simply an amendment to design review. However, there some revisions that could possibly occur, but also additional information needs to be shown and corrected on the plans so that we know what we're approving. > Moving forward, as standard procedure there will need to be certification of the framing provided by a professional confirming that what has been built is consistent with the approved plans. > House is approximately 5 feet above adjacent grade and is similar to other houses nearby. Houses to the right and left are elevated above grade. So project would benefit from reducing the plate height to 9 feet. > Would like to see exactly what plate height we are being asked to consider for the dormers on the second floor, because we have an indication on the drawings that say 8'4" but it says "existing top plate", however if that top plate no longer exists it doesn't matter. Need to clarify plate of dormers on second floor; needs to be corrected and made accurate so that everyone knows what were are reviewing and approving as the project moves forward. > Not prepared at this point to move forward with an approval, but am accepting of the general intent of the changes proposed along the left side of the house to bring it into compliance with setback requirements. > Concerned with the way the dormers are treated on the second floor along left side in that it creates another tall, flat surface; caused by window wells to make windows taller. Suggest that the roof slope run up to hit the wall and windows be made smaller. It would appear to be a much smaller wall if the vertical surface stopped at a certain point, the roof sloped away, and the windows were in a small wall that was pushed way back on the roof. As proposed, the window wells that are cut out are exposing a tall wall on top of another tall wall. Dormers along left side of house need to be rethought to reduce the apparent height of the wall. > Agree with most comments made. However, not convinced that the design of the dormers need to be rethought if they are in compliance with code requirements. > Provide at least one section to understand what is happening on the second floor. > Correct drafting error for plate height shown at family room, shown at 9'-0" but building elevations still show it at 9'40". > Nonconforming front wall also needs to be addressed since the required front setback is several feet further back. > Left side elevation is tall and flat, so would like to see some articulation there. > Concerned about front wall; Planning and Building Divisions should review how much has been done to the wall; may need to apply for a Variance to retain it. City of Burlingame Page 6 Printed on 311212019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2018 > Would be helpful to have the contractor frame an 8 foot section of wall with a 9 foot plate height to give the Commission and neighbors a visual of what is being proposed. > Disappointed that this house got this far away from the original house. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to continue the application with the following direction: > Request that staff investigate the front wall and determine whether a variance or change is required. > Reduce plate height to 9 feet. > Provide additional details on the plans as requested during the discussion. > Provide building section through the dormers to provide a clear understanding of the massing in this area. Commission Discussion: > Would like to reiterate concern of apparent height of the dormer wall due to the window wells. It might be fine to cut a section through there, but would like applicant to really consider refining the dormers. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse Recused: 1 - Kelly C. 1341 De Soto Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and Conditional Use Permit for a half -bath in the detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, applicant and designer; Jeff Diana, property owner) (123 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Attachments: 1341 De Soto Ave - Staff Report 1341 De Soto Ave - Attachments 1341 De Soto Ave - Plans All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto indicated that she had met with the applicant. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. > What is the policy for skylights on accessory structures located within 10 feet of property line? (Keylon: A conditional use permit is required for any type of glazing, skylights or windows on an accessory structure within 10 feet of a property line.) > There is no application for a conditional use permit on this project, correct? (Keylon: Correct.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, project designer, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Is there a skylight proposed in the detached garage? (Raduenz: No, the plans show a pull -down ladder City of Burlingame Page 7 Printed on 311212019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2018 to provide access to the attic space in the garage.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Really like this project. > Like changes made to the project. > Appreciate applicant speaking to the neighbor regarding providing additional space behind the detached garage. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application. Commission Discussion: > Like the project overall, but would still like to see a deeper front porch. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse Nay: 1 - Sargent d. 1464 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Chu Design & Associates, applicant and designer; Matt Nejasmich, property owner) (135 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz Attachments: 1464 Balboa Ave - Staff Report 1464 Balboa Ave - Attachments 1464 Balboa Ave - Plans All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. James Chu, represented the applicant, along with Matt Nejasmich, property owner. Commission Questions/Comments: > Asked applicant to clarify that rendering submitted are correct. (Chu confirmed rendering is correct.) > Plans show a 9'-6" first floor plate height, but it is drawn below the lowest point of the fascia. Please explain. (Chu: Reason is that when designing a house where the second floor floor wall is set in and not directly above a first floor support wall, a beam is needed to carry the load out to the first floor support wall. In order to avoid too many notches in the beam, the roof rafters are typically set on top of the beam, which explains the extra spacing above the first floor plate.) City of Burlingame Page 8 Printed on 311212019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2018 > Column bases at front porch look really massive, appear to scale at 24 inches wide. Is that the intended dimension? Plans should be revised if they are intended to be smaller. (Chu: Bases should be 18 inches wide.) > How much exposure will there be on the shingles? Exposure shown on the renderings are much larger than on the building elevations. (Chu: Should be a 4 to 6-inch exposure.) Please clarify the exposure on the plans. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > This is a good looking project and fits in well with the neighborhood. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse e. 1838 El Camino Real, Suite 180, zoned ECN - Application for Parking Variance to convert an existing office space into a health service use (medical office). This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (a). (Lemi Medical Center, applicant; Nolan Wong, property owner; Jack Tam, Team 7 International, architect) (36 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Attachments: 1838 El Camino Real Suite 180 - Staff Report 1838 El Camino Real Suite 180 - Attachments 1838 El Camino Real Suite 180 - Plans All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Dr. Nani Kanen and Ann Strain, represented the applicant. > Understand that the detoxification process is difficult. What is the process for patients to come back for treatment? (Strain: The first day of treatment lasts five to six hours. Patients then come back for three to five days for sessions lasting one-half to one hour, depending on the patient. Patients then continue to do a taper of whatever the detox medications are. Many patients, especially if they are from the local area, will follow up for an in office visit. It's important to have providers that know how to treat this.) (Kanen: With the proposed expansion, not all rooms will be used as exam rooms. Current space is too small, have too many work stations in one room, there is no break room for staff and there is no room to draw blood.) > What is your relationship with Peninsula Hospital? Are you employees of the hospital and is this a separate endeavor? (Kanen: No, none of us are employees of Peninsula Hospital. I am a contracted medical director. This is a private practice.) > How do patients arrive to the facility? Do they drive themselves or use ride -sharing services? (Kanen: Very fortunate to have Caltrain within walking distance of the facility, so many patients use Caltrain. Would City of Burlingame Page 9 Printed on 311212019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2018 point out that patients are not allowed to drive, so patients are also dropped off and picked up by family members.) > Are there often parking spaces that are available? (Kanen: Yes, there are available parking spaces in our parking lot.) > Do you have a sense of the percentage of patients that drive to the facility versus how many use other transportation methods? (Strain: Approximately 30% use alternative means of transportation. Would note that the facility is located on El Camino Real which contains a bus line, Caltrain and BART stations are located nearby, and many patients use ride -sharing services. Staff members walk to the facility if they live close by.) > Ordinance requires that the off-street parking for health services uses be calculated at one space per 250 square feet. However in nearby zoning districts such as the TW District, health service is calculated using the ratio for office, which is one space per 300 square feet. So there wouldn't be a Variance required in this case if the facility was located in the TW District. What is the reason for not including that parking ratio in this area? (Hurin: When TW District was established, it envisioned large buildings that would provide more on -site parking that therefore absorb the difference in parking ratios. In the ECN zone, high density housing was envisioned, however we understand that many of the existing buildings will continue to be used for medical and office uses.) > That allowance to use the office ratio for health services is for applications in buildings that are 20,000 square feet or greater. In this case, the building area is 19,900 square feet, so it's slightly less than 20,000 square feet. See it as another reason to consider that not only are we close to those other zones, but also close to the criteria. Michael Brownrigg: Understand that there is a difficulty with drug addiction in our society. Visited this facility and observed a line stretching out the waiting room door. Am proud that we have a facility like this in Burlingame and that we're helping people that need help. Claudio (last name not provided): Was involved in alcohol and drug addiction, cleaned my life up 25 years ago. Am a productive individual that works, am a general contractor and live in Burlingame. When I became sober, there wasn't a facility around like this one that I could go to. Patients that are serious about cleaning there lives up do turn around and if these facilities aren't available, it makes it difficult for them to do so. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. > This is a necessary facility, whether in Burlingame or in a nearby community. > Llke that it is located across the street from the hospital. > Don't see issue with the Parking Variance, drive by this site quite often and have seen this lot empty. Don't think intensification of use will be detrimental because the manner in which patients will be arriving at the facility. > Sad to hear the drug addiction/detox facility at hospital is closing. There are a lot of people in our community that have used that facility and also know that people in our community need help. > Thanked the applicants for their help and hard work. > This is a good application, really needed in the community. > Can support the Variance request. Facility has unique characteristics that limit the parking need. One of the conditions of approval we're being asked to consider includes that if this medical facility ceases to exist, the Parking Variance becomes void. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application. Commission Discussion: > There is a greater abundance of parking in the lot at the rear of the building along California Drive compared to parking on the frontage road along El Camino Real, so would encourage users and their families to use the parking lot at the rear. City of Burlingame Page 10 Printed on 311212019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2018 The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse f. 920 Bayswater Avenue (includes 908 Bayswater Ave., 108 Myrtle Rd., 112 Myrtle Rd., 116 Myrtle Rd., 120 Myrtle Rd., 124 Myrtle Rd.) zoned MMU and R-3 - Application for Design Review Amendment for review of window materials for a previously approved application for a New 128-Unit Apartment Development. (Fore Property Company, applicant; John C. and Donna W. Hower Trust, Julie Baird, Eric G. Ohlund Et Al, Doris J . Mortensen Tr. - property owners; Withee Malcolm Architects LLP, architects) (325 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Attachments: 920 Bayswater Ave - Staff Report 920 Bayswater Ave - Attachments - #1 920 Bayswater Ave - Attachments - #2 920 Bayswater Ave - Attachments - #3 All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. > Staff report notes that the applicant is currently working with an acoustical engineer to provide information requested by the Planning Commission at the November 26th meeting. Has a report been submitted yet? (Keylon: The applicant will address this question during his presentation.) Mark Pilarczyk, represented the applicant. > There are higher noise levels here than at Summerhill site, correct? (Pilarczyk: That is correct.) In reading the documentation from Summerhill's approval, vinyl windows were approved for that project because they couldn't meet the sound transmission class (STC) ratings any other way. Did you also find that you could not meet the required STC ratings without using a vinyl window? (Pilarczyk: Yes, that is correct. We're ultimately limited to this high end line vinyl project because of the STC ratings.) > Which one of the sample windows provided are you proposing to use now? (Pilarczyk: The Milgard Tuscany Series, however did provide an alternative window as was requested by the Commission.) > Do you know what is STC rating is for the Milgard Tuscany Series? (Pilarczyk: Submittal included the STC ratings from the manufacturer which is attached to the staff report. They could vary and produce different STC ratings depending on the window type.) > Are you still waiting for sound information from the noise consultant, Charles Salter? (Pilarczyk: Yes, waiting for final report. Noise consultant reviewed the information and was ready to provide a report, but indicated that based on information in the General Plan and Mitigated Negative Declaration, they were consistent in saying that there were higher decibels because of the proximity to the train tracks and that you need to be at or above the STC ratings at the Summerhill site.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. > Thanked applicant for additional information, it was helpful to have. Commended applicant for working with the community on this project to ensure that it fits in with the neighborhood. > Have looked at the Milgard Tuscany window or similar windows a lot over the years. Can only remember one project where they have been approved, the Summerhill project, which was because it was the only window they could find that met the STC ratings. And for the specific reason, can support a motion to approve it. > Generally speaking, it doesn't meet the design review guidelines. Have had lots of applicants come in City of Burlingame Page 11 Printed on 311212019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2018 with this specific window and we've denied those requests, to the point where the Commission has made applicant remove these windows after they've been installed. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application with the following condition: > that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project the applicant shall return to the Planning Commission for an FYI with a letter prepared by an acoustical engineer regarding the noise impacts to potential residents of the proposed project and the sound rating required for the windows to meet the Building Code requirements. Commission Discussion: > Thanked the applicant for the additional information provided. Still don't like vinyl windows, but understand that applicant must comply with building code regulations. Happy that you and staff did the research on Summerhill, which we clearly approved for that very reason, which was to meet the STC ratings requirement. > Had suggested a couple of other window manufacturers at the last meeting and reviewed the specifications sheet for those windows. Found that the STC ratings are slightly lower than the proposed window, so assume that it makes a difference. > Also not a fan of vinyl windows, but applicant has changed enough of the other exterior materials to help us find a middle ground. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse g. 150 Park Road (Parking Lot F), zoned HMU & R-4: Application for Design Review, Density Bonus Incentives and Lot Merger for construction of a new 132-unit affordable workforce and senior apartment development. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (Infill Exemption). (Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies, applicant; City of Burlingame, property owner; Pacific West Architecture, architect) (405 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 150 Park Rd (Lot F) - Staff Report 150 Park Rd (Lot F) - Attachments CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 150 Park Rd (Lot F) - Plans All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. > The design of the park element is not under consideration, correct? (Hurin: That's correct. City staff will work with the applicant on the design and may share the proposal with the Parks and Recreation Commission for their input.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Caleb Roope, Doug Gibson and Chris Grant, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: City of Burlingame Page 12 Printed on 311212019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2018 > In looking at your civil plan it looks like they got the flow -through biotreatment. But the swath of coloring encompasses the tree wells where the two existing magnolias and the new magnolia are. In looking at the landscape plan, am I correct in understanding that the flow -through biotreatment won't be where the mangolia trees are located? Just want to make sure the magnolia trees will not be damaged. (Gibson: Correct, we would only be doing the flow -through biotreatment where new ground level planting is. The intent would be that we would modify that area for the new planting.) > On sheet A3.1, there is a swath of area outside of the garage identified by a green diagonal hatch. What is that area? Will that be shoring area or that's just outside the limits of your construction? (Gibson: That area primarily would be for service access to the base of the structure.) (Grant: Would also note that at the request of the Fire Marshal, that area was provided wide enough so that there was pedestrian access for fire apparatus.) > Regarding the proposed windows, I don't recall seeing muntins between the glazing when we last reviewed the project. We didn't have that detail provided on the revised plans. Why the muntins between the glazing as opposed to expressed on the exterior and interior, like a simulated true divided lite? (Gibson: The proposed Alside windows meets the price point for the project in order to be economically feasible.) > In past experience we have not accepted the muntins between the glazing, it's just not expressive enough. (Grant: Would the Commission accept a window design that did not include muntins between the glazing much like the submittal in February?) If there was a choice between muntins between the glazing or not, would prefer no muntins. However, don't know if architecture will still work without the muntins. > The issue that I have is that when light hits the windows, the muntins between the glazing look like security bars on the inside of a window. Would be one of the last characteristics that we would want this project to have. It's something we'll need to continue to discuss and perhaps look at other options. > The stucco is true cementitious base stucco, not an EIFS exterior finish, correct? (Gibson: Correct, the intent would be a three -layer stucco). > The lap siding is cementitious Hardie board, correct? (Gibson: Correct.) > Wood is called out for the trellis, that's not a Trex material, correct? (Gibson: Correct, it would be timbered wood provided with proper waterproofing and flashing.) > Is the community space intended to be accessible by the public? (Gibson: It's meant to be used by the residents of the facility, it's not meant to be a space that can be leased out or rented for community events. Not intended to be used as a commercial space as a revenue generator for the property.) > Would the doors leading to the space typically be locked and only unlocked if there was a party or some type of gathering to let people come in from the street? (Roope: It's an amenity for the residents that live there. Lobby will be accessible all of the time, but other parts of the building would be open during the day when the on -site management team is there. Somebody could come in from the outside, but then would meet the manager on site and work with them. > How would one enter this space from the inside of the building? (Roope: There is an access provided through the mail room.) > Transformer and electrical rooms have doors leading from the street, is that your intention? Would they be serviced from those doors? (Roope: Yes, those rooms would be locked and serviced that way.) Are they glass doors? (Roope: They are all designed to have a storefront look to be consistent with the architecture of the building; would be designed so that you would not be able to see into the rooms.) > Would the glass doors provide enough security of the equipment? (Roope: Doors would be solid, could work with staff to study that issue further.) > Given that approximately half of the residents will be seniors, was there any thought to having an ADA ramp from the lobby to the first floor? (Roope: Elevator provides access from the lobby to the first floor, there is also an elevator from the parking garage to the main floor, where more of the senior housing is located.) > What is the height of the canopy at the main entrance to the building? (Gibson: Approximately between 13 and 14 feet.) > Realize that the canopy is establishing the main entrance, but at that height does it provide enough weather protection? (Roope: Shouldn't be an issue because the lobby doors would be open, so one would not need a key to open the door. Canopy height appears to be more like 10 to 11 feet, can look at details City of Burlingame Page 13 Printed on 311212019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2018 and study further.) (Gibson: Could look at lowering it to match the other canopies, however the design intent was to bring it up higher to announce the entry.) > Think the different material face at that area, lighting and signage would be enough of an indicator where the entrance would be, so lowering the canopy might be more useful for the users. > Stepping back the building mass is helpful, but also seems that two of the more robust and outward corners of the building were placed on the park side of the building. Is there a reason why they weren't placed on the front of the building instead of the rear? (Gibson: Tried to accomplish a couple of things. Have two apartment buildings at the rear, some of which have balconies and patios which are very close to our property line. In working with the neighbors, tied to soften that elevation. As a result, transferred that loss of square footage to the front of the building. (Gibson: Also reprogrammed some of the elements on the floor plans at the rear of the building to make it more urban, provide access from the raised patio to grade at rear. This is a four sided structure, not turning our backs to anyone.) > Have you considered changing some of the colors on the building? Concern is with the yellow color on the rooftop mechanical and stairway enclosures. Would like to see a softer color. (Gibson: We could paint them down so that they would only look like an apparatus on the roof. Went through multiple color iterations following the last meeting. Concerned that we were starting to wash out the building, there is a lot of movement and massing on the structure. Feel that contrast of proposed colors will be a signature type of color for this development.) > Do you know what brand of paint you're using? Do you have specific color names picked out? (Gibson: Colors are noted on the color board. Can provide additional smaller or larger samples. Not married to the yellow, but want to come up with a color that is agreeable to the Commission.) > Application of colors working well with the continuity of the different planes. Like the way the colors are working now. Only have concern with the Jade color on the awnings it reminds me of 1980's post -modernism, worried about it getting dated fast. Should revisit this color. > Would like to see storage for bicycles or Lime bikes. Would also like to see seating provided near the entrance. (Gibson: Have programmed in storage for 20 bicycles within the building. We have the room, so we can look into adding those elements.) > Is that a railing at the roof level? Will it be visible from the street? (Gibson: That is actually screening for the rooftop equipment, it will be horizontal banding that looks like it's part of the building. You'd have to be pretty far back to see it from the street.) > Have you considered any other materials other than Hardie for the horizontal lap siding? (Gibson: We've used Allura, which is a step down from Hardie if it gets too expensive on a project.) Have you looked at using any wood products? (Gibson: Not for a project of this size. If wood was considered, it would be placed lower on the building so that it could be easily maintained.) (Roope: Durability and maintenance concerns are at the top of the list when building affordable housing. Maintenance of wood is a cost to the property and threatens the long term affordability of the asset. Spend more money if needed upfront on durability to make sure maintenance is not an issue.) > Saw some products at the Pacific Coast Builders Conference this is impregnated wood, it looks great and has a 25 year warranty. 1 believe the brand was Thermory. Should look into newer product options to see if it would make sense costwise. (Roope: Could look into other options, products are improving over time.) > Recall that at the last meeting, neighbor to rear expressed a concern regarding the existing Cypress tree along the rear property line. (Roope: Have been working closely with the neighbor.) Public Comments: Tom Cady, 128 Lorton Avenue: Our property is located directly across the street from the project site. Thanked the Commission for their committment to the community. Noticed evolution of growth in Burlingame, glad to see Commission is here to preserve design standards. Met with developer and have reviewed several of his projects. Believe they have a committment to do things right. Am in support of the project. Marina Franco, owner of apartment building behind project site: Thanked developer for working with us to increase setbacks at the rear of the building. The portion of the lot on Park Road is zoned HMU and the City of Burlingame Page 14 Printed on 311212019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2018 park portion of the site on Lorton Avenue is zoned R-4. Will the lot merger affect the zoning? (Hurin: The park portion of the site would remain R-4, unless there is a proposal in the future to rezone the lot.) Tom Hafill, 110 Park Road: Building has a lot of articulation, don't think it needs as many colors as proposed, think one solid color would look better. Thought it was mentioned that there would be 4,000 square feet of commercial space, want to make sure there will be no commercial or retail space in the building. Renderings don't show any utility poles. Existing utility poles are ugly and block views of cars when existing the site. Would like to see utilities placed underground as part of this project. Based on shadow studies, it appears that our pool and gazebo area will be in a shadow all afternoon during the summer months. Would have liked to see building stepped back so that our recreation area wouldn't be in shadows during the summer. Is there any way to revise the project at this point? David Mendell, 214 Lorton Avenue: Project has improved a lot and will continue to improve as it's being processed. Important to complete construction of the public parking garage before the housing project. Because it's such a big project, it's important to consider where the construction workers will be parking. Mike Dunham: Am a member of a group called Housing for All Burlingame that advocates for renter protections and affordable housing in our community. Thank you all and the developers for the work that's been done so far on this project. We're in a housing crisis but there is in particular an affordable housing crisis. If you look at the Regional Housing Needs Assessment numbers for the last few years, Burlingame has built three affordable units out of 420 that we should have permitted by now. Is an enormous problem that is only getting worse and by the year. Strongly disagree with the suggestion that the parking structure be built first, the City would be much better off finding an off -site solution for parking temporarily because you'll need to deal with 100 plus parking spaces disappearing anyways. There is no way the City can absorb that as is you have to find a solution. Know it's really the City Council's purview, but would strongly encourage that the housing portion be prioritized. Timing matters a lot, would urge you to move this project through as quickly as possible, we are about to face a tsunami of 4,000 highly -paid Facebook employees working very nearby in 2020. Hopefully most of them choose to stay wherever they are and ride on buses to get here, but assume some percentage of them will look at the good schools and walkable downtown and will choose to live in Burlingame. That will only make the pressure on renters worse and worse. Two weeks ago met a single mom and her middle -school aged daughter, who are getting their rent increased by $1,000 a month from her landlord. She is lucky because she was able to negotiate the rent increase down to $700 a month. If you're a homeowner and were told that your property taxes were going up $1,000 a month, you would be very upset and in fact that happened and Prop 13 exists. Renters are getting killed in this City, so it is critical that development happens quickly and it's especially critical that the affordable housing goes in as soon as possible. Urge you to keep this project moving. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. > My understanding of the plans is that the utility poles are remaining in place. In fact the housing project and parking garage had to be stepped back because of the existing utility poles that are remaining in place. > Interpreted the 4,000 square foot commercial space as the area of the community room on the ground floor, but the project still does not include retail or what would be considered as traditional commercial or retail tenant space on that ground floor. > Really like the way that the project has evolved, the articulation and revisions that have been made. Just looking at a side -by -side comparison of the street elevation on the Park Road side, it's dramatically different in terms of the pedestrian experience, including the rhythm of the awnings, the storefront windows, bringing down the garage height, and some of the other articulation, I think is really important along that that side of the of the project. Especially like the element looking from the park area, it's a really nice piece of detailing along that side at the bottom with the awning. Like the way the cornices have been revised and bolstered and think the project is supportable at this point. > Concerned with the integrated muntins in between the glazing. Needs to be reconsidered, can come back as an FYI. In looking at the expressions of the elevations, now have a simple cruciform muntin on City of Burlingame Page 15 Printed on 311212019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2018 windows, does help with the articulation of the elevation, but the muntins won't be seen. Think that if they could find a window that has the simulated true divided lites, not looking for a true divided lite window, can be a muntin on the exterior and interior with a spacer bar between the dual glazing. > Like the project, there have been some good changes that happened in the past year. Agree with the comments made regarding the windows and muntins. Would prefer to see no muntins at all rather than the cheap -looking muntins. Renderings are representative of what the building would look like without muntins because they don't show up in the renderings. On the previous project we looked at, the style required that additional articulation in the windows. This style is much simpler and more contemporary and doesn't require the muntins like the style of the last project did. If you can't find a way to solve the problem, then 1'd rather not see the muntins at all. > Agree with the comments made regarding the teal color, don't think it's a good choice. > Would like to see a softening of the components on the roof. Like idea of having an area out front to park shared bikes, would help with concern over bikes being left on sidewalks. > Like project and look forward to seeing it started. > Agree with suggestion of having benches or a seating area in front of the building. > Would also like the applicant to look at the Hardie siding or wood siding material options. > Can staff share thoughts on the order of construction, which portion of the project should be built first? (Kane: This is one of several issues that has to be finalized with the City Council because it involves City land. There are issues about construction, staging and how many different contractors at different times you have pouring cement, so that's something that will need to be addressed on the Council side. The action tonight is the design approval and then we will keep you and the public updated, but there are a couple of issues that need to be tied out and that's one of them. Some of that will be dictated by the realities of the economics of the financing structure because this involves a lot of tax credit financing, and also how to minimize impacts on the City. This project will have parking impacts, these are used lots, and so the Cities' Public Works Department will need to work very closely with the project on timing and make sure that we have a back-up plan for how consumers and workers are going to be able to park once these parking lots go offline. There will inevitably be a delay between when one of them goes offline and the parking structure gets built. At a recent City Council study session, the applicant noted that because of the lack of finish work, construction of the parking garage goes faster. So once it gets underway, it has a shorter build time to completion than the housing. > Do you know how long construction will take for the garage? (Grant: Trying to shorten to get much closer to a year.) (Kane: It's an aggressive time frame, 18 months to be safe.) Chair Gaul reopened the public hearing. Roope: Haven't seen the final version of the conditions of approval for the project, but had a few items we wanted to request with your permission. Condition #3 deals with the affordability levels, is subject to City Council, would like to add to that condition the phrase "unless modified by the City Council". Reason for that is that there have been tax law changes in the past year, and there is an opportunity to serve an additional band of income levels that may be more appropriate for teachers in the community, an 80% AMI level. Want to preserve the Council the opportunity do that if they so choose. Regarding Condition #28, would be helpful to substitute 'grading" for "building", to be able to submit for a separate grading permit in order to move the project along faster. Could save a few months while the building permit for the project is being processed. (Kane: Difficult to be drafting conditions during the meeting. Note that staff exchanged some edits prior to the meeting, which have been provided to the Commission. Think that wording can still work with a partial permit issuance, that way it is still a building permit, it's just not saying which part of the building permit, so we don't have to redraft the condition.) Roope: Had a question regarding Condition #47, which has to do with the time period we are not allowed to construct because of nesting birds. Usually we see some kind of further definition, such as an endangered bird or protected bird, but the condition is so broad that one could interpret it to mean any type of bird, don't know if that was the intent but that could be a real problem if it includes any type of bird. Don't want to have staff stuck in a box where we're having to conduct a survey for a common bird and City of Burlingame Page 16 Printed on 311212019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2018 it disrupts the project meaningfully. (Kane: After the first sentence in Condition #47, we could add "to the extent feasible as determined by staff'.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application including the revised conditions provided to the Planning Commission at the meeting, the language discussed for Condition #47, and the following condition: > that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an FYI for Planning Commission review of the following items: - revise the type and style of windows from internal grids to either simulated true divided muntins with a spacer bar between the dual glazing or windows with no muntins; provide window details and revise building elevations/renderings; - revisit the color specified for the storefront and awnings ("Jargon Jade" or equal previously specified); - revisit the color specified for the structures on the roof ("Honey Bees" or equal previously specified); - provide bicycle parking and bench seating near the main entrance to the building; must be determined feasible by the Department of Public Works if provided within the right-of-way; and - revisit alternative options for the Hardie horizontal lap siding, such as wood or other material. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse h. 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N), zoned R-4: Application for Design Review and Lot Merger for construction of a new five -level parking garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (Infill Exemption). (Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies, applicant; City of Burlingame, property owner; Watry Design, Inc., designer) (319 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 160 Lorton Ave (Lot N) - Staff Report 160 Lorton Ave (Lot N) - Attachments CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 160 Lorton Ave (Lot N) - Plans All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. City of Burlingame Page 17 Printed on 311212019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2018 Chris Grant and Genaro Morales, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Do you have any point of reference as to what the metal mesh will look like? Suggest taking a look at the mesh on the wall of the Audi dealer on Broadway, it's handled very well on the that building. Would help to jazz up the building given the amount of concrete on the structure. (Morales: Included a detail of the mesh in the attachments.) > Mesh is a woven wire fabric, so there will need to be a subframe to attached that to, but it is not shown on the rendering. Concerned the frame will be larger and overdone, don't want to see huge members holding up the light fabric. (Morales: Agree, there are two reasons not to build it that way. First, the expense of using a lot of steel. Second, don't want it to be bulky. It will be a tension fabric, so it will be supported at the top and bottom to provide the tension. So will try to minimize the size of the subframe.) > Concrete is poured in place, not precast, correct? (Morales: That is correct.) > Some of it will be high end, architectural finish, right? (Morales: We are proposing for the board form to show the ties and provide a smoother finish than what is normally done.) > When I hear board form, I think of a rugged, very textured finish. (Morales: No, it's the form work, will provide a smooth finish.) > Will all the concrete be the same color, or will there be variation of color? (Morales: The color may vary in tones, based on the way it's poured. The intent is not to color the concrete. Difference would be in the finish, which would provide some reflection and contrast. If you want color, might as well paint it.) > Like the paseo along the side of the structure. There is a passage gateway feature at the alley along Burlingame Avenue between Lorton Avenue and California Drive. Would like to see a pedestrian scale created to the entrance to the paseo on either end, would make it more special to enter and walk along the paseo, given that the structure is so tall. (Morales: Can take a look at that.) > Has there been any consideration given to a zip car operation here? This solution works well in San Francisco and helps to get people out of owning cars. (Grant: Willing to work with staff, conversation are ongoing.) (Kane: Zip car feature would not change the architecture of the building. These programming questions will be up to the City to decide in the long term. Project has agreed to provide the conduit so that we can have EV charging stations in a designated area.) > Can you tell us more about the panels needed to conceal headlights? Will they be colored? (Morales: Panels will be prefinished 16-gauge plates. Will be colored.) Public Comments: Gary Vielbam, business owner at 124 Highland Avenue: Located across the street from project. Need access on Highland Avenue, concerned with the amount of construction material, staging and construction workers and how it will impact my business. Need to be able to maneuver cars in and out of shop. David Mendell: In support of project, parking is needed downtown. Passageway appears too narrow for the trees as shown. Hopes this does not become a hold site for construction of the housing project, want to keep project moving, downtown desperately needs parking. Michael Brownrigg: Thanked Commission for their time on the housing project, design got a lot better. Is one step closer to 132 families having a place to live. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Have come to like the design as it is now proposed. Critical that details on screen mesh be worked out. Like the way it adds varied mass to the building. Like the idea of enclosing the stair with the mesh, will be a much nicer experience with the open stair. City of Burlingame Page 18 Printed on 311212019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2018 > Like the way the massing is articulated, has some calm to it. Variation between metal panels and cable railings at lower level, adds articulation and spark. Storefront glass helps with the pedestrian experience. Paseo helps soften building along ground level and provide connection without having to walk through the garage. > Assume there will be a construction logistics plan that gets worked out with Public Works in terms of timing sequencing, construction worker parking, etc. > Did not see any parking signage on the plans, assume there will be lighted signs indicating available parking. > Like the way the project is simplified, with a simple concrete structure, cable rail, and a few urban gestures with the metal panels. > Based on its location and proximity to residential uses, feel that it is still too rough around the edges for being a mid -block large parking structure. Missing level of charm, needs to be a little better for its location. > Project has improved a lot since the first iteration. No matter what, it is still a large parking structure. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application with the following condition: > that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an FYI for Planning Commission review of the details of the architectural screening and a detail of the sub frame showing how the architectural screening is supported/attached to the parking structure. Comment on the motion: > Should think about the architectural screen very carefully and what is used to hold up the screen. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse Nay: 1 - Kelly 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a. 1628 Lassen Way, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a major renovation and first and second story addition, including Front and Side Setback Variances to increase the height of nonconforming walls and Side Setback Variance for the first floor addition. (Master SWU Associates, Steve Wu, applicant and designer; Jeff Leung, property owner) (139 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal Attachments: 1628 Lassen Way - Staff Report 1628 Lassen Way - Attachments 1628 Lassen Way - Plans All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. > Do we know what the block average is for the front setback? (Keylon: Can review the plans to see if that information is provided. However, the minimum required front setback to a garage is 25 feet.) > The plate heights are being raised throughout the first floor to 10 feet, except at the garage where it's increasing from 8 feet to 9 feet, correct? (Keylon: No, the garage plate height is also being raised to 10 feet.) City of Burlingame Page 19 Printed on 311212019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2018 Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Steve Wu, project designer, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > The only area where the plate height is increasing from 8 to 10 feet is the great room, but would a variance still be required for increasing the plate heights from 8 to 9 feet? (Keylon: Yes, a variance is required because the plate heights are increasing on nonconforming walls; considered to be an intensification of a nonconforming wall.) > What is the purpose of increasing the plate heights throughout the ground floor? (Wu: Project includes removing most of the existing walls, increasing bedrooms sizes, and modernizing the space, so it's a matter of proportion. Great room at rear of house includes dining room, family room and kitchen. So given its size, felt that increasing the plate height would be in proportion with the space in plan view. Reason for the front setback variance at the garage was to raise the plate height so that it is consistent with the rest of the house along the front facade. Plate height for the existing garage sits 20 inches below what is being proposed.) > In looking at the building section on sheet A 06, you're increasing the plate height to 10 feet, but you're also vaulting the ceiling. Do you still feel you need to increase the plate height to 10 feet even though you're vaulting the ceiling? (Wu: Yes.) > One of the hardest things in justifying a variance is making a finding that there is an exceptional circumstance that is related to the property itself that is different than the surrounding properties. It's unclear from this application what is unique about this property than the neighboring properties. (Wu: Difference is that this property will be improved and have modern spaces, which is why we decided to raise the ceilings to be consistent with the proportions. Larger spaces with an 8 foot ceiling would feel squat. Would point out that the existing living room has a 9 foot ceiling, so property owner has a sense of the difference between 8 and 9 foot ceilings and made the decision to increase the plate height to 9 feet.) > Currently have walkways from the sidewalk and driveway leading to the front door. Proposed landscape plan shows eliminating the walkway from the sidewalk and changing the walkway from the driveway to the new front door. Will the remaining area in the front yard and along the side of the house really just be grass? Will there be any planting areas? (Wu: Yes, that is correct.) Would encourage you to revist the landscape plan to add more planting areas and softening of the building. > What is meant by "stacked stone" as indicated for the wainscoting on the house? (Wu: Stacked stone is a stone veneer that is attached as a siding material, comes in 4 foot panels.) How thick is the stone veneer? (Wu: It's 5 inches thick.) > Presume that at the new entry, the stone veneer does not turn back towards the door, but rather shears off at the entry towards the north side. At the garage side, is the stone veneer glued on to the front of the garage or does it return down the side of the garage? (Wu: Stone veneer does return along the exterior sides of the house, as well as on the inside wall towards the entry.) > Stone veneer is 5 inches thick, so will it sit proud of the stucco by approximately 4 inches. Will there be a cap on the veneer? (Wu: Yes, there will be a cap on it.) This should be articulated on the plans. > The way the building elevations are drawn, it appears that the stucco is proud of the stone veneer, is that what you intended? (Wu: No, that was not intended. Will revise the building elevations accordingly.) > How do you propose to increase the plate heights? (Wu: To increase plate heights from 8 to 9 feet, would use a 3 112 x 11 718 psl beam on top of the existing wall. To increase plate to 10 feet, would build a wall on top of the existing wall and shear it with plywood.) > So you wouldn't need to remove the stucco? (Wu: The intent is not to remove the existing stucco.) > Will be doing a lot of work to make the walls taller and the entire existing roof is being removed, so have you thought of moving the walls in to comply with setback requirements and eliminating some of the variance requests? (Wu: Trying to keep costs down, so would be concerned with pouring new foundations for new walls.) > What type of windows are being proposed? (Wu: Aluminum clad are proposed.) City of Burlingame Page 20 Printed on 311212019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2018 Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > We have on occasion for some variances accepted as a unique circumstance, a building that was built prior to having ordinances and setback requirements. While the existing footprint of the house could be accepted as an exceptional circumstance, could not make the finding that by not granting the variance, the property owner is being denied a property right. There doesn't seem to be a substantial property right that is lost through denial of the variance. Don't see a right to have a 9 or 10 foot plate height as a reasonable property right that if we deny the variance they wouldn't have access to. Can't make the findings for the variance. > While we may consider a 9 or 10 foot plate on a new house, if it complied with all of the development requirements, we may be able to make that consideration. However, can't make that in this case if we have to grant a variance, especially considering that the house doesn't need to have that height. In fact by having that height, it make the first floor look that much taller relative to a lot of the other houses in the neighborhood. For most houses of the same style and character, the eave is just above the garage door, and that is what is typically seen as the character and pattern in the neighborhood. Having a tall first floor and garage hurts the design. Can't make findings for design review based on the proposed design. > Having difficulty with the variance requests. Also concerned with the massing, is front -loaded, which is what we try to avoid. > Concerned with how stacked stone will look like, so would be helpful to see a sample. > This project is a good candidate for a design review consultant. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer the application to a design review consultant. Commission Discussion: > Existing plate heights should be kept as they are, would eliminate a lot of problems. > See no justification for the variances, especially in this neighborhood. > There are still a lot of single story bungalows in this neighborhood. The intent of the design guidelines is to minimize second floors, think this design has a long way to go to address our concerns. > 9 foot second floor plate height also needs to be looked at. > Applicant should discuss with the design review consultant the landscape plan. Don't need a lot of detail, but needs to be thought through in terms of planting areas and large species as opposed to a simple indication of just lawn. > There are a few large houses in the neighborhood and on that block, would caution the applicant that many of those houses were built prior to design review, so shouldn't look to those as examples to follow. > Should consider adding a front porch, is exempt from floor area ratio and would add to the depth of the house. > To help with keeping a lower profile on the second floor, should consider changing the gables to hip roofs since there is a predominant profile of a hipped roof. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse 10. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS City of Burlingame Page 21 Printed on 311212019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2018 There were no Commissioners reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a. 185 Pepper Avenue - FYI for changes requested by the Planning Commission to a previously approved Design Review project. Attachments: 185 Pepper Ave - Memorandum 185 Pepper Ave - Attachments 185 Pepper Ave - Approved Plans 185 Pepper Ave - Proposed Plans Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on December 10, 2018. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on December 20, 2018, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $551, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. City of Burlingame Page 22 Printed on 311212019 BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9a MEETING DATE: May 18, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 18, 2020 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Subject: Public Hearing to Renew the Levy and Collection of Assessments for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project for Fiscal Year 2020-21 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions to renew the levy and collection of assessments for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvements Assessment District No. 2012-1 for fiscal year 2020-21: 1. Hold a Public Hearing; and 2. Adopt the attached resolution confirming the assessments and ordering the levy for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Assessment District No. 2012-1 for fiscal year 2020-21. BACKGROUND At its April 2, 2012 meeting, the City Council initiated the proceedings to form the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Assessment District No. 2012-1. The proceedings were conducted under the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (Act). Weighted ballots were sent via certified mail to the property owners on April 5, 2012. At the May 21, 2012 meeting, the City Council conducted a Public Hearing to tabulate ballots for the Assessment District. The results of the ballot showed no "majority protest", thereby allowing the City Council to order improvements, form the Assessment District, and levy assessments totaling $335,787 annually for 30 years to the downtown Burlingame Avenue property owners. Property owners were given the option to pre -pay their assessments to avoid paying annually. Five property owners have exercised this option. DISCUSSION The Engineer's Report is updated annually to reflect any changes that may have occurred to property configuration in the Assessment District. The Act requires an annual Public Hearing to confirm and levy the assessment. 1 Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvements Assessments May 18, 2020 Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvements Assessments May 18, 2020 FISCAL IMPACT The total assessment for fiscal year 2020-21 is $310,156, which reflects pre -payments by property owners. There are no changes to the annual assessment from last year. Funds collected through assessments will be used as part of the debt payment for Burlingame Avenue Streetscape bonds. Exhibits: • Resolution • Engineer's Report for FY 2020-21 WA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING THE LEVY FOR THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 2012-1 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 The City Council (the "Council") of the City of Burlingame (the "City") resolves as follows: WHEREAS, the Council previously completed its proceedings in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 22500) (the "Act") to establish the City's Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project (the "Assessment District"); and WHEREAS, the City has, by previous resolution, declared its intention to hold a Public Hearing concerning the levy and collection of assessments within the Assessment District; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing has been held and concluded and notice thereof was given in accordance with Section 22626 of the Act; and WHEREAS, at the time and place specified in the Resolution of Intention the City conducted such hearing and considered all objections to the assessment. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED BY THE COUNCIL, AS FOLLOWS: 1. Confirmation of Assessment and Diagram: The Council confirms the assessment and the diagram as is described in full detail in the Annual Report on file with the Clerk. 2. Levy of Assessment: Pursuant to Section 22631 of the Act, the adoption of this resolution shall constitute the levy of an assessment for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021. 3. Ordering of the Levy: The Council orders City staff to prepare and submit the levy of assessments to San Mateo County for placement on the fiscal year 2020-21 secured property tax roll, including executing any necessary and appropriate documents on behalf of the City to accomplish the levy and collection of assessments. 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 18'h day of May, 2020 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk City of Burlingame Assessment District No. 2012-1, Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project Engineer's Report City of Burlingame Fiscal Year 2020/21 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1 2. INTRODUCTION 2-1 2.1. Background of District...................................................................................2-1 2.2. Reason for the Assessment..........................................................................2-1 2.3. Establishment of the Assessment.................................................................2-1 3. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 3-1 3.1. Description of the Boundaries of the District.................................................3-1 3.2. Description of the District Improvement Project............................................3-1 3.3. Map of District Improvement Project.............................................................3-1 4. ESTIMATE OF COSTS 4-1 4.1. District Improvement Project Costs..............................................................4-1 5. SPECIAL AND GENERAL BENEFIT 5-1 5.1. Introduction................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2. Identification of Benefit..................................................................................5-1 5.3. Separation of General Benefit......................................................................5-3 5.4. Quantification of General Benefit..................................................................5-4 5.5. Apportioning of Special Benefit.....................................................................5-5 6. METHOD ASSESSMENT 6-1 6.1. Assessment Budget.......................................................................................6-1 6.2. Method of Assessment Spread ................ ............ .........................................6-2 6.3. District Improvement Project Debt Financing.................................................6-2 6.4. Assessment Prepayment Formula.................................................................6-3 7. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM 7-1 8. ASSESSMENT ROLL 8-1 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City Council of the City of Burlingame ("City Council"), pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California ("1972 Act"), previously formed the assessment district known and designated as "Assessment District No. 2012-1, Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project", (hereafter referred to as the "District'). The City Council has initiated proceedings directing the preparation and filing of a report for Fiscal Year 2020/21 presenting the improvements, an estimated cost, including debt financing, of the improvements, annual administrative costs, and a diagram showing the area and properties to be assessed. The following assessment is authorized in order to pay the estimated costs, including debt financing of the improvements and annual administrative costs to be paid by the assessable real property within the boundaries of the District in proportion to the special benefit received. The following table summarizes the assessment: Description Amount District Improvement Project Costs $11,227,015 Less: Allocation to General Benefit(1) (3,238,994) Subtotal: Allocation to Special Benefit $7,988,021 Less: Sewer and Water Enterprise Fund Contribution(2) ($922,000) Less: TLC Grant (301,000) Less: Additional Contribution from Parking Enterprise Fund (782,432) Less: Additional City Contribution (20,195) Total Amount to be Specially Assessed $5,962,394 Total Amount Pre -Paid During 30 Day Collection Period $341,582 Annual Assessable Budget: Average Annual Debt Service Payment(3) $310,156 Total Annual Assessable Budget $310,156 (1) See Section 5.4. (2) Contemporaneously with the District Improvement Project, the City, using sewer and water enterprise funds, replaced the sewer and water lines under Burlingame Avenue (the overall total cost for all projects is $15,443,660). A portion of the money for that project was allocated for patching the streets and sidewalks. Since the District Improvement Project eliminates the need for patching, the $922,000 is being contributed to the District Improvement Project. (3) See Section 6.3. This annual report represents no changes to the Fiscal Year 2019/20 annual report. /! A, v62� Art Morimoto Assistant Public Works Director City of Burlingame Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 3-1 Fiscal Year 2020/21 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1. Background of District The City of Burlingame ("City") has completed, in coordination with planned utility improvements, the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project ("District Improvement Project"). The District Improvement Project provided an opportunity for community stakeholders to plan and implement streetscaping and sidewalk improvements that complement the evolving vision and needs of the Burlingame Avenue property owners, merchants and community. The District Improvement Project improves the public infrastructure that fronts property along Burlingame Avenue (and portions of certain side streets at intersections with Burlingame Avenue) between El Camino Real and California Drive. Further, the District Improvement Project enhances the overall experience of merchants and visitors by creating a memorable Burlingame Avenue for shopping, dining, and strolling. 2.2. Reason for the Assessment The assessment covered by this Engineer's Report will generate the assessment revenue necessary to provide for a portion of the public improvements provided by the District Improvement Project and further described in Section 3.2 of this Engineer's Report. The District improvements may include but are not limited to, all of the following: streetscape improvements, sidewalk improvements, District financing costs, and administrative costs associated with the ongoing annual administration of the District. 2.3. Establishment of the Assessment The City formed the District and established assessments by complying with the procedures specified in Article MID and the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act ("Proposition 218"). In November 1996, the voters in the State of California added Article MID to the California Constitution imposing, among other requirements, the necessity for the City to conduct an assessment ballot procedure to enable the owners of each property on which assessments are proposed to be enacted, the opportunity to express their support for, or opposition to the proposed assessment. The basic steps of the assessment ballot procedure are outlined below. The City prepared a Notice of Public Hearing ("Notice"), which describes, along with other mandated information, the reason for the proposed assessments and provided a date, time, and location of a public hearing to be held on the matter. The City prepared an assessment ballot, which clearly gave the property owner the ability to sign and execute their assessment ballot either in favor of, or in opposition to, the assessment. The Notice and assessment ballots were mailed to each affected property owner within the District a minimum of 45 days prior to the public hearing date as shown in the Notice. The City held community meetings with the property owners to discuss the issues facing the District and to answer property owner questions directly. After the Notice and assessment ballots were mailed, property owners were given until the close of the public hearing, as stated in the Notice, to return their signed and executed assessment ballot. During the public hearing, property owners were given the opportunity to address the City Council and ask questions or voice their concerns. After the public hearing, the returned assessment ballots received prior to the close of the public hearing were tabulated, weighted by the proposed assessment amount on each property and the results were announced by the City Council. Article MID provides that if, as a result of the assessment ballot proceeding, a majority protest is found to exist, the City Council shall not have the authority to enact the assessments as proposed. A majority protest Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 4-1 Fiscal Year 2020/21 exists if the assessments represented by ballots submitted in opposition exceed those submitted in favor of the assessment. All returned ballots were tabulated and weighted according to the financial obligation of each particular parcel. There wasn't a majority protest as described above and the City Council approved the District formation and assessments. The City Council will annually declare its intention to levy and collect the assessments within the District and hold a public hearing concerning such levy of assessments. At such time all interested persons shall be afforded the opportunity to hear and be heard. Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 2-2 Fiscal Year 2020/21 3. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS The District provides for various Burlingame Avenue streetscape and sidewalk improvements located within the public right-of-way and dedicated easements within the boundaries of the District. 3.1. Description of the Boundaries of the District The boundaries of the District include properties located along Burlingame Avenue within the City. The District runs along Burlingame Avenue and is bounded on the east by California Drive and on the west by El Camino Real. The City will not provide public improvements from the District Improvement Project to any area located outside of the District boundaries. Section 7 of this Engineer's Report provides an assessment diagram that more fully provides a description of the District's boundaries and the parcels within those boundaries. 3.2. Description of the District Improvement Project The District Improvement Project includes streetscape items such as sidewalk, street and pedestrian lighting, trees and landscaping, seating, signage, kiosks, gateway treatments, site furnishings, and other parking improvements, appurtenant facilities, and soft costs. The District Improvement Project provides for public improvements to be distributed throughout the entire District, and as such, are of direct and special benefit to the parcels within the District. The District Improvement Project consists of a classic design style with touches of traditional and contemporary design. This desired design style creates a structured, timeless design with patterned, elegant materials consistent throughout the Burlingame Avenue area. Not only does the District Improvement Project provide necessary street improvements, but it allows for an increase in pedestrian space along Burlingame Avenue. To allow for this additional pedestrian space, parallel parking replaced the existing angled parking. The change from angled parking to parallel parking will allow for an expanded 16 foot width of sidewalk area on both sides of Burlingame Avenue. This additional sidewalk area can provide sufficient space for seating, art features, landscaping, and lighting. Burlingame Avenue will be maintained with two-way traffic and 10 foot wide travel lanes. The parallel parking stalls, with a parking assist zone, will have a width of nine feet. The parking assist zone allows for car door openings and limited bike through lanes along Burlingame Avenue. At the intersection corners along Burlingame Avenue bulb -outs are proposed to allow for additional pedestrian areas. In addition to providing an enhanced pedestrian area, the corner intersection bulb -outs will reduce pedestrian crossing distances. As an additional safety feature, the crosswalks will be of a different construction material than the street surface to provide a warning for traffic to slow down. The District Improvement Project includes asphalt paving in the roadway and colored concrete for the parking and parking assist zones. The sidewalks, corner intersection bulb -outs and cross walks will be constructed of concrete pavers. Trees, street lights with limited features, and other public furnishings are also included throughout the District. 3.3. Map of District Improvement Project The following map provides the approximate location (for reference only — may not include all) of the improvements provided by the District Improvement Project throughout the District. Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 3-1 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Burlingame Ave Streetscape Improvements Project - Draft Concept Plan i IIJ lilt' 1ili'il41its . i711 �yT+ 1i7!7a]i��s73 •r � :;4 Burlingame Ave Streetscape Improvements February 28,2012 z 0 O CALTRAIN i 7= ;��iALR 4. ESTIMATE OF COSTS The estimated cost of the District Improvement Project as more fully described in Section 3 of this Engineer's Report is outlined below. 4.1. District Improvement Project Costs The following table provides the costs for the District Improvement Project. Refer to Section 6 for more detail on the financing plan and the annual assessment budget. Description Amount District Improvement Project Costs Construction $9,709,355 Construction Management 825,660 Construction Engineering 332,000 Engineering Administration 360,000 Total District Improvement Project Costs $11,227,015 Contemporaneously with the District Improvement Project, the City, using sewer and water enterprise funds, replaced the sewer and water lines under Burlingame Avenue (the overall total cost for all projects was $15,443,660). By completing the District Improvement Project in coordination with the utility improvements, it saved significant project costs and minimize the construction impacts to property and businesses along Burlingame Avenue. A portion of the planned utility improvement budget, $922,000, was allocated for patching the streets and sidewalks. Since the District Improvement Project eliminates that need for patching, the $922,000 is being contributed to the streetscape project from the sewer and water enterprise funds and thus will not be specially assessed. Thus, overall, the District Improvement Project was funded by state gas tax, Measure A funds, grant funds, sewer and water enterprise funds, the parking enterprise fund, and revenues from District special assessments. Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 4-1 Fiscal Year 2020/21 5. SPECIAL AND GENERAL BENEFIT 5.1. Introduction Pursuant to Article MID, all parcels that receive a special benefit conferred upon them as a result of the improvements shall be identified, and the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entire costs of the improvements. Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, permits the establishment of assessment districts by local agencies for the purpose of providing certain public improvements necessary or convenient for providing certain public services. Section 22573 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 requires that assessments must be levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. This Section states: "The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements. " Article XIIID, Section 4(a) of the California Constitution limits the amount of any assessment to the proportional special benefit conferred on the property. Article MID also provides that publicly owned properties must be assessed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties receive no special benefit from the assessment. Examples of parcels exempted from the assessment would be the areas of public streets, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, public easements and rights -of -ways, public greenbelts, and public parkways. Furthermore, Proposition 218 requires that the City separate the general benefit from special benefit, so only special benefit may be assessed. 5.2. Identification of Benefit The District Improvement Project will provide benefits to both those properties within the District boundaries and to the community as a whole. The benefit conferred to property within the District can be grouped into three primary benefit categories; aesthetic benefit, safety benefit, and economic activity benefit. The three District benefit categories are further expanded upon in each section below. Aesthetic Benefit The aesthetic benefit relates to the increase in the overall aesthetics as a result of the District Improvement Project. The District Improvement Project will provide public street and sidewalk infrastructure beautification throughout the District, that will enhance the overall image and desirability of the properties within the District. Burlingame Avenue streetscape improvements within the District were last completed back in the early 1960s. Since that time, the public facilities have deteriorated. The following aesthetic benefits will be provided as a result of the District Improvement Project: • The District Improvement Project enhances the community identity of the Burlingame Avenue area, which will lead to a stronger and healthier street corridor. The image of the Burlingame Avenue area will be increased by correcting the visual clutter such as trash containers and news racks that currently encroach on the pedestrian area. • Uniform and up to date streetscape and sidewalk improvements creates cohesion throughout the District from El Camino Real to California Drive. This District cohesion enhances the retail experience as well as encourage maximum use of space. Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 5-1 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Upgraded streetscaping and sidewalk amenities provided by the District Improvement Project enhances the appearance, desirability, and "livability" of the property directly fronting the improvements provided throughout the District. As a result of the District Improvement Project, the overall "livability" of the District increases. "Livability" encompasses several qualities and characteristics that are unique to a specific area. The Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) expands on the concept of "livability" and the various benefits associated with that designation: "The livability of an area increases property desirability and business activity. Livability is largely affected by conditions in the public realm, places where people naturally interact with each other and their community, including streets, parks, transportation terminals and other public facilities. Livability also refers to the environmental and social quality of an area as perceived by employees, customers and visitors. This includes local environmental conditions, the quality of social interactions, opportunities for recreation and entertainment, aesthetics, and existence of unique cultural and environmental resources." Safety Benefit The District Improvement Project provides an increased level of safety to the property, businesses, and visitors to the District. Additionally, the District Improvement Project help mitigate potential criminal activity throughout the District area. The following safety benefits are provided as a result of the District Improvement Project: • The District Improvement Project repaired uneven and deteriorating sidewalks within the District. Improvements to the existing sidewalk infrastructure will reduce the number of future trip and fall occurrences potentially occurring in front of District property. • The District Improvement Project provides better lighting throughout the Burlingame Avenue area. The improved lighting ensures that sidewalks, streets, and property fronts are more visible. This increased level of visibility reduces the opportunities for vandalism to property within the District. • Wider sidewalks provide additional space between vehicle and property as well as vehicle and pedestrian, which provides a safety benefit for both property and pedestrian. • Traffic calming improvements can reduce automobile traffic and speeds, which in turn, increases the safety for vehicular passengers, pedestrians, and other non -motorized travels. The streetscaping strategies utilized in the development of the District Improvement Project provide numerous safety benefits to property and people throughout the District. Again, the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) notes the safety benefit attributable to streetscaping improvements: "Several studies indicate that common streetscaping strategies, such as landscaping and narrowing traffic lanes, tend to increase traffic safety. Streetscaping that reduces traffic speeds and improves pedestrian crossing conditions can significantly reduce collisions. Research by the U.S. Highway Safety Research System concludes that road diets (arterial street traffic calming) typically reduce crash rates by 47% on major highways through small urban areas, by 19% on corridors in larger city suburban areas, and 29% overall." Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 5-2 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Economic Activity Benefit The economic activity benefit relates to the increase in the District's economic activity and further potential as a result of the District Improvement Project. The economic activity for property within the District can best be described as the ability for the property within the District to develop and operate at the property's highest and best use. Properties within the District receive the following economic activity benefits as a result of the District Improvement Project: • The District Improvement Project revitalizes the Burlingame Avenue area. This revitalization will encourage new business development and existing business expansion which will reduce vacancy rates and increase lease rates for property within the District. • The streetscaping improvements encourages an increase in commerce throughout the District. The Burlingame Avenue area will become more pedestrian friendly, thus improving customer activity for stores and restaurants. The streetscaping improvements not only add economic value to property adjacent to the improvements, but the improvements make the property appear more stable and prosperous. The National Complete Streets Coalition (www.completestreets.org) notes that: "Street design that is inclusive of all modes of transportation, where appropriate, not only improves conditions for existing businesses, but also is a proven method for revitalizing an area and attracting new development. Washington, DC's Barracks Row was experiencing a steady decline of commercial activity due to uninviting sidewalks, lack of streetlights, and speeding traffic. After many design improvements, which included new patterned sidewalks, more efficient public parking, and new traffic signals, Barrack's Row attracted 44 new businesses and 200 new jobs. Economic activity on this three-quarter mile strip (measured by sales, employees, and number of pedestrians) has more than tripled since the inception of the project." 5.3. Separation of General Benefit Section 4 of Article MID of the California Constitution provides that once a local agency which proposes to impose assessments on property has identified those parcels that will have special benefits conferred upon them and upon which an assessment will be imposed, the local agency must next "separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred," and only the special benefits can be included in the amount of the assessments imposed. General benefit is an overall and similar benefit to the public at large resulting from the improvements to be provided by the assessments levied. The District improvements, which are more fully presented in Section 3.2 of this Engineer's Report, will be constructed and provided within the District boundaries only. There will be no improvements from the District Improvement Project constructed outside of the District boundaries. The District Improvement Project provide aesthetic, safety, and economic benefits to the property within the District, but it is recognized that the District Improvement Project also provides a level of benefit to some property and businesses within proximity to the District, as well as visitors and individuals passing through the District. Vehicular and pedestrian traffic from property within and outside of the District as well as individual passing through the downtown Burlingame Avenue area are able to utilize the improvements to not only access property and businesses located within a close proximity to the District, but also roadways located outside of the District. Therefore, the general benefit created as a result of the District Improvement Project has been considered. Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 5-3 Fiscal Year 2020/21 5.4. Quantification of General Benefit In order for property within the District to be assessed only for that portion of special benefit received from the District Improvement Project, the general benefit provided by the District Improvement Project needs to be quantified. The amount of general benefit provided from the District Improvement Project can not be assessed to the benefitting properties within the District. To quantify the general benefit provided to the variety of traffic that passes through the District for the general benefit of enjoying the surrounding atmosphere, observing the level of economic activity, or accessing adjacent property or arterial streets in a more efficient and safe manner, both vehicular and pedestrian traffic flows have been incorporated in the quantification of general benefit. Vehicular Traffic Activity Access to the Burlingame Avenue commercial core area is provided by major north -south arterials. Those major arterials are El Camino Real to the west of the District and California Drive to the east of the District. Collector streets feed traffic to these and other arterials throughout the City. As such, Burlingame Avenue is considered a collector street within the City. In 2010, the City adopted the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan ("Specific Plan"). The Specific Plan included a Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Memorandum ("Traffic Analysis") prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates. This Traffic Analysis evaluated existing traffic conditions at various points throughout the project area. One point evaluated by the consultants was existing travel conditions at the intersection of Burlingame Avenue and Park Road. The Traffic Analysis evaluated, among other characteristics, traffic counts, turning movement data, vehicle delay, and level of service for each intersection. Existing conditions for the project area intersections, including the Burlingame Avenue intersection, were evaluated during a weekday, evening peak hour timeframe. There were 664 observed traffic counts at the intersection of Burlingame Avenue and Park Road. Park Road terminates at Burlingame Avenue requiring traffic to either turn left or right onto Burlingame Avenue. In addition to the Traffic Analysis, information related to vehicle trips by purpose was used from the Summary of Travel Trends 2009 National Household Travel Survey ("2009 NHTS") sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Of the observed 2,171 vehicle trips in the 2009 NHTS survey, 643 trips represented social, recreational and other travel purposes; the remaining 1,425 vehicle trips represented work, shopping and other errands. Applying this vehicle trip breakdown to the observed traffic counts at the intersection of Burlingame Avenue and Park Road, 207 of the traffic counts represent social, recreational, and other travel purposes not directly related to District activities but more likely utilizing Burlingame Avenue as a collector street to feed to one of the adjacent arterial streets. This non -District related traffic count represents approximately 31.20% of the total observed traffic counts and is considered to be general benefit from the District Improvement Project. Pedestrian Traffic Activity As result of the sidewalk improvements and beautification provided by the District Improvement Project, there is a level of benefit to those pedestrians not involved with any of the shopping, dining, or other commerce activities provided by the District properties. People walk for a variety of reasons; work, errands, shopping, recreation, health, and many others. Further, pedestrians will seek out and utilize sidewalk facilities that provide a safe place to walk as well as an environmentthat provides a certain amount of visual interest. Again, the 2009 NHTS analyzed the annual numberof walking trips and the purpose of the walking trips made by individuals surveyed. Of the annual total 40,962 (in millions) walking trips, 30,129 of those walking trips were for travel, work, shopping, errands, business obligations, and meals; the remaining 10,833 walking trips were for social, recreational, and other purposes. The social, recreational, and other purpose walking trips represented 26.5% of the total walking trips reported. Therefore, to account for that portion of the Burlingame Avenue pedestrian activity utilizing the improvements provided by the District Improvement Project for non -District related activities, 26.50% of pedestrian traffic activity is considered to be of general benefit. Since the District Improvement Project provides a blend of both vehicular and pedestrian activity the two categories must be addressed in a collective form rather than independently. Therefore, to appropriately quantify the overall level of general benefit provided by the District Improvement Project the arithmetic mean Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 5-4 Fiscal Year 2020/21 of the general benefit percentages from the vehicular traffic activity and the pedestrian traffic activity has been calculated. This general benefit result is provided in the table below. Description Percentage General Benefit 28.85% Accordingly, 71.15% of the benefits from the District Improvement Project are considered to provide special benefits to the properties within the District and thus could be subject to assessment therein. 5.5. Apportioning of Special Benefit As outlined above, each of the parcels within the District is deemed to receive special benefit from the District Improvement Project. Each parcel that has a special benefit conferred upon it as a result of the District Improvement Project is identified and the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel is determined in relationship to the entire cost of the District Improvement Project. Benefit Point Assignment Aesthetic Benefit Points Aesthetic benefit points are assigned based upon not only the property's location to the District Improvement Project, but also the property's zoning designation. All District parcels are located within the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District, which has a commercial zoning designation. Additionally, since the District Improvement Project is provided uniformly throughout the District all properties within the District are within the same proximity to the location of the infrastructure provided by the District Improvement Project. Therefore, the aesthetic benefit to each parcel in the District is deemed to be the same. Each property within the District is assigned one (1.00) benefit point for the aesthetic benefits received from the District Improvement Project. Safety Benefit Points The safety benefit points are assigned based upon not only the property's location to the District Improvement Project, but also the property's zoning designation. All District parcels are located within the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District, which has a commercial zoning designation. Additionally, since the District Improvement Project is provided uniformly throughout the District all properties within the District are within the same proximity to the location of the infrastructure provided by the District Improvement Project. Therefore, the safety benefit to each parcel in the District is deemed to be the same. Each property within the District is assigned one (1.00) benefit point for the safety benefits received from the District Improvement Project. Economic Activity Benefit Points The economic activity benefit points are assigned based upon not only the property's location to the District Improvement Project, but also the property's zoning designation. All District parcels are located within the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District, which has a commercial zoning designation. Additionally, since the District Improvement Project is provided uniformly throughout the District all properties within the District are within the same proximity to the location of the infrastructure provided by the District Improvement Project. Therefore, the economic activity benefit to each parcel in the District is deemed to be the same. The Burlingame Avenue Commercial District is already a well -established commercial district with a strong economic activity presence. The Burlingame Avenue area features a mixture of restaurants, national retail stores, and many locally based retailers. Marketing and promotional efforts to increase the economic presence of an expanded area that includes the District boundaries is currently being funded by the Burlingame Avenue Downtown Business Improvement District ("DBID"). In an effort to increase the economic presence, business owners within the DBID pay an annual assessment to fund various activities that aid in the promotion, advertising and image building of the businesses within the DBID boundaries. Existing marketing and promotional activities throughout the District area have resulted in higher tenant lease rates. According to Loopnet.com on March 23, 2012, the average lease rate along Burlingame Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 5-5 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Avenue was approximately 45% higher than the average lease rate along the City's Broadway Avenue, another commercial area. Retail sales are also strong within the District, according to City Economic Development data, with sales per square foot generally ranging from $300 to $800+ per square foot. Further, there were a few new buildings constructed in the downtown around the time of formation of the District and several major remodels of existing buildings to accommodate new retail uses generally limited to tenant improvements. Given this already existing strong economic activity presence throughout the District, as well as the potential for property to further develop and enhance their economic presence, each property within the District is assigned one-half (0.50) benefit point for the economic activity benefits received from the District Improvement Project. The following table provides a summary of the special benefit points assigned to each parcel within the District. Aesthetic Safety Economic Parcel Land Use Benefit Point Benefit Point Activity Benefit Classification Assignment Assignment Point Assignment All District Parcels 1.00 1.00 0.50 Parcel Factors The method of apportioning the benefit to the parcels within the District reflects the proportional special benefit assigned to each property from the District Improvement Project based upon the various property characteristics for each parcel as compared to other properties within the District. As part of the special benefit analysis, various property characteristics were analyzed including parcel size, street frontage, building size, land use, trip generation etc. Given that the special benefits provided by the District Improvement Project focuses on aesthetic benefit, safety benefit, and economic activity benefits it was determined that linear frontage and lot square footage are the most appropriate parcel factors. Each parcel's linear frontage and lot square footage have been used as the primary assessment variables for the calculation and assignment of parcel factors. By adjusting the assigned special benefit points set forth above by parcel factors, a more complete picture of the proportional special benefits received by each parcel from the District Improvement Project is presented. Therefore, linear and lot parcel factors were calculated for each parcel in the District according to the formulas below: Linear Factor Pursuant to Section 25.32.050 of the City's Zoning Code for the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District, each lot shall have a street frontage of at least 50 feet. Utilizing the prescribed street frontage as set forth in the City's Zoning code, a linear factor is calculated for each parcel based upon the assigned linear frontage for the parcel divided by 50.00: Linear Factor - Parcel's Assigned / 50.00 Linear Street Frontage There are several parcels located at street intersections within the District. The District Improvement Project partially extends along the side streets at these intersections with Burlingame Avenue. To account for the partial extension of the District Improvement Project at each street intersection, the side street linear frontage of the improvement has been added to each corner parcel to account for this increased linear frontage adjacent to the District Improvement Project. Assessment District No. 2012-1 - City of Burlingame 5-6 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Lot Factor Pursuant to Section 25.32.050 of the City's Zoning Code for the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District, each lot shall have an area of at least 5,000 square feet. Utilizing the prescribed lot square footage as set forth in the City's Zoning code, a lot factor is calculated for each parcel based upon the assigned lot square footage for the parcel divided by 5,000: Lot Factor = Parcel's Assigned / 5,000 Lot Square Footage Total Special Benefit Point Calculation Parcel's Total Parcel's Total Parcel's Total Parcel's Total Economic Special Benefit - Aesthetics Points + Safety Points + Activity Points Points Parcel's Total Aesthetic Points The District Improvement Project, as well as the store and property fronts that are adjacent to those linear improvements provide an enhanced level of interest and "curb appeal" that add to the overall experience along Burlingame Avenue. Since the improvements and furnishings are uniform throughout the District, the "curb appeal" is consistent for the front of each parcel located within the District. Additionally, the uniform landscaping aids in softening the surrounding edges of each parcel's front exposure to the District Improvement Project by adding life, color, and texture to the property's appearance, and overall pedestrian experience. Given the linear nature of the aesthetic benefits provided by the District Improvement Project, the aesthetic benefit that each property receives is also perceived on a linear basis. To appropriately quantify and assign the aesthetic benefit received by each parcel within the District, the aesthetic benefit point is further adjusted according to the formula below: Parcel's Total _ Aesthetic Benefit x Linear Factor Aesthetic Points Points Assigned Parcel's Total Safety Points The District Improvement Project provides enhanced lines of travel and sight along Burlingame Avenue, which increases the level of safety by mitigating potential accidents and crime by having the additional exposure to property and traffic. The lighting improvements also increase the visual sight line by providing additional exposure to property fronts, especially during the evening hours. This additional exposure reduces the potential for crime and vandalism to the front of property throughout the District. Further, the sidewalk and parking zone along Burlingame Avenue provides a buffer for traffic and the property frontage. Again, given the linear nature of the safety benefits provided by the District Improvement Project, the safety benefit that each property receives is also perceived on a linear basis. To appropriately quantify and assign the safety benefit received by each parcel within the District, the safety benefit point is further adjusted according to the formula below: Parcel's Total _ Safety Benefit x Linear Factor Safety Points Points Assigned Parcel's Total Economic Activity Points The District Improvement Project creates a more pedestrian friendly and inviting Burlingame Avenue environment that supports and encourages additional commerce activity throughout the District. The improvements allow parcels within the District to develop and redevelop to their highest and best use in accordance with City zoning and development regulations. However, the one limiting property characteristic that constrains a parcel from developing to the highest and best use is the size of the parcel itself. The size of a parcel limits the amount of development and redevelopment that may occur on the footprint of the parcel. Larger parcels allow for greater area to develop and redevelop than do smaller Assessment District No. 2012-1 - City of Burlingame 5-7 Fiscal Year 2020/21 parcels, which corresponds to larger parcels receiving proportionally greater economic activity benefit when compared to smaller parcels within the District. Therefore, the economic activity benefit for parcels in the District is in direct proportion to the size of the parcel. Since the economic activity benefits are in direct relation to the size of a parcel, then the economic activity benefits provided by the District Improvement Project is also perceived on a parcel size basis. To appropriately quantify and assign the economic activity benefit received by each parcel within the District, the economic activity benefit point is further adjusted according to the formula below: Parcel's Total Economic _ Economic Activity x Lot Factor Activity Points Benefit Points Assigned Data Considerations and Parcel Changes The use of the latest San Mateo County Assessor's Secured Roll information served as the basis in determining each parcel's linear frontage and lot square footage, unless better data was available to the City. In addition, if any parcel within the District is identified by the San Mateo County Auditor/Controller to be an invalid parcel number, the linear frontage and lot square footage of the subsequent valid parcel shall be the basis for assigning the future total special benefit points. If a single parcel subdivides into multiple parcels, the total special benefit points shall be apportioned based on the linear frontage and lot square footage of the newly created parcels. Total Special Benefit Points The total special benefit points assigned to the parcels at formation of the District were 183.28. The following table provides a breakdown of the total special benefit point assignment for each parcel in the District: Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 5-8 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Assessor's Parcel Number ID Aesthetic Benefit Points Safety Benefit Points Economic Activity Benefit Points Linear Frontage Linear Factor Lot Square Footage Lot Factor Total Aesthetic Benefit Points Total Safety Benefit Points Total Economic Activity Benefit Points Total Special Benefit Points 029-122-190 1* 1.00 1.00 0.50 70.00 1.40 2,123 0.42 1.40 1.40 0.21 3.01 029-122-220 2 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.50 1.01 10,776 2.16 1.01 1.01 1.08 3.10 029-122-230 3 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 10,286 2.06 1.00 1.00 1.03 3.03 029-122-240 4 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 9,791 1.96 1.00 1.00 0.98 2.98 029-122-250 5 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 9,971 1.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 029-122-260 6 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.10 1.00 6,195 1.24 1.00 1.00 0.62 2.62 029-122-270 7 1.00 1.00 0.50 49.90 1.00 13,897 2.78 1.00 1.00 1.39 3.39 029-122-280 8 1.00 1.00 0.50 55.00 1.10 10,879 2.18 1.10 1.10 1.09 3.29 029-122-330 9 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 6,829 1.37 1.00 1.00 0.69 2.69 029-122-360 10 1.00 1.00 0.50 116.00 2.32 16,786 3.36 2.32 2.32 1.68 6.32 029-122-999 11 1.00 1.00 0.50 147.00 2.94 28,296 5.66 2.94 2.94 2.83 8.71 029-152-110 12 1.00 1.00 0.50 80.00 1.60 5,748 1.15 1.60 1.60 0.58 3.78 029-152-120 13 1.00 1.00 0.50 25.00 0.50 2,853 0.57 0.50 0.50 0.29 1.29 029-152-160 14 1.00 1.00 0.50 60.00 1.20 9,596 1.92 1.20 1.20 0.96 3.36 029-152-190 15* 1.00 1.00 0.50 65.00 1.30 8,134 1.63 1.30 1.30 0.82 3.42 029-152-200 16 1.00 1.00 0.50 65.82 1.32 8,237 1.65 1.32 1.32 0.83 3.47 029-152-210 17 1.00 1.00 0.50 60.00 1.20 7,200 1.44 1.20 1.20 0.72 3.12 029-152-220 18 1.00 1.00 0.50 41.57 0.83 4,988 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.50 2.16 029-152-230 19 1.00 1.00 0.50 65.00 1.30 6,000 1.20 1.30 1.30 0.60 3.20 029-152-270 20 1.00 1.00 0.50 60.00 1.20 7,508 1.50 1.20 1.20 0.75 3.15 029-152-310 21* 1.00 1.00 0.50 60.00 1.20 8,322 1.66 1.20 1.20 0.83 3.23 029-152-320 22 1.00 1.00 0.50 104.58 2.09 27,590 5.52 2.09 2.09 2.76 6.94 029-152-330 23 1.00 1.00 0.50 75.00 1.50 8,572 1.71 1.50 1.50 0.86 3.86 029-153-090 24 1.00 1.00 0.50 91.50 1.83 3,726 0.75 1.83 1.83 0.38 4.04 029-153-120 25 1.00 1.00 0.50 88.33 1.77 3,781 0.76 1.77 1.77 0.38 3.92 029-153-150 26 1.00 1.00 0.50 95.50 1.91 10,347 2.07 1.91 1.91 1.04 4.86 029-201-030 27 1.00 1.00 0.50 40.00 0.80 5,000 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.50 2.10 029-201-040 28 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 6,250 1.25 1.00 1.00 0.63 2.63 029-201-060 29 1.00 1.00 0.50 108.08 2.16 14,823 2.96 2.16 2.16 1.48 5.80 029-201-070 30* 1.00 1.00 0.50 54.00 1.08 9,069 1.81 1.08 1.08 0.91 3.67 029-201-080 31 1.00 1.00 0.50 54.08 1.08 9,643 1.93 1.08 1.08 0.97 3.13 029-201-100 32 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 3,750 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.38 2.38 029-201-110 33 1.00 1.00 0.50 86.00 1.72 3,750 0.75 1.72 1.72 0.38 3.82 029-201-320 34 1.00 1.00 0.50 159.39 3.19 13,316 2.66 3.19 3.19 1.33 7.71 029-201-360 35 1.00 1.00 0.50 100.00 2.00 18,000 3.60 2.00 2.00 1.80 5.80 029-201-370 36 1.00 1.00 0.50 25.00 0.50 3,125 0.63 0.50 0.50 0.32 1.32 029-201-380 37 1.00 1.00 0.50 25.00 0.50 3,125 0.63 0.50 0.50 0.32 1.32 029-202-010 38 1.00 1.00 0.50 136.00 2.72 12,675 2.54 2.72 2.72 1.27 6.71 029-202-020 39 1.00 1.00 0.50 60.50 1.21 7,086 1.42 1.21 1.21 0.71 3.13 Assessment District No. 2012-1 - City of Burlingame 5-9 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Assessor's Parcel Number ID Aesthetic Benefit Points Safety Benefit Points Economic Activity Benefit Points Linear Frontage Linear Factor Lot Square Footage Lot Factor Total Aesthetic Benefit Points Total Safety Benefit Points Total Economic Activity Benefit Points Total Special Benefit Points 029-202-030 40* 1.00 1.00 0.50 25.00 0.50 2,552 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.26 1.26 029-202-040 41 1.00 1.00 0.50 25.00 0.50 2,403 0.48 0.50 0.50 0.24 1.24 029-202-080 42 1.00 1.00 0.50 75.06 1.50 4,453 0.89 1.50 1.50 0.45 3.45 029-202-090 43 1.00 1.00 0.50 51.24 1.02 4,770 0.95 1.02 1.02 0.48 2.52 029-204-030 44 1.00 1.00 0.50 55.00 1.10 5,500 1.10 1.10 1.10 0.55 2.75 029-204-040 45 1.00 1.00 0.50 45.00 0.90 4,500 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.45 2.25 029-204-050 46 1.00 1.00 0.50 45.00 0.90 4,500 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.45 2.25 029-204-060 47 1.00 1.00 0.50 94.00 1.88 5,850 1.17 1.88 1.88 0.59 4.35 029-204-270 48 1.00 1.00 0.50 116.50 2.33 8,100 1.62 2.33 2.33 0.81 5.47 029-211-010 49 1.00 1.00 0.50 103.33 2.07 4,417 0.88 2.07 2.07 0.44 4.58 029-211-260 50 1.00 1.00 0.50 169.00 3.38 15,400 3.08 3.38 3.38 1.54 8.30 Totals: 1 50.00 50.00 25.00 3,527.93 70.56 420,488 84.13 70.56 70.56 42.16 183.28 * Indicates assessment has been prepaid. Assessment District No. 2012-1 - City of Burlingame 5-10 Fiscal Year 2020/21 6. METHOD ASSESSMENT 6.1. Assessment Budaet In order to assess the parcels within the District for the special benefits received from the District Improvement Project, the general and special benefits must be separated. As previously quantified in Section 5.4 of this Engineer's Report, the general benefit received from the District Improvement Project is 28.85%. Accordingly, 71.15% of the benefits from the District Improvement Project are considered to provide special benefits to the properties within the District and thus could be subject to assessment therein. However, as shown below, because of contributions from various funds available to the City, including the sewer, water, and parking enterprise funds, Measure A funds, and grant funds, only 53.11 % of the District Improvement Project costs are being specially assessed. Reducing the District Improvement Project costs by these contributions, the total District Improvement Project costs to be specially assessed are as follows: Description Amount Total Net District Improvement Project Costs $11,227,015 Less: General Benefit Contribution (28.85%) (3,238,994) Subtotal — Portion of Budget Assessable for Special Benefit $7,988,021 Less: Sewer and Water Enterprise Fund Contribution ($922,000) Less: TLC Grant (301,000) Less: Additional Contribution from Parking Enterprise Fund (782,432) Less: Additional City Contribution (20,195) Total District Improvement Project Costs Assessed for Special Benefit(1) $5,962,394 Total Amount Pre -Paid During 30 Day Collection Period $341,582 Annual Assessable Budget: Average Annual Debt Service Payment for District Improvement Project Costs $310,156 Total Annual Assessable Budget $310,156 (1) $5,620,812 of the District Improvement Project costs have been financed over a period of 30 years. The City issued bonds for the total District Improvement Project costs assessed for special benefit and will use the assessment revenues to repay the bonds, over a period of 30 years, for the District's portion of that cost, $5,620,812, plus the City's estimated financing and interest costs. Section 6.3 of this Engineer's Report provides the basis of the average annual debt service payment used to establish the annual assessments. Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point The assessment rate per special benefit point is calculated by dividing the total annual assessable budget by the total special benefit points assigned to the parcels in the District. The following formula provides the assessment rate per special benefit point calculation: Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 6-1 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Total Annual Assessable Budget / Total Special Benefit Points = Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point $310,156 / 169.29 = $1,832.10 The total amount of financed District Improvement Project costs, which has been determined to provide special benefit to parcels within the District, will be assessed over a period of 30 years. The individual assessments are shown on the assessment roll in Section 8 of this Engineer's Report. 6.2. Method of Assessment Spread The method of assessment is based upon a formula that assigns the special benefit to each parcel, with special benefit points being adjusted by parcel linear and lot factors. The formulas below provide a summary of the annual assessment calculation for each parcel in the District. (A) Parcel's Total Aesthetic = Parcel's Assigned Aesthetic Points Benefit Points (1.00) (B) Parcel's Total Safety = Parcel's Assigned Points Safety Benefit Points (1.00) Parcel's Total Economic = Parcel's Assigned Economic Activity Points Activity Benefit Points (0.50) (D) _ Parcel's Assigned Linear Factor Linear Frontage (E) _ Parcel's Assigned Lot Factor Lot Square Footage (F) Parcel's (A) (B) Total Special = Parcel's Total + Parcel's Total Benefit Points Aesthetics Points Safety Points Parcel's Annual _ Assessment Rate: Assessment $1,832.10 x x (D) Linear Factor x (D) Linear Factor x ( Lot Factor / 50.00 / 5,000 (C) + Parcel's Total Economic Activity Points (F) Parcel's Total Special Benefit Points 6.3. District Improvement Project Debt Financing The $5,620,812 portion of District Improvement Project costs assessed to property within the District has been financed over a period of 30 years. In addition to the amount of financed District Improvement Project costs, any financing costs related to the issuance of debt such as the cost of issuance, original issue discount, and contingencies were included as part of the total amount financed. The City has calculated the annual assessment based on its costs of financing the District's portion of the District Improvement Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 6-2 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Project assessed for special benefit costs over a 30 year period, and has determined that it requires an annual assessment amount of $310,156 from the District. The difference between the original estimated financing costs and the actual financing costs will not affect the annual assessments shown in this Engineer's Report. 6.4. Assessment Prepayment Formula Assessment Prepayment Formula During the 30 Days Following District Formation In the 30 days after the formation of the District, property owners had the option to prepay and permanently satisfy their portion of the total District Improvement Project costs assessed for special benefit, without interest, and without financing costs, according to the following formula: Total District Parcel's 30 Day _ Improvement Project Prepayment Amount Costs Assessed for Special Benefit Parcel's 30 Day _ Prepayment Amount - $4,475,000 Parcel's Total x ( Special Benefit Points Parcel's Total x ( Special Benefit Points District's Total Special ) Benefit Points 183.28 ) Assessment Prepayment Formula After the 30 Day Period Following District Formation Property owners within the District may prepay and permanently satisfy their entire portion (no partial prepayments) of the total annual assessment of an assessor's parcel, provided that a prepayment may be made only if there are no delinquent assessments with respect to such assessor's parcel at the time of prepayment. An owner of an assessor's parcel intending to prepay the ongoing annual assessment obligation shall provide the City with written notice of intent to prepay. Within 30 days of receipt of such written notice, the City shall notify such owner of the prepayment amount of such assessor's parcel. The assessment prepayment amount shall be calculated by the following steps: Step 1: Compute the special benefit points that could be assigned to the assessor's parcel prepaying the annual assessment obligation in the fiscal year in which the prepayment would be received by the City. Step 2: Divide the special benefit points computed pursuant to Step 1 for such assessor's parcel by the total special benefit points that could be assigned in that fiscal year to property in the entire District. Step 3: Multiply the quotient computed pursuant to Step 2 by the total annual assessment to compute that portion of the total annual assessment to be prepaid ("Parcel's Annual Assessment Amount"). Step 4: Calculate the revenue stream produced by the Parcel's Annual Assessment Amount from the date of prepayment up to and including the maturity date of the District, June 30, 2042, except that this assumed final maturity date may be amended by the City no later than the time of the calculation of the prepayment. Step 5: Calculate the present value of the annual revenue stream determined in Step 4. The present value shall be calculated using that discount rate which, when the prepayment is invested in City approved available investments earning a rate of interest equal to the discount rate, would produce annual revenues equal to the amount calculated in Step 4. Assessment District No. 2012-1 - City of Burlingame 6-3 Fiscal Year 2020/21 Step 6: Determine the prepayment amount by adding to the present value calculated in Step 5 any fees or expenses incurred by the City in connection with the prepayment calculation or the application of the proceeds of the prepayment. Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 6-4 Fiscal Year 2020/21 7. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM An Assessment Diagram for the District is shown on the following page. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the County Assessor of the County of San Mateo, at the time this report was prepared, and are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this Engineer's Report. Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 7-1 Fiscal Year 2020/21 ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM CITY OF BURLINGAME ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2012-1 DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CITY OF BURLINGAME COUNTY OF SAN MATEO STATE OF CALIFORNIA ASSESSMENT ID APN-� FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF 1 029-122 190 - BURLINGAME THIS DAY OF , 2012. 2 029122-220� 3 a 5 029-122-230 029122-240 029-122-z50 \ A �� % I � �$ \� CTY CLERK \\, �V CITY OF BURLINGAME \� 6 029-122-z60 ' \ SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 029-122-270 029-122-280 029122-330 r JE AN ASSESSMENT WAS LEVIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 10 029-122-360 y�-= e / u 48 BURLINGAME ON THE LOTS, PIECES AND PARCELS OF LAND SHOWN 11 029-122-999 _ = ON THIS ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM. THE ASSESSMENT WAS LEVIED ON 12 13 029152-120 oz9lsz-12o _ �/ THE DAY OF 2012. REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE 13 2 j 22 z3 so ASSESSMENT ROLL RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE is 1s 029152-1so 02915z-190 / \ SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS FOR THE EXACTAMOUNT OF EACH 16 17 029152-200 029-152-210 ASSESSMENT LEVIED AGAINST EACH PARCEL OF LAND SHOWN ON C(o1° °' \ \ THIS ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM. 18 19 20 21 029152-220 029 152-230 029-isz-z70 029-152 310 21 45 / 20 94 CITY CLERK �� � '� act CITY OF BURLINGAME 22 23 029-152-320 029-152-390 1e \ SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA � \ ' 24 25 02&153-090 029-153-120 42 1q 43 \\ \ RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS / 19 26 02-153-150 ° ° % \ OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, THIS DAY OF , 2012. 27 28 029201-030 029-201-040 / 39 9 29 30 31 029-201-060 02s-201-070 029zo1-080 2 3 \ SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS / 4 / / CITY OF BURLINGAME 32 029201-080 32 SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 33 029.201.110 / 7 34 35 36 37 029-201-320 0z92o1-360 029z01-370 029201-380 FILED THIS DAY OF 2012, AT THE HOUR OF 9 31 \ O'CLOCK _M, IN BOOKOF MAPS OFASSESSMENTAND / / COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS AT PAGE IN THE OFFICE OF 38 029202-010 11 29 / THE COUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF 39 40 92 0202-020 029202-030 3 3 !` �� CAL I FORNIA. 41 029202-040 10 \\ 42 029-2 2-060 ���", 21 �X� COUNTY RECORDER '���� 43 029-202-070 �\ SAN MATED COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 44 45 029204-040 029204-040 / / 46 47 029204-050k/' 029z04-060 ` 9ri y,`� \ NOTES: FOR PARTICULARS THE DIMENSIONS OF 48 029204-270 E MADE TO ASSESSORS PARCELS, REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE MAPS OF THE as oz9211-010 __ ASSESSOR OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATED. 50 029-211-260 QNBS' Legend 0,%10[. T,m ..l, [.+ 2 0 120 240 480 720 O PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BOUNDARY i�im . rn:isrr: :,1s j ra,1 ��:rlrnl Feel O PARCEL LINES 8. ASSESSMENT ROLL The assessment roll is a listing of the assessment apportioned to each lot or parcel, as shown on the last equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of San Mateo. The following table summarizes the assessments for the District for Fiscal Year 2020/21: Total Property Land Parcel Special Benefit Allowable Annual Total Annual Use Type Count Points Assessment Assessment All Parcels 45 169.29 $1,832.10 per special $310,156 benefit point Total 45 169.29 $310,156 The assessment roll is a listing of the District assessment apportioned to each lot or parcel, as shown on the last equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of San Mateo. The assessment roll for the District is listed on the following page. Assessment District No. 2012-1 — City of Burlingame 8-1 Fiscal Year 2020/21 City of Burlingame City of Burlingame Assessment District No. 2012-1 Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project Fiscal Year 2020/21 Assessment Roll Assessor's Parcel Assessment Total Special Annual Number ID Site Address Benefit Points Assessment(1) 029-122-220 2 1420 BURLINGAME AVE 3.10 $5,679.51 029-122-230 3 1426 BURLINGAME AVE 3.03 5,551.26 029-122-240 4 1436 BURLINGAME AVE 2.98 5,459.66 029-122-250 5 1442 BURLINGAME AVE 3.00 5,496.30 029-122-260 6 1448 BURLINGAME AVE 2.62 4,800.10 029-122-270 7 1460 BURLINGAME AVE 3.39 6,210.82 029-122-280 8 1462 BURLINGAME AVE 3.29 6,027.61 029-122-330 9 1408 BURLINGAME AVE 2.69 4,928.35 029-122-360 10 1490 BURLINGAME AVE 6.32 11,578.87 029-122-999 11 1476-80 BURLINGAME AVE 8.71 15,957.59 029-152-110 12 1200 BURLINGAME AVE 3.78 6,925.34 029-152-120 13 1208 BURLINGAME AVE 1.29 2,363.41 029-152-160 14 1232 BURLINGAME AVE 3.36 6,155.86 029-152-200 16 1316 BURLINGAME AVE 3.47 6,357.39 029-152-210 17 1348 BURLINGAME AVE 3.12 5,716.15 029-152-220 18 1354 BURLINGAME AVE 2.16 3,957.34 029-152-230 19 1380 BURLINGAME AVE 3.20 5,862.72 029-152-270 20 1300 BURLINGAME AVE 3.15 5,771.12 029-152-320 22 1218 BURLINGAME AVE 6.94 12,714.77 029-152-330 23 1210 BURLINGAME AVE 3.86 7,071.91 029-153-090 24 1100 BURLINGAME AVE 4.04 7,401.68 029-153-120 25 1150-60 BURLINGAME AVE 3.92 7,181.83 029-153-150 26 1108-18 BURLINGAME AVE 4.86 8,904.01 029-201-030 27 1471 BURLINGAME AVE 2.10 3,847.41 029-201-040 28 1461 BURLINGAME AVE 2.63 4,818.42 029-201-060 29 1435 BURLINGAME AVE 5.80 10,626.18 029-201-080 31 1423 BURLINGAME AVE 3.13 5,734.47 029-201-100 32 1407 BURLINGAME AVE 2.38 4,360.40 029-201-110 33 1401 BURLINGAME AVE 3.82 6,998.62 029-201-320 34 1479-91 BURLINGAME AVE 7.71 14,125.49 029-201-360 35 1417 BURLINGAME AVE 5.80 10,626.18 029-201-370 36 1453 BURLINGAME AVE 1.32 2,418.37 029-201-380 37 1451 BURLINGAME AVE 1.32 2,418.37 029-202-010 38 1375 BURLINGAME AVE 6.71 12,293.39 029-202-020 39 1325 BURLINGAME AVE 3.13 5,734.47 029-202-040 41 1315 BURLINGAME AVE 1.24 2,271.80 029-202-080 42 1301 BURLINGAME AVE 3.45 6,375.71 029-202-090 43 1309 BURLINGAME AVE 2.52 4,561.93 029-204-030 44 1221 BURLINGAME AVE 2.75 5,038.28 029-204-040 45 1213 BURLINGAME AVE 2.25 4,122.23 029-204-050 46 1207 BURLINGAME AVE 2.25 4,122.23 029-204-060 47 1205 BURLINGAME AVE 4.35 7,969.64 029-204-270 48 1227 BURLINGAME AVE 5.47 10,021.59 029-211-010 49 1101 BURLINGAME AVE 4.58 8,391.02 029-211-260 50 1111 BURLINGAME AVE 8.30 15,206.43 TOTALS: 169.29 $310,156.23 (1) Difference due to rounding. Page 1 of 1 BiFRLIN .. ME STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9b kl HEW, MEETING DATE: May 18, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 18, 2020 From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director — (650) 558-7253 Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager — (650) 558-7256 Kathleen Kane, City Attorney — (650) 558-7263 Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Amendments to Chapter 25.59 (Accessory Dwelling Units), Chapter 25.60 (Accessory Structures in R-1 and R-2 Districts), Chapter 25.26 (R-1 District Regulations) and Chapter 25.70 (Off -Street Parking) of the Burlingame Municipal Code Related to Accessory Dwelling Units to be Consistent with Recently Adopted Amendments to California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 and Additional Changes to Remove Constraints to Creating Accessory Dwelling Units RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council consider proposed amendments to the Burlingame Municipal Code regarding accessory dwelling units. In order to do so, the City Council should: 1. Receive the staff report and ask any questions of staff. 2. Request the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. 3. By motion, waive further reading and introduce the proposed ordinance. 4. Conduct a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. 5. Following closure of the public hearing, discuss the proposed ordinance and provide any direction to staff; if no changes are requested, direct staff to bring it back for adoption and ask the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. If Council so directs, the ordinance along with a resolution addressing compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be presented for adoption at the June 1, 2020 meeting. BACKGROUND In response to California's statewide and the Bay Area's regional housing shortages, the Governor signed into law a number of bills (AB 881, AB 68, and SB 13) to encourage the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) by reducing the regulatory barriers commonly found in local zoning ordinances. The recently 1 Title 25 - Zoning Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units May 18, 2020 adopted legislation defines the standards local jurisdictions can apply to ADUs and JADUs. Details of this legislation are contained in amended Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 (see attached for reference). This legislation was signed into law in late 2019 and took effect on January 1, 2020. This State legislation supersedes the City's regulations for ADUs as currently outlined in Municipal Code Chapter 25.59 - Accessory Dwelling Units. The proposed changes are to bring the City of Burlingame's Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations into conformity with State law. At its meeting of February 24, 2020, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments to the Zoning Regulations and recommended that the City Council adopt the changes as proposed in the attached Draft Ordinance. On March 2, 2020, the City Council introduced the proposed ordinance to amend Chapter 25.59 (Zoning Regulations) of the Municipal Code and other related Municipal Code sections pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units. After discussing the proposed amendments further, the Council continued action on the item, requesting that staff provide additional information and clarifications of the items listed below (see attached March 2, 2020 City Council Meeting Minutes). Staff has provided a response for each item and indicated where changes were made to the proposed ordinance based on direction from the City Council. 1. Roof Configuration and Height of Detached ADU In addition to allowing double -pitched roofs, members of the City Council expressed a desire to also allow shed roof and flat roof designs on detached ADUs, noting that they can be more sensitive to neighbors in some situations and that flat roofs offer additional benefits, such as allowing for green roofs and solar panels (providing ecological and economic benefits). Code Section 25.59.070 (k) (on page 11 of the attached ordinance) was revised to clarify that green roofs are not considered a balcony, second story deck, or rooftop terrace, and therefore would be permitted. Given that there is an eclectic mix of architecture throughout Burlingame, shed and flat roofs would allow ADUs to be compatible with mid-century, new modern/contemporary, and Spanish style homes. In addition, many homeowners prefer the simplicity of an ADU with a flat or shed roof, even though it may differ from the design of their existing house. The revisions to the proposed ordinance would permit detached ADUs to have double - pitched, hip, shed (single slope), or flat roofs and would not require that the same roof configuration or pitch be used to match the main dwelling. In most instances, the maximum plate height would not be allowed to exceed nine feet. The exception would be ADUs with shed roofs, which would specify that the plate height on the lower side of the structure cannot exceed nine feet above adjacent grade, while the taller side of the structure can be up to 16 feet tall. In addition, to avoid a 16 foot tall wall along the side or rear property line, the maximum plate height allowed on walls parallel with side and rear property lines is nine feet. For consistency, the maximum allowed plate height for ADUs with flat roofs is also nine feet. 2 Title 25 - Zoning Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units May 18, 2020 With regards to the overall building height, it was suggested that a double -pitched roof should be required if the roof ridge exceeds 12 feet in height, with the understanding that State law requires jurisdictions to allow maximum height of 16 feet. However this would conflict with the direction to allow shed roofs. Given that plate heights are not allowed to be taller than nine feet (unless utilizing a shed roof), the limit in plate height would in effect serve to require double -pitched or hip roofs if the roof ridge exceeds 12 feet in height, even if not directly specified in the regulations. Staff would note that the language was revised to allow the plate height to be measured from finished floor for those structures located within a flood zone. In these cases, because the finished floor may be required to be several feet above the ground, a lower than required ceiling height may result if the plate height was measured from adjacent grade. The following Code Sections address the discussion points noted above (page numbers refer to the attached ordinance): • Building Height: Code Section 25.59.070(h)(1)(ii) on page 10 • Plate Height: Code Section 25.59.070(h)(1)(iii) on page 10 • Design: Code Section 25.59.100 (a) on page 13 2. Windows and Skylights The Council generally expressed concerns regarding skylights and windows in detached ADUs and accessory structures. Specifically, Councilmembers noted concerns with skylights on sloping roofs facing a neighbor's property and windows abutting side and rear property lines. Windows and skylights are standard features typically found in living areas, are necessary to comply with egress requirements (windows), and provide natural light and ventilation. Windows and skylights would still be required to comply with applicable Building and Fire codes, which means that in most cases, no openings would be allowed within four to five feet of property line. Staff would note that if a window is required for egress by the Building and Fire Codes, a Conditional Use Permit could not preclude the construction of an ADU and therefore would be allowed. In the spirit of addressing the Council's concerns and allowing the ability to provide flexibility in the design of living spaces, staff is suggesting the following changes to the proposed ordinance: • Allow skylights on sloping roofs that face interior yards and flat roofs by right. Require approval of a Conditional Use Permit for skylights on sloped roofs facing side yards and that are located within 10'-0" of property line and on sloping roofs facing rear property lines. • Allow windows located 4'-0" or greater from property line by right. Require approval of a Conditional Use Permit for windows located within 4'-0" of property line on walls that are parallel with side and rear property lines. Staff is suggesting 4'-0" because it 3 Title 25 - Zoning Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units May 18, 2020 reflects a typical setback requirement. Code Sections 25.59.070(j) and 25.60.010(i) (pages 11 and 17 of ordinance) address the discussion points noted above. 3. Permeable Surface and Trees Given the amount of area ADUs can cover on the lot, Councilmembers expressed a concern regarding the reduction of permeable surface on the lot. Staff would note that regulations cannot be added that would preclude construction of an ADU. However, if a project creates and/or replaces between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, as may be the case in the construction of a new single family dwelling and ADU, the project will be required to comply with requirements of the San Francisco Bay Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, which mandates that one or more site design measures be installed to minimize permeable surfaces. Design measures include constructing walkways, patios, and driveways with pervious or permeable surfaces and directing roof runoff to vegetated areas or rain barrels. Since these regulations are already in place, no changes are proposed in this ordinance. Councilmembers also asked if the City can require trees to be planted as part of the ADU project. Staff's understanding is that Chapter 11.06 - Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection would be applicable; it requires one tree per 1,000 square feet of habitable area on the lot (habitable area would include the area of the main dwelling and ADU). Existing landscape trees count towards meeting this requirement, but additional trees may be required to be planted commensurate with the floor area of the ADU. 4. Solar Panels Councilmembers asked staff to clarify if solar panels are required when new ADUs are built. The Chief Building Official notes that while the 2019 California Building Standards Code requires solar panels for new single family dwellings, solar panels are not required for new ADUs. 5. ADUs and JADUs & Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Councilmembers asked if ADUs and JADUs are allowed to count towards Burlingame's RHNA. The Department of Housing and Community Development notes that a local agency may identify an ADU or JADU as an adequate site to satisfy RHNA housing needs as specified in Gov. Code Section 65583.1(a) and 65852.2(m). DISCUSSION The attached draft ordinance makes changes to Chapter 25.59 (Zoning Regulations) of the Municipal Code and other related Municipal Code sections pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units. Jurisdictions are required to provide a copy of the changes to the Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for their review within 60 days of adoption. Changes Mandated by State Law The key areas of change mandated by the State legislation include the following: E Title 25 - Zoning Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units May 18, 2020 1. There is no minimum lot size requirement for construction of an ADU, whether it is a conversion of existing space, an addition, or a new detached structure. 2. In addition to an ADU, a JADU (up to 500 SF in size and located within an existing or proposed single family dwelling) may be created on a single family zoned property. 3. The maximum allowed size for an ADU is 850 SF, or 1,000 SF for two or more bedrooms. 4. ADUs up to 800 SF in size are exempt from lot coverage and floor area regulations. For simplicity and to avoid confusion, staff is proposing that the lot coverage and floor area ratio exemption be applied to 850 SF ADUs to be consistent with the maximum allowed size. 5. Required side and rear setbacks can be no greater than 4'-0". This does not affect detached ADUs since they are exempt from side and rear setbacks if located within the rear 30% of the lot. However, this does reduce the rear setback requirement for an attached ADU from 15-0" to 4'-0". 6. No replacement parking for the primary dwelling can be required if an existing detached or attached garage is converted to an ADU or JADU. 7. No parking is required for a JADU. 8. ADUs are now permitted in all districts zoned to allow multifamily dwelling residential uses (allowed on properties where a multifamily dwelling structure exists). Up to 25 percent of the existing dwelling units within a multifamily dwelling structure, but at least one ADU, may be created within existing non -livable space(s). In addition, up to two new detached ADUs may allowed. 9. Approval for a compliant ADU or JADU must be issued within 60 days of receiving a complete application. Additional Suggested Changes — Not Mandated by State Law In addition to amending Chapter 25.59 (Accessory Dwelling Units), there are several other Municipal Code sections that address accessory dwelling units that require updating for consistency including: ■ Chapter 25.26 - R-1 District Regulations ■ Chapter 25.60 - Accessory Structure Regulations ■ Chapter 25.70 - Off -Street Parking Regulations In order to work toward the spirit of having more ADUs approved to add to Burlingame's housing stock, there are several changes suggested by staff that are not required for compliance with State law but would be anticipated to facilitate the development of ADUs. In particular, Sections 5 Title 25 - Zoning Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units May 18, 2020 25.60.010 (Conditional Use Permit Requirements for Accessory Structures) and 25.26.035 (Uses Allowed with a Special Permit) currently include a number of provisions that may serve to discourage ADUs. Therefore, staff recommends the following changes to these sections: !n Title 25 - Zoning Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units May 18, 2020 a) Currently, C.S. 25.60.010 (i), requires a Conditional Use Permit for glazed openings (windows) in an accessory structure within 10 feet of the property line or any portion of a glazed opening higher than 10 feet above grade. This section limits the locations of windows and skylights in accessory structures. Per the discussion above in the Background section of the staff report, staff is suggesting that C.S. 25.60.010 (i) be amended to reflect the following: ■ Allow skylights on sloping roofs that face interior yards and flat roofs by right. Require approval of a Conditional Use Permit for skylights on sloped roofs facing side yards that are located within 10'-0" of property line and on sloping roofs facing rear property lines. ■ Allow windows located 4'-0" or greater from property line by right. Require approval of a Conditional Use Permit for windows located within 4'-0" of property line on walls that are parallel with side and rear property lines. Staff is suggesting 4'-0" because it reflects a typical setback requirement. Code Sections 25.59.0700) and 25.60.010(i) (pages 11 and 17 of ordinance) address the discussion points noted above. Discussion: This amendment would apply to ADUs, a detached garage, or any other permitted accessory structure. It has been the experience of staff that most properties contain existing fencing or vegetation that screen the view of and reduce any impacts from windows and skylights in accessory structures. Windows and skylights are standard features typically found in living areas, are required to comply with egress requirements (windows), and provide necessary natural light and ventilation, and therefore should not be restricted in terms of placement. Windows and skylights would still be required to comply with applicable building and fire codes, which means that in most cases, no openings would be allowed within four to five feet of property line. The Planning and Code Enforcement Divisions have not received any complaints regarding placement of windows and skylights in accessory structures that comply with the otherwise -applicable five-foot setback. In the past, requests for Conditional Use Permits for windows and skylights have generally been granted. b) Removal of C.S. 25.26.035 (f), which requires a Special Permit for a direct exit from a basement to the exterior of the structure that is anything other than a light or window well. Discussion: This would apply to ADUs, JADUs, and for all single family dwellings. This change is necessary in order to be consistent with State law, which requires a separate exterior entrance for an ADU or JADU. This would encourage ADUs and JADUs in basements, which would reduce the visible mass and bulk above ground if a detached ADU were to be built as an alternative. 7 Title 25 - Zoning Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units May 18, 2020 This change would also apply to all single family dwellings in the R-1 zoning district, regardless if an ADU was being created. In the case of a single family dwelling, the exit would presumably be used less frequently than if it were for an ADU or JADU, so for consistency, staff recommends that this restriction also be removed altogether. c) Removal of C.S. 25.26.037, which prohibits bedrooms, bathtubs, and shower stalls in basements. This amendment was previously approved by the Planning Commission and City Council with adoption of ADU amendments in 2018 as a way to encourage ADUs in basements. However, due to an oversight, this section was not removed from the Municipal Code. There is no new language or revision being introduced; this is a code cleanup from a previous action. The attached Draft Ordinance sets forth text amendments to the City's existing Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations (Chapter 25.59) to ensure that the Burlingame Municipal Code is consistent with the new, recently adopted State regulations and to help clarify and improve various provisions of the accessory dwelling unit law to promote the development of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units; as reflected in the edits to Title 25, Chapters 25.59, 25.60, 25.26 and 25.70. The Draft Ordinance is provided as an attachment to this report. Regulations to be added are underlined and text to be deleted is indicated in strikeouts. FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibits: ■ Draft Ordinance ■ Proposed CEQA Resolution ■ March 2, 2020 City Council Minutes ■ Email submitted by Neel N. Mehta, dated March 8, 2020 ■ Revised Chapters - Clean Version ■ Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, AMENDING TITLE 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTERS 25.59, 25.60, 25.26 AND 25.70 TO UPDATE EXISTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT REGULATIONS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH RECENTLY ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65852.2 AND 65852.22 RELATED TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows: Division 1. Factual Background WHEREAS, on October 19, 2019, the State of California enacted legislation known as Assembly Bill 881, Assembly Bill 68, and Senate Bill 13, which, among other things, amended Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 of the Government Code pertaining to accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units; and WHEREAS, the State of California has enacted legislation to encourage the construction of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units in single family and multifamily residential zones, as further defined in this ordinance; and WHEREAS, the revisions to State Law became effective on January 1, 2020. Local jurisdictions are required to comply with the new requirements, which supersede local ordinances. The proposed zoning amendments would ensure that the Burlingame Municipal Code is consistent with the new recently adopted State regulations and help clarify and improve various provisions of the accessory dwelling unit law to promote the development of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units; and WHEREAS, Government Codes Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 require the City of Burlingame to adopt zoning regulations in compliance with State law provisions regarding accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the zoning code related to accessory dwelling units are Statutorily Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15282(h) which exempts the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single-family or multifamily residential zone by a city or county to implement the provisions of Sections 65852.2 and 6582.22 of the Government Code as set forth in Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code; and WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on February 24, 2020, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented and recommended to the City Council that it adopt amendments to Title 25 (Zoning Code) of the Burlingame Municipal Code to amend Chapters 25.59, 25.60, 25.26, and 25.70 to update existing accessory dwelling unit regulations to be consistent with recently adopted amendments to California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 and additional changes to remove constraints to creating accessory dwelling units. ORDINANCE NO. WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the City Council of the City of Burlingame on March 2, 2020, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing and continued action on the item for further discussions and additional information regarding allowable rooflines, permeable surfaces and windows and skylights. WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of May 18, 2020 the Burlingame City Council introduced an ordinance amending Title 25 — (Zoning Code) of the Burlingame Municipal Code, Chapters 25.59, 25.60, 25.26 and 25.70 to update existing Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations to be consistent with recently adopted amendments to California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 along with additional zoning code changes to the above stated chapters to remove constraints to the creation of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Division 2. The following code sections are amended, repealed or deleted as follows with underlining indicating new text and strikeouts (strikeout) indicating deleted text. Section 1: Chapter 25.59 Accessory Dwelling Units, Section 25.59.010 Purpose, is amended as follows: Chapter 25.59 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 25.59.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate both eXiStiRg and nog^, accessory dwelling units A( DUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) in compliance with California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22. . This chapter is intended to implement the Housing Element of the Burlingame General Plan by providing for additional housing opportunities. This will be accomplished by increasing the number of units available within existing neighborhoods while maintaining the primarily single-family and multifamily residential character of the area, and establishing standards for the development and occupancy of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units to ensure that they are compatible with neighboring uses and structures, adequately equipped with public utility services, safe for human occupancy, and do not create unreasonable traffic and safety impacts. In cases of conflict between this chapter and any other provision of this title, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. To the extent that any provision of this chapter is in conflict with State law, the applicable provision of State law shall control, but all other provisions of this chapter shall remain in full force and effect. An accessory residential dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit which conforms to the requirements of this chapter shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located and shall be deemed to be a residential use which is consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning designations for the lot. ORDINANCE NO. Section 2: Chapter 25.59 Accessory Dwelling Units, Section 25.59.015 Definitions, is added as follows: Chapter 25.59 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 25.59.015 Definitions. The followinq terms shall have the following meanings for this chapter only and shall supersede the terms defined by Chapter 25.08 (Definitions): (a) "Accessory dwelling unit" or "ADU" means an attached or detached residential dwelling unit ancillary to a primary dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one (1) or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated. An accessory dwelling unit also includes an efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code, and a manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code. This Chapter recognizes three types of accessory dwelling units as defined below. Where a proposed accessory dwelling unit does not clearly fall into one of the defined tvaes. the Communitv Development Director shall make a determination nt to Code Section 25.16.150. "Attached accessory dwelling unit" means an accessory dwelling unit that is constructed as a Physical expansion (i.e., addition) of an existing primary dwelling unit, including construction of a new basement underneath a primary dwelling unit to accommodate an accessory dwelling unit. "Detached accessory dwelling unit" means an accessory dwelling unit that is constructed as a separate structure from the primary dwelling unit; or contained within the existing space of an accessory structure (as defined herein). "Interior accessory dwelling unit" means an accessory dwelling unit that is contained within the existing space of a primary dwelling unit, including within its living area, basement, or attached garage; constructed as part of a proposed primary dwelling unit; or created from non -livable space of a multifamilv dwellina. "Accessory structure" means a structure that is accessory and incidental to a dwelling located on the same lot. (c) "Efficiency kitchen" means a kitchen that includes each of the following: A sink and cooking facility with appliances (e.g., microwave, toaster oven or hot plate). 0 A food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the junior accessory dwelling unit. "Junior accessory dwelling unit" or "JADU" means a residential dwelling unit that: M is no more than 500 square feet in size, ORDINANCE NO. is contained entirely within an existing or proposed single family dwelling, includes its own separate sanitation facilities (bathroom containing a sink, toilet, and shower or tub), or may share sanitation facilities with the existing or proposed single family structure, and includes an efficiency kitchen, as defined in subsection (c) above. (e) "Living area" means the interior habitable floor area of a dwelling unit, including basements and attics, but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. "Nonconforming zoning conditions" means a physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards. (g) "Passageway" means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to the entrance of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit. "Public transit" means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public. "Tandem parking" means a parking configuration where two (2) or more automobiles are parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another. Section 3: Chapter 25.59 Accessory Dwelling Units, Section 25.59.020 Accessory dwelling unit permit procedure, is amended as follows: Chapter 25.59 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 25.59.020 Applications and processing. ^^^^cs^r., dwelling °* permit^^^,�..r^. (a) Applications for ADU and JADU permits S, Gh on accessory dwel!'Rg unit nor•,,;+ shall be in writing and filed with the Community Development Department GOMMunity development diron+nr on a form approved by the eCommunity dDevelopment dDirector. (b) As established by council resolution, a fee will be charged for an application for an ADU or JADU aGGessoF y dwelling „ni+ permit under this chapter. All ADUs and JADUs are also subject to building permit fees. (c) Within sixty GRe hi Rdred tweRt&0 4-2-9) days of receipt of a complete application, the Community Development Department staff i+Gmm„nity deyelepmen+ diron+Gr shall ministerially process for approval any application for an aGGessery dwelling , ,ni+ ADU or JADU permit pursuant to this chapter. Incomplete applications will be returned with an explanation of what additional information is required. Upon finding that the ADU or JADU meets the requirements of this chapter, perfermanGe standards moo+ the application proposal shall be approved ministerially without discretionary review or public hearing and the applicant may proceed to acquire a building permit. All 4 ORDINANCE NO. ADUs and JADUs aGGessery u are categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15303 of the CEQA guidelines. If the application does not meet all of the requirements of this GhapteF, 6 the somminity development doFentor shall deny the application. (d) If an application for an attached ADU or JADU is submitted with an application for an addition to an existing single family dwelling or construction of a new single family dwelling that is subject to design review or other discretionary permit for the same parcel, the application for the ADU or JADU permit shall not be acted upon until the application for design review or other discretionary permit is approved. Following the approval for design review or other discretionary permit for the primary dwelling unit, the ADU or JADU application will be ministerially processed within 60 days of receipt of a complete application and approved if it meets the requirements of this chapter. () If the applicant requests a delay, the 60-day time period for approval shall be tolled for the period of the delay. Section 4: Chapter 25.59 Accessory Dwelling Units, Section 25.59.040 Revocation of accessory dwelling unit permit, is amended as follows: Chapter 25.59 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 25.59.040 Revocation of permit a^^eccery dwelling unit permit. (a) Grounds. An ADU or JADU a^^essery dwelling unit permit granted pursuant to this chapter may be revoked on any one or more of the following grounds: (1) Failure to comply with the requirements of this chapter ; ;e perfrnaRGe standards e„+lined in (2) The ADU or JADU aGGeCsery dwelling unit is no longer used for residential purposes; or (3) The parking required by this chapter is no longer provided; or nlllL'1::fllt/:lRtn1H:t N."T.Mli^l:T m (b) Notice. Written notice to revoke an ADU or JADU asseCsery dwelling URi+ permit shall be served on the property owner, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, either personally or by certified mail, and shall state: (1) The reasons for the proposed revocation. (2) That the proposed action will be taken by the Community Development Director d+reEtsref nr+mmunit„ de„elepment unless a written request for a hearing before the P-planning CBommission is requested within fifteen (15) days after the date of said notice. If no response is received, the Community Development Director dorertor Of GOrnmi inity development shall ferthwith Will revoke the ADU or JADU assessery dwelling „nit permit as set forth in the said notice. 5 ORDINANCE NO. (c) Hearing. If a hearing is requested, at least ten (10) days' notice thereof shall be given to the requested party. At the any SUGh hearing, the property owner may Shan call witnesses and present evidence in his or her behalf. Upon conclusion of the suefi hearing, the Pplanning Ceommission will determine whether or not the permit will s4all be revoked. Such determination may be appealed to the city council in the same manner as for appeals taken on applications for the granting of conditional use permits or variances. Section 5: Chapter 25.59 Accessory Dwelling Units, Section 25.59.050 Variances prohibited, is repealed and deleted in its entirety. Section 6: Chapter 25.59 Accessory Dwelling Units, Section 25.59.055 Minimum standards for eligibility, is added as follows: Chapter 25.59 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 25.59.055 Minimum standards for eligibility. a) No minimum lot area is reauired for creation of an ADU or JADU. (b) An ADU or JADU shall only be allowed on a parcel which has been legally created in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 26 (Subdivisions), and where the ADU or JADU is developed with an existing or proposed single family dwelling, except for ADUs constructed on multifamily residential properties pursuant to Section 25.59.090. (c) ADUs may only be permitted in districts zoned to allow single family dwelling or multifamily dwelling residential uses as a permitted use. ADUs are also permitted on any parcel that has a current and valid nonconforming single family or multifamily residential use, so long as the ADU complies with all other portions of this chapter. (d) JADUs may only be permitted in districts zoned to allow a single family dwelling residential use as a permitted use. JADUs are also permitted on any parcel that has a current and valid nonconformina sinale familv residential use. so Iona as the JADU complies with all other portions of this chapter. Section 7: Chapter 25.59 Accessory Dwelling Units, Section 25.59.060 Performance standards for accessory dwelling units, is repealed and replaced in its entirety with the following text: Chapter 25.59 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 25.59.060 General requirements and restrictions. The following requirements and restrictions apply to all existing and new ADUs and JADUs, as applicable: A ORDINANCE NO. (a) ADUs and JADUs shall comply with all applicable provisions of this title and all applicable building, health and fire codes. However, ADUs and JADUs shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers unless required for the primary single family dwelling or multifamily dwelling structure. (b) All development standards contained in the underlying zoning district, including Chapter 25.60, shall apply to ADUs and JADUs unless they are inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter, in which case the development standards of this chapter shall apply. (c) Accessory dwelling units. (1) ADUs may be rented separately from the single family dwelling or multifamily dwelling structure, but may not be sold or otherwise conveyed separately from the other dwellings on the lot, except as provided for by Government Code Section 65852.26. (2) ADUs may not be rented for fewer than 30 consecutive calendar days. (3 ADUs are not subject to any owner -occupancy requirement. (d) Junior accessory dwelling units. (1) JADUs may be rented separately from the single family dwelling, but may not be sold or otherwise conveyed separately from the single family dwelling on the lot. JADUs may not be rented for fewer than 30 consecutive calendar d 3) JADUs are subject to an owner -occupancy requirement. A person with legal or equitable title to the property shall reside on the property in either the primary dwelling or JADU as that person's legal domicile and permanent residence. However, the owner -occupancy requirement of this paragraph does not apply if the property is entirely owned by another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a JADU, the owner shall record a covenant in a form prescribed by the city attorney, which shall run with the land and provide for the following: (i) A prohibition on the sale of the JADU separate from the sale of the single family dwelling; (ii) A restriction on the size and attributes of the JADU consistent with this section; (iii) A prohibition against renting the property for fewer than 30 consecutive calendar days; and (iv) A requirement that either the primary residence or the JADU unit be the owner's bona fide principal residence, unless the owner is a governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization. (e) If an ADU or JADU which was created within a single family dwelling, accessory structure or multifamily dwelling structure is required to be removed or is voluntarily removed, the kitchen facility shall be removed and the space shall be converted back to its original use. If an ADU was newly constructed. (1) the space or structure shall be entirelv removed. or (2) the kitchen facilitv shall be ORDINANCE NO. removed and the space shall be converted to a permitted use allowed within the underlying zoning district, or (3) the kitchen facility shall be removed and the applicant shall obtain the appropriate land use permit for the proposed use within the space. Certificates of occuoancv. A certificate of occuoancv for an ADU shall not be issued before a certificate of occupancy is issued for the primary dwelling unit. (g) Deed restriction. Prior to issuance of a building permit for an ADU or JADU, a deed restriction must be recorded against the title of the property in the County Recorder's office and a copy filed with the Community Development Department. The deed restriction must run with the land and bind all future owners. The form of the deed restriction will be provided by the Citv and must provide that: (1) The ADU or JADU shall not be sold separately from the primary dwelling. (2) The ADU or JADU is restricted to the approved size and to other attributes allowed by this Section_ 3) The deed restriction runs with the land and may be enforced aaainst future owners. (4) The deed restriction may be removed if the owner eliminates the ADU or JADU, as evidenced by, for example, removal of the kitchen facilities. To remove the deed restriction, an owner may make a written request of the City, providing evidence that the ADU or JADU has in fact been eliminated. The City may then determine whether the evidence supports the claim that the ADU or JADU has been eliminated. Appeal may be taken from the City's determination consistent with other provisions of this Code. If the ADU or JADU is not entirely physically removed, but is only eliminated by virtue of having a necessary component of an ADU or JADU removed, the remaining structure and improvements must otherwise comply with applicable provisions of this Code. (5) The deed restriction is enforceable by the Community Development Director or his or her designee for the benefit of the City. Failure of this property owner to comply with the deed restriction may result in legal action against the property owner, and the City is authorized to obtain any remedy available to it at law or equity, including, but not limited to, obtaining an injunction enjoining the use of the ADU or JADU in violation of the recorded restrictions or abatement of the illeaal unit. Section 8: Chapter 25.59 Accessory Dwelling Units, Section 25.59.070 Development standards for accessory dwelling units, is added as follows: Chapter 25.59 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 25.59.070 Development standards for accessory dwelling units. An ADU shall be constructed onlv in accordance with the followina develobment standards. ORDINANCE NO. (a) Location and number. Only one (1) ADU shall be permitted per lot which contains an existing or proposed single family dwelling. ADUs may be located in any of the following: (1) Within the walls of an existing or proposed single family dwelling; (2) Attached to an existing or proposed single family dwelling; (3) Within an existing accessory structure; or (4) Detached from the single family dwelling, but located on the same lot as the existing or proposed single family dwelling. (b) Minimum size. No ADU shall be smaller than the size required to allow an efficiency unit pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1. (c) Maximum size. The maximum floor area for an ADU shall be 850 square feet or 1,000 square for two (2) or more bedrooms. (1) If the ADU is created by converting space within an existing single family dwelling or accessory structure: (i) an expansion limited to 150 square foot beyond the physical dimensions of the existing single family dwelling or accessory structure is permitted strictly to accommodate ingress and egress to the ADU; this additional square footage shall be exempt from lot coverage and floor area ratio requirements. The side and rear setback requirements for the single family dwelling may be reduced to no less than four (4) feet to accommodate an exterior stair and landing that provide required access to the ADU if it is located on the second story; and (ii) the ADU must have side and rear setbacks sufficient for fire and safety, as dictated by applicable building and fire codes. d) Floor area ratio and lot coveraae. An ADU measurina no more than 850 sauare feet in size shall be exempt from floor area ratio and lot coverage requirements. An ADU greater than 850 square feet shall comply with the floor area ratio and lot coverage regulations as specified by the applicable zoning district. e) Maximum livina area within a sinale familv dwellina. An attached or interior ADU shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the living area of the single family dwelling, except to the extent necessary to allow an ADU of up to 850 square feet. (f) Kitchen facility. An ADU shall contain no more than one (1) kitchen facility. Setbacks. An ADU (attached or detached) shall conform to the followina setback standards: E ORDINANCE NO. (1) A setback of four (4) feet is required from the side and rear property lines; however, no setbacks shall be required under the following circumstances: (i) Existing livable space or an existing accessory structure that is converted, in whole or in part, to an ADU; (ii) The ADU is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure that is demolished solely for the purpose of constructing the ADU; or (iii) Construction of a new detached ADU entirely located within the rear 30% of the lot. If any portion of the detached ADU is located forward of the rear 30% of the lot, it shall comply with the setback requirements of the applicable zoning district in which it is located, but no more than four (4) foot side or rear setbacks shall be required. (2) There shall be a minimum four (4) foot separation between a detached ADU and any other structure on the lot. (3) Where an existing single family dwelling is located within the rear 60% of the lot, a detached ADU may be located in front of the sinale familv dwellina. but not in any portion of the required front setback. (h) Maximum height and stories. (1) Detached ADUs. (i) All detached ADUs shall be limited to one (1) story in height and shall not be constructed above detached garages or detached accessory structures except for accessory dwelling units created entirely within an existing legal two-story detached accessory structure. (ii) The maximum allowed building height for a detached ADU is 16 feet, as measured from average adjacent grade to the top of the highest roof ridge, and shall comply with the maximum allowed plate height requirements in subsection (iii). (iii) The maximum allowed plate height is 9 feet, as measured from average adjacent grade to the top of plate. For detached ADUs containing a single slope, one side of the structure shall be allowed to have a plate height greater than 9 feet; the plate height of walls parallel with side and rear Property lines shall not exceed 9 feet in height. For ADUs located within a designated flood zone, the maximum plate heiaht shall be measured from finished floor. (2) Attached ADUs. Attached ADUs may be constructed on the first or second floor of an existing or proposed single family dwelling and shall be subject to the height requirements of the applicable zoning district in which it is located. Entrance. An ADU shall have a separate exterior entrance fromthemainentrancetothe existing or proposed single family dwelling. For an ADU located entirely on a second story, this shall 10 ORDINANCE NO. require a separate interior or exterior stairway. The entrance to the ADU shall not face the same public street as the entrance to the single family dwelling, unless it is the only location determined to comply with applicable building and fire codes. A passageway from the ADU to a public street may be created, but is not required. (i) Windows and skylights. Windows and glazed openings on walls parallel with property lines shall be located at least 4 feet from property line. Skylights shall be allowed on sloping roofs facing interior yards, on sloping roofs facing side yards as long as the skylight is located at least 10 feet from Drooerty line. and on flat roofs. The placement of windows and skvliahts in ADUs shall comply with all applicable building and fire codes. (k) Balconies/Decks. Balconies, second story decks, and rooftop terraces are prohibited for all ADUs. A green roof shall not be considered a balcony, second story deck or rooftop terrace. (I) Interior Connection. Attached and interior ADUs may, but are not be required, to contain an interior doorway connection between the single family dwelling and ADU. Permanent Foundations. (1) All ADUs shall be permanently attached to a permanent foundation. (2) A recreational vehicle, commercial coach, trailer, motor home, camper, camping trailer, boat or similar vehicle shall not be used as an ADU. n) Existina ADUs built before January 1. 1954. For existina ADUs built before January 1. 1954 the following additional criteria shall be met: 1) The ADU shall conform to the reauirements of the California Health and Safetv Code Section 17920.3, and the Uniform Housing Code as adopted by Section 17922; (2) Improvements may be made to the ADU so long as it conforms to the requirements of this chapter and corrects anv violation of Health and Safetv Code Section 17920.3 and the Uniform Housin Code. Section 9: Chapter 25.59 Accessory Dwelling Units, Section 25.59.080 Development standards for junior accessory dwelling units, is added as follows: Chapter 25.59 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 25.59.080 Development standards for junior accessory dwelling units. A junior accessory dwelling unit shall be constructed only in accordance with the following development standards: 11 ORDINANCE NO. (a) Location. The JADU may only be located within the walls of an existing or proposed single family dwelling. The JADU must have side and rear setbacks sufficient for fire and safety, as dictated by applicable building and fire codes. (b) Number. Only one (1) JADU shall be permitted per lot which contains an existing or proposed single family dwelling. A JADU may be allowed in conjunction with one (1) detached ADU on the same lot as long as the ADU does not exceed 850 square feet. (c) Minimum size. No JADU shall be smaller than the size required to allow an efficiency unit pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1. d) Maximum size. The JADU shall not exceed 500 sauare feet in area. An expansion limited to 150 square foot beyond the physical dimensions of the existing single family dwelling is permitted strictly to accommodate ingress and egress to the JADU; this additional square footage shall be exempt from lot coverage and floor area ratio requirements. The side and rear setback requirements for the single family dwelling may be reduced to no less than four (4) feet to accommodate an exterior stair and landing that provide required access to the JADU if it is located on the second story. e) Kitchen. The JADU shall contain an efficiencv kitchen satisfvina the followina the criteria: (1) Contains a sink and cooking facility with appliances (e.g., microwave, toaster oven or hot late . Contains a food Dreaaration counter and storaae cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the JADU. (f) Bathroom. The JADU may have a separate bathroom, or may share a bathroom with the single family dwelling. The bathroom shall contain a sink, toilet, and shower or tub. If the bathroom is shared, there must be a connecting door between the JADU and the single family dwelling. Entrance. The JADU shall have a separate exterior entrance from the main entrance tothe existing or proposed single family dwelling. The entrance to the JADU shall not face the same public street as the entrance to the primary dwelling, unless it is the only location determined to comply with applicable building and fire codes. A passageway from the ADU to a public street may be created, but shall not be required. (h) A JADU is not considered a separate or new dwelling for purposes of fire safety or life safety. Section 10: Chapter 25.59 Accessory Dwelling Units, Section 25.59.090 Accessory dwelling units on multifamily residential properties, is added as follows: Chapter 25.59 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 25.59.090 Accessory dwelling units on multifamily residential properties. 12 ORDINANCE NO. The following requirements and restrictions apply to creation of ADUs on multifamily residential properties. (a) For the purposes of this section, the term "multifamily dwelling structure" means two (2) or more residential units contained within one (1) or more buildinas on the same lot. (b) Conversion. A minimum of one (1) and up to 25 percent of the existing dwelling units within a multifamily dwelling structure may be created within existing non -livable space(s), including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, provided that the dwellings comply with building and fire codes. An ADU shall not be created within any portion of the habitable area of an existing dwelling unit in a multifamily structure. When calculating the number of allowed ADUs based on the percentage of existing multifamily units, round down to the nearest integer. (1) Spaces required as part of a condition of approval or zoning requirement (e.g. bike storage room) cannot be converted to ADUs. (c) New detached ADUs. In addition to ADUs allowed by subsection (b), up to two (2) new detached accessory dwelling units may be allowed provided that the height does not exceed 16 feet and that four (4) foot side and rear yard setbacks are maintained. These ADUs shall be subject to the standards, requirements, and restrictions of this Chapter. (1) New detached ADUs shall not be located between a multifamily dwelling structure and Property line abutting a public street; provided, where an existing multifamily dwelling structure is located within the rear 60% of the lot, a detached ADU may be located in front of the multifamily dwellina structure. but not in anv portion of the reauired front setback. (2) There shall be a minimum four (4) foot separation between a detached ADU and any other structure on the lot. Section 11: Chapter 25.59 Accessory Dwelling Units, Section 25.59.100 Design, is added as follows: Chapter 25.59 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 25.59.100 Design. The design of accessory dwelling units shall conform with the following standards: (a) Attached and detached accessory dwelling units. The design of attached and detached accessory dwelling units shall be compatible or complementary in appearance with the primary structure located on the property, including coordination of exterior building materials and other architectural elements. (b) Interior accessory dwelling units. Interior accessory dwelling units contained within the existing space of an attached garage shall include removal of garage doors which shall be replaced with architectural features the same as those of the primary dwelling unit, including the same wall cladding, window type and trim that remove any appearance that the structure was originally a garage. 13 ORDINANCE NO. This wall shall contain at least one (1) window that is consistent in size and type with other existing windows on the same building fagade. Section 12: Chapter 25.59 Accessory Dwelling Units, Section 25.59.110 Parking, is added as follows: Chapter 25.59 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 25.59.110 Parking. (a) Unless otherwise provided in this section, one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for the ADU in addition to the off-street parking spaces required for the single family dwelling or multifamilv residential structure. All Darkina shall be provided on a hard. all-weather surface. (b) The parking space may be provided in setback areas or as tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parkinq in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions. (c) No parking shall be required for an ADU in any of the following instances: (1) The ADU is located within one-half mile walkinq distance of public transit. For the purposes of this section only, public transit is defined as a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public. The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically sianificant historic district. (3) The ADU is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an existing accessory structure. (4) When on -street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU. 5) When there is an established car share vehicle stop located within one block of the ADU. (d) No parking shall be required for a JADU and any parking displaced by its construction, including conversion of all or part of an existing attached garage, are not required to be replaced. (e) When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU or converted to an ADU, those off-street parking spaces are not required to be replaced. Section 13: Chapter 25.59 Accessory Dwelling Units, Section 25.59.120 Utilities and impact fees, is added as follows: Chapter 25.59 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 25.59.120 — Utilities and impact fees. 14 ORDINANCE NO. (a) No ADU or JADU shall be permitted if it is determined that there is not adequate water or sewer service to the property. (b) Except as provided in subsection (c), an ADU may be required to have a new or separate utility connection, including a separate sewer lateral, between the ADU and the utility. A connection fee or capacity charge may be charged that is proportionate to the size in square feet of the ADU or its drainaae fixture unit (DFU) values. Separate electric and water meters shall be reauired for the ADU. (c) The following ADUs shall be exempt from any requirement to install a new or separate utility connection and to pay any associated connection or capacity fees or charges: (1) Junior accessory dwelling units. () Standard ADUs converted from interior space, unless the unit is constructed within a new single-family home. (d) Impact Fees. No impact fees may be imposed on ADUs that are less than 750 square feet in size. For es of this section. "impact fees" include the fees specified in Sections 66000 and 66477 of the Government Code, but do not include utility connection fees or capacity charges. (2) For ADUs that have a floor area of 750 square feet or more, impact fees shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. Section 14: Chapter 25.59 Accessory Dwelling Units, Section 25.59.130 Delay of enforcement of building standards, is added as follows: Chapter 25.59 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 25.59.130 — Delay of enforcement of building standards. a) Prior to January 1. 2030. the owner of an ADU that was built before January 1. 2020. ma submit a written request to the Chief Building Official requesting that correction of any violation of building standards be delayed for five (5) years. For purposes of this section, "building standards" refers to those standards enforced by local agencies under the authority of Section 17960 of the California Health and Safety Code. (b) The Chief Building Official will grant the application if the Chief Building Official determines that enforcement of the building standard is not necessary to protect health and safety. In making this determination, the Chief Building Official will consult with the Fire Marshal. (c) No applications pursuant to this section shall be approved on or after January 1, 2030. However, any delay that was approved by the city before January 1, 2030, shall be valid for the full term of the delay that was approved at the time of the approval of the application. 15 ORDINANCE NO. (d) Until January 1, 2030, any notice to correct a violation of building standard that is issued to the owner of an ADU built before January 1, 2020, shall include a statement that the owner has a right to request a delay in enforcement of the building standard for an ADU pursuant to this section. Section 15: Chapter 25.60 Accessory Structures in R-1 and R-2 Districts, Section 25.60.010 Conditional use permit requirements, is amended as follows: Chapter 25.60 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN R-1 AND R-2 DISTRICTS 25.60.010 Conditional use permit requirements. Accessory structures in the R-1 or R-2 Districts shall be a conditional use requiring a conditional use permit if any of the following will exist: (a) Two (2) or more accessory structures, each having over one hundred twenty (120) square feet gross floor area, will exist on a single lot, except that there may be two (2) accessory structures if one is an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit; (b) Any single accessory structure will exceed six hundred (600) square feet of gross floor area; except that an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit may be up to coved forty 40) 850 square feet or 1,000 square feet for two (2) or more bedrooms; (c) All accessory structures on a single lot will exceed a total of eight hundred (800) square feet gross floor area; except that an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit may be up to six hi R dre d feFty (640) 850 square feet or 1,000 square feet for two (2) or more bedrooms; (d) An accessory structure will occupy any portion of the lot in front of the main building; provided, where a dwelling has been erected on the rear sixty (60) percent of the lot prior to January 15, 1954, a garage may be erected in front of the main building, but not in any portion of the front setback; (e) An accessory structure will be erected closer than four (4) feet to any other structure on the same lot; (f) Accessory structures will cover more than fifty (50) percent of the rear thirty (30) percent of a lot; an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit shall not be included in this calculation; (g) The plate line of the accessory structure will be more than nine (9) feet above grade at the closest point between the plate line and adjacent grade; except that an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit with a shed (single slope) roof which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit shall be allowed to have a plate height greater than 9 feet on one side of the structure; the plate height of walls parallel with side and rear property lines shall not exceed 9 feet in height; 16 ORDINANCE NO. (h) The roof height of the accessory structure will exceed ten (10) feet above grade, except the height may be increased one foot for each foot of separation from an adjacent property line, up to a maximum height of feyrteeafifteen (4-415) feet, provided: maxima rn height shall be four (4) foot abode the plate "Re, 04LjThe roof height of an accessory structure may have a maximum height of fifteen (15) feet above grade when the roof is pitched from ridge to plate on at least two (2) sides, and the ridge is no closer than five (5) feet to a side property line, and the rear plate line does not exceed nine (9) feet above the natural grade,; except that an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit may be up to sixteen (16) feet above grade; and {4-)(2)No portion of the space within any accessory structure between the top of plate and the lowest portion of the roof structure including any dormer shall exceed seven (7) feet in height; (i) Windows and glazed wed openings of the accessory structure on walls parallel with Property lines will be that are located within ten (10) four L4feet of the property line; or any peFtion of a glazed GPeRiRg will be higher thaw, ton (IQ) foot above grade skylights on sloping roofs facing side vards located within ten (10) feet of Droaerty line or skvliahts on slooina roofs facina the rear property line; Q) Water or sewer connections to the accessory structure will exceed building code minimums or the accessory structure will contain any shower, bath or toilet, except thatfor an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit; (k)_ The accessory structure will enclose mechanical equipment, excluding air conditioning equipment, which is designed to operate on a regular or continuous basis, which may be objectionable because of loudness, hours of operation, odor or other reason, and which is to be located less than twenty (20) feet from any structure for habitation, or less than ten (10) feet from any property line; provided such shall be allowed without a special permit if the building official approves the structureas adequately sound insulated; (1) - Storage of household goods, tools or equipment in the accessory structure will exceed ten (10) percent of the gross floor area of the main dwelling structure; (m)_ Any portion of the accessory structure will be used for accessory living quarters, recreation purposes or for use in a home occupation; except for an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit does not require a conditional use permit; 17 ORDINANCE NO. (n) The accessory structure will be a greenhouse, trellis, lanai, patio shelter or similar structure exceeding one hundred twenty (120) square feet of gross floor area. Section 16: Chapter 25.26 R-1 District Regulations, Section 25.26.035 Uses allowed with a special permit, is amended as follows: Chapter 25.26 R-1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS 25.26.035 Uses allowed with a special permit. The following are uses allowed in the district with a special permit: (a) Attached garages for single-family dwelling units; (b) Reduction in the number of parking spaces existing on site; except where the on -site parking requirement is met per Chapter 25.70 for the existing units on -site and the reduction in the number of parking spaces is for the purpose of creating an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59; (c) Construction exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope; (d) An accessory structure detaGhed gar0ge exempt from setback restrictions located within the rear forty (40) percent of the lot; (e) An accessory structure that is in the rear of the lot and that is more than twenty-eight (28) feet in width or depth, except that for an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit. Section 17: Chapter 25.26 R-1 District Regulations, Section 25.26.037 Prohibited uses, is repealed and deleted in its entirety. /.i1 Bathtubs and she � er stalls 'n basements; and �7 �c�crr�u��-urrc�-a�v�vr "rairrn-r-vaacn�cr,-c8;�",-,ci /hl Bedrllems in basements Section 18: Chapter 25.70 Off -Street Parking, Section 25.70.010 Vehicle parking spaces to be provided, is amended as follows: ORDINANCE NO. Chapter 25.70 OFF-STREET PARKING 25.70.010 Vehicle parking spaces to be provided. (a) Parking Required. At the time of erection of any building or structure, or at the time any building or structure is enlarged or increased in capacity, there shall be provided off-street parking spaces with adequate and proper provision for ingress and egress by standard size automobiles. (b) Parking with Remodel or Reconstruction. When any building is remodeled, reconstructed or changed in use by the addition of dwelling units, gross floor area, seating capacity, change in type of use or intensified use, such additional garage or parking facilities as may be required must be provided, except for accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units approved per Chapter 25.59. (c) Minimum Requirements. The regulations which follow are the minimum requirements unless specific requirements are made for a particular use in a district. Additional spaces may be provided. Unless otherwise expressly permitted by a section of this chapter, parking required by this chapter is to be provided on the same lot as the use for which the parking is required. Section 19: Chapter 25.70 Off -Street Parking, Section 25.70.030 Requirements for single-family dwellings, is amended as follows: Chapter 25.70 OFF-STREET PARKING 25.70.030 Requirements for single-family dwellings. The following are parking requirements for single-family dwellings. (a) Parking Space Requirements. Each single-family dwelling shall provide off-street parking spaces for at least two (2) vehicles, one of which must be covered by a garage or carport. The following further requirements apply to certain additions and to new single-family dwellings: (1) An existing single-family dwelling increased in size to three (3) or four (4) bedrooms and a new single-family dwelling with up to four (4) bedrooms shall provide off-street parking spaces to current code dimensions for at least two (2) vehicles, one of which must be covered by a garage or carport; (2) A single-family dwelling hereafter increased in size to five (5) or more bedrooms and a new single-family dwelling with five (5) or more bedrooms shall provide off-street parking to current code dimensions for at least three (3) vehicles, two (2) of which must be covered by a garage or carport; (3) For the purposes of subsections (a)(1) and (2) of this section, an existing garage not less than eighteen (18) feet wide and twenty (20) feet deep interior dimension shall be considered to provide two (2) covered off-street parking places; (4) For additions to existing single-family dwellings, an existing garage with an eighteen (18) foot depth interior dimension shall be considered to meet the dimensional requirements for a parking space; 19 ORDINANCE NO. (5) Bedrooms that are within accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units shall not be counted toward the overall number of bedrooms for the primary single-family dwelling on the lot on which it is located; parking for accessory dwelling units shall comply with SeEtieR the provisions of Chapter 25.59.060(g). (b) Parking Aisles and Driveways. Covered parking spaces shall have a twenty-four (24) foot back-up area or be designed to be entered or exited in no more than three (3) maneuvers. All spaces must allow entry in three (3) maneuvers in the forward direction. (c) Parking Limitations. (1) A vehicle shall not be parked between a structure and the front or side property line except in a garage, driveway or other approved parking; except for parking for an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59; (2) Inoperative vehicles, vehicle parts, boats and campers (as defined by Section 243 of the Vehicle Code) shall not be stored or parked in driveways or between a structure and front or side property line; (3) Required covered parking shall not be provided in tandem configuration; except for an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59; (4) For an addition to an existing single-family dwelling and for accessory dwelling units, required uncovered spaces may be provided in tandem configuration and may extend: (A) In areas with sidewalks, to the inner edge of the sidewalk, (B) In areas without sidewalks to five (5) feet from the inner edge of the curb, (C) In areas without either sidewalks or curbs, to five (5) feet from the edge of pavement. Section 20: Chapter 25.70 Off -Street Parking, Section 25.70.032 Requirements for duplexes, apartment hotels and condominium, is amended as follows: Chapter 25.70 OFF-STREET PARKING 25.70.032 Requirements for duplexes, apartment hotels and condominium. (a) Except as specified below for properties within certain portions of downtown Burlingame as identified in Figure 3-4 of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, the following are parking requirements for duplexes, apartments, apartment hotels and condominiums: (1) There shall be at least one and one-half (1 1/2) permanently maintained parking spaces on the same lot with the building for each studio or one -bedroom dwelling unit in the building. 20 ORDINANCE NO. (2) For each dwelling unit containing two (2) bedrooms, or two (2) potential bedrooms, there shall be provided at least two (2) parking spaces. (3) For each dwelling unit containing three (3) or more bedrooms, there shall be provided at least two and one-half (2 1/2) parking spaces. (b) For properties within the area identified in Figure 3-4 of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, the following are parking requirements for duplexes, apartments, apartment hotels and condominiums: (1) There shall be at least one permanently maintained parking space on the same lot with the building for each studio or one -bedroom dwelling unit in the building. (2) For each dwelling unit containing two (2) bedrooms, or two (2) potential bedrooms, there shall be provided at least one and one-half (1 1/2) permanently maintained parking spaces. (3) For each dwelling unit containing three (3) or more bedrooms, there shall be provided at least two (2) permanently maintained parking spaces. (c) Accessory dwelling units. Where accessory dwelling units are allowed in compliance with Chapter 25.59, parking shall be provided with the provisions of Chapter 25.59. (ed) Eighty (80) percent of the total required parking spaces shall be covered or within a garage or carport. Parking spaces shall not be situated in the front or side setback areas. A vehicle shall not be parked between a structure and the front or side property lines except in a garage, driveway or other approved parking. (de) Inoperative vehicles, vehicles, vehicle parts, boats and campers (as defined by Section 243 of the Vehicle Code) shall not be stored or parked in driveways or between a structure and front or side property lines. Division 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Council declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Division 4: This Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933, published, and circulated in the City of Burlingame, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. Emily Beach, Mayor 21 ORDINANCE NO. 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 18th day of May, 2020, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk 22 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FINDING THAT ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTERS 25.59, 25.60, 25.26 AND 25.70 TO UPDATE EXISTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT REGULATIONS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH RECENTLY ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65852.2 AND 65852.22 RELATED TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, IS STATUTORILY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15282 (H) WHICH EXEMPTS THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE REGARDING SECOND UNITS IN A SINGLE-FAMILY OR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE BY A CITY OR COUNTY TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 65852.1 AND 6582.2 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 21080.17 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME hereby finds as follows: Section 1. On October 19, 2019, the State of California enacted legislation known as Assembly Bill 881, Assembly Bill 68, and Senate Bill 13, which, among other things, amended Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 of the Government Code pertaining to accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units. Section 2. The State of California has enacted legislation to encourage the construction of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units in single family and multifamily residential zones, as further defined in this ordinance. Section 3. The revisions to State Law became effective on January 1, 2020. Local jurisdictions are required to comply with the new requirements, which supersede local ordinances. The proposed zoning amendments would ensure that the Burlingame Municipal Code is consistent with the new recently adopted State regulations and to help clarify and improve various provisions of the accessory dwelling unit law to promote the development of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units. Section 4. Government Codes Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 require the City of Burlingame to adopt zoning regulations in compliance with State law provisions regarding accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units. Section 5. At a duly noticed public hearing was held on May 18, 2020, the City Council introduced an ordinance amending Title 25 — (Zoning Code) of the Burlingame Municipal Code, Chapters 25.59, 25.60, 25.26, and 25.70 to update existing Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations to be consistent with recently adopted amendments to California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 related to accessory dwelling units. RESOLUTION NO. Section 4. The proposed amendments to the zoning code related to accessory dwelling units are Statutorily Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15282(h) which exempts the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single-family or multifamily residential zone by a city or county to implement the provisions of Sections 65852.1 and 6582.2 of the Government Code as set forth in Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THAT adoption of the amendments to Title 25 (Zoning Code) of the Burlingame Municipal Code, Chapters 25.59, 25.60, 25.26, and 25.70 to update existing Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations to be consistent with recently adopted amendments to California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 related to accessory dwelling units is Statutorily Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15282(h) which exempts the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single-family or multifamily residential zone by a city or county to implement the provisions of Sections 65852.1 and 6582.2 of the Government Code as set forth in Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code. Emily Beach, Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 15t day of June, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: pa Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk Page 7 • "Mayor Beach thanked staff, developers, and the community for engaging in this conversation. She stated it makes a difference to her that the reach codes being considered apply to new construction, not remodels. " Councilmember Brownrigg noted the importance of watching the Council meeting and not just reading the meeting minutes in order to understand the nuance of the Council's comments. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to approve the City Council Meeting Minutes for February 18, 2020; seconded by Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. b. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT, PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 34, 2049 Councilmember Colson stated that the Quarterly Investment Report covered the period ending December 31, 2019. However, she explained that the past two weeks have been rocky in the investment market. She asked that when the City discusses the FY 2020-21 budget and pension liabilities in May, that staff provide an update on the investment numbers. She explained that she wanted to understand if the market's fluctuation impacted the Ca1PERS contribution rates. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that at the mid -year budget study session, he would like to hear about the potential impact of the coronavirus on the travel industry and therefore the City's TOT. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to accept the City's Quarterly Investment Report for the period ending December 31, 2019; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 25.59 (ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS), CHAPTER 25.60 (ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN R-1 AND R-2 DISTRICTS), CHAPTER 25.26 (R-1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS) AND CHAPTER 25.70 (OFF-STREET PARKING) OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO ACCESSORY DWELLI NG UNITS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH RECENTLY ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65852.2 AND 65852.22 AND ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO REMOVE CONSTRAINTS TO CREATING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Planning Manager Ruben Hurin stated that in response to the statewide and Bay Area regional housing shortages, the Governor signed into law a number of bills to encourage the construction of accessory dwelling units ("ADU") and junior accessory dwelling units ("JADU") by reducing the regulatory barriers commonly found in local zoning ordinances. He explained that the recently adopted legislation defines the 4 Burlingame City Council March 2, 2020 Approved Minutes standards local jurisdictions can apply to ADUs and JADUs. He noted that the legislation took effect on January 1, 2020. Planning Manager Hurin stated that the State legislation supersedes the City's regulations for ADUs as currently outlined in Municipal Code Chapter 25.59 — Accessory Dwelling Units. He explained that the proposed changes are to bring the City's Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations into conformity with State law. Planning Manager Hurin stated that at the Planning Commission's February 24, 2020 meeting, the Commission reviewed the proposed amendments to the Zoning Regulations and recommended that the Council adopt the changes as proposed in the draft ordinance. Planning Manager Hurin stated that before explaining the key changes in the State law, he wanted to review the different types of ADUs and JADUs. • Attached ADU — when the structure is attached to the single-family home • Detached ADU — a new structure that is separate from the single-family home • Converted Garage • Conversion/interior — convert a portion of the single-family home into an ADU Planning Manager Hurin reviewed the key areas of change mandated by the State legislation: • No minimum lot size requirement for construction of an ADU, whether it is a conversion of existing space, an addition, or a new detached structure. • In addition to an ADU, a JADU (up to 500 square feet in size and located within an existing or proposed single-family dwelling) may be created on a single-family zoned property. • The maximum allowed size for an ADU is 850 square feet, or 1,000 square feet for two or more bedrooms. • ADUs up to 800 square feet in size are exempt from lot coverage and floor area regulations. For simplicity and to avoid confusion, staff is proposing that the lot coverage and floor area ratio exemption be applied to 850 square feet ADUs to be consistent with the maximum allowed size. • Required side and rear setbacks can be no greater than 4'-0". This does not affect detached ADUs since they are exempt from side and rear setbacks if located within 30% of the lot. However, this does reduce the rear setback requirement for an attached ADU from 15'-0" to 4'-0". • No replacement parking for the primary dwelling can be required if an existing detached or attached garage is converted to an ADU or JADU. • No parking is required for a JADU. • ADUs are now permitted in all districts zoned to allow multifamily dwelling residential uses (allowed on properties where a multifamily dwelling structure exists). Up to 25% of the existing dwelling units within a multifamily dwelling structure, but at least one ADU, may be created within existing non -livable space(s). In addition, up to two new detached ADUs may be allowed. • Approval for a compliant ADU or JADU must be issued within 60 days of receiving a complete application. 5 Burlingame City Council March 2, 2020 Approved Minutes Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that the staff report notes that the maximum square footage for an ADU is 850 square feet. She asked if she was correct that an individual could have both an 850 square foot ADU and a 500 square foot JADU. Planning Manager Hurin replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked about converting a basement into an ADU where the basement is more than 850 square feet. Planning Manager Hurin stated that under the law, an individual can build a two - bedroom ADU with a maximum square footage of 1000. Councilmember Brownrigg asked why the State put a limit on the square footage of an ADU. Planning Manager Hurin replied that the State law allows ADUs to be as large as 1200 square feet. But under the State law, cities can limit the square footage to 850 for a one -bedroom ADU and 1000 for a two -bedroom ADU. Councilmember Brownrigg asked why the State cares about the size of ADUs. City Attorney Kane explained that the legislative purpose was to create smaller, more naturally affordable ADUs. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that if a garage is converted into an ADU, under State law the owner isn't required to provide parking. She asked what would happen if a property owner converted the garage but didn't utilize the space as an ADU. Planning Manager Hurin stated staff would utilize code enforcement in these situations. He added that the proposed ordinance states that when an ADU is no longer being used as an ADU, the structure would need to revert to its previous use. Mayor Beach asked if the ordinance contains any protection against the ADU being used as a short-term rental. Planning Manager Hurin stated that State law provides that ADUs and JADUs cannot be rented for fewer than 30 consecutive calendar days. Planning Manager Hurin discussed the additional changes to the City's ADU ordinance that staff is proposing: • No longer require a Conditional Use Permit for windows located within 10'-0" of property line or for skylights • No longer require a Special Permit for a direct exit from a basement to the exterior of the structure Councilmember Colson stated that under the current code, basements have to have a lightwell for an emergency exit. She asked if staff's proposal would allow them to change the lightwell into a door. Planning Manager Hurin replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson asked if it is possible that you could have an ingress through the single-family home. Planning Manager Hurin stated that State law requires a separate entrance for an ADU or JADU. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the ridge line of the roof and that the proposed ordinance requires a pitch on two sides of the roof. He asked if this was a shed roof. Planning Manager Hurin stated that the ridge can be 16 feet tall with a plate height of 9 feet. 6 Burlingame City Council March 2, 2020 Approved Minutes Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he would have thought that the City wouldn't want to be this prescriptive concerning the roof's ridge. He explained that he believed shed roofs and flat roofs can be more sensitive to their neighbors. City Attorney Kane stated that one of the ambiguities of the State law is that the cities can establish a maximum height of 16 feet. However, the State law does not address whether the roof needs to have a pitch. Therefore, she stated that staff s thought process was that a 16-foot ridge height as opposed to a flat roof would be less impactful on neighbors as a result of removing side and rear setbacks. Councilmember Brownrigg suggested allowing a 10-foot plate height for a flat roof with a very low pitch. Councilmember Colson stated that she believes there are more flat roof garages in the community. She discussed her experience with converting the top of a flat roofed garage into garden space. Planning Manager Hurin explained that the proposed ordinance is requiring the ADU to be in line with the single- family home. Therefore, if the single-family home has a pitched roof, the converted garage would also have to have a pitched roof. Councilmember Colson stated that she was against requiring the same roof design on the ADU and single- family home. She explained that she's had a pitched roof with a flat roof garage. She noted that she believed there were so many benefits to having a flat -roofed garage. Councilmember Ortiz asked if he was correct that the staff s suggestion of requiring pitch on two sides of the roof is to prevent an individual from building a 16-foot tall flat -roofed ADU. Planning Manager Hurin replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that staff could require a pitch if the building height reaches 16 feet. Or if the individual wants to have a flat roof, the City could lower the plate height to prevent a 16-foot tall building with a flat roof. He explained that if the City limits the plate height to 9 feet, the individual wouldn't be able to build to 16 feet. Councilmember Brownrigg explained that in communities where ADUs are common, the backyards shrink to almost nothing. He stated that the City would need to figure out a way to balance the community's housing needs with Burlingame's "City of Trees" designation. Councilmember Colson asked if the City could require property owners that are building ADUs to put in trees. City Attorney Kane stated that the point of the legislation is to force an administrative process for the construction of ADUs. Therefore, she stated that the City had to be careful with what it required. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran voiced concern about skylights on pitched roof ADUs that face the neighbor's property. Mayor Beach discussed sea level rise and the City's water table during storms. She voiced concern about building ADUs in basements and how sea level rise could cause those basements to flood. City Attorney 7 Burlingame City Council March 2, 2020 Approved Minutes Kane stated that property owners would be informed of the City's water table and flooding concerns during plan review. Mayor Beach opened the public hearing. Jennifer Pfaff voiced concerns about the proposed ordinance including staff s suggestion to remove the Conditional Use Permit requirement for skylights. Mona, a local licensed architect, stated that San Mateo is interpreting the 16-foot height limit as a plate height limit. She added that the dual pitch would not aesthetically agree with the historical Eichlers. Mayor Beach closed the public hearing. Mayor Beach asked about setback requirements for basements. Planning Manager Hurin stated that if the basement is below the top of existing grade, then it is not subject to setback requirements except on El Camino Real. Councilmember Colson asked if she was correct that the basement could be in the rear corner of the house and that it can extend to the fence line. Planning Manager Hurin replied in the affirmative. Planning Manager Hurin stated that currently, up to 700 square feet of a basement is exempt from the floor area coverage of the house. Under the proposed ADU ordinance, it would be 850 square feet. Mayor Beach asked if the City should be considering limiting the allowable footprint of basements. Planning Manager Hurin stated that this is another discussion that the Planning Commission and City Council could address in the future. City Attorney Kane stated that based on Council discussion, staff would need to further refine the proposed ordinance. Therefore, the Council didn't have to ask the City Clerk to read the title of the ordinance and make a motion to introduce the ordinance. She explained that as of January 1, 2020, the State law was in effect, and staff was obligated to review plans pursuant to the State's mandates, until the City adopts its own ordinance. Councilmember Colson asked if ADUs are counted towards the City's RHNA allocation. Planning Manager Hurin stated that his understanding is that they can count, but staff is unable to track the affordability rate. Councilmember Colson stated that she believed Hillsborough was able to count their ADUs towards their low income RHNA allocation. Planning Manager Hurin stated that he would talk with his colleagues in Hillsborough. Mayor Beach stated that it seemed that there were three issues that the Council had to discuss regarding the proposed ordinance: 1. Roof line 2. Permeable space 8 Burlingame City Council March 2, 2020 Approved Minutes 3. Windows and skylights on ADUs Mayor Beach voiced concern about being too prescriptive and noted that she believed the Planning Commission would thoroughly review each application to ensure it fit within the neighborhood. City Attorney Kane noted that the three issues that the Mayor brought up are nondiscretionary and would be handled by staff at the counter. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he liked Councilmember Brownrigg's suggestion that if an individual decides to build up to 16 feet, that the roof would be double pitched. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that she agreed with Councilmember Ortiz. She stated that because the City can't conduct design review on ADUs, her preference would be that the ADU match the existing architecture. Councilmember Colson asked if the City could require a pitched roof with exceptions based on the circumstances of an individual's property. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative but stated that the criteria must be objective. She noted that where possible, the City should craft a standard as the purpose of the State's mandate is to streamline the ADU process. Councilmember Colson asked if ADUs would be required to have solar panels. Planning Manager Hurin stated that he would review the requirement with the Chief Building Official. Mayor Beach stated that she agreed with Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran that you wouldn't want a skylight pointing towards a neighbor's second floor. However, she noted that if the ADU was designed to have a flat roof, she thought a skylight would be a reasonable request. Councilmember Colson asked if an individual builds a 16-foot tall ADU and adds a loft, would the loft count towards the 850 square feet. Planning Manager Hurin stated that current Code section for measurement of the floor area states that if you have an open space that is more than 12 feet in height, the area counts twice. Therefore, he noted that this might exceed the maximum square footage allowed. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the proposed ordinance states that the roof shall be pitched from ridge to plate on at least two sides. He suggested that if the maximum plate height is 9 feet, the developer could determine the appropriate style of roof, with the exception that if the ridge is over 12 feet, then the ridge should be at least 5 feet off the center. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed lot coverage as a result of the State's mandates. He stated that the Planning Commission should consider whether the City should reduce lot coverage for the main house when a house gets rebuilt. He noted that it would be a tradeoff, as it would allow for the City to maintain backyards but might require the City to allow for more height in single-family houses. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran explained that the proposed ordinance states that the maximum allowed plate height is 9 feet. She noted that she wouldn't want that changed. She stated that this would help avoid the creation of large box shaped ADUs. 9 Burlingame City Council March 2, 2020 Approved Minutes Planning Manager Hurin stated that regarding windows and skylights, staff could require a conditional use permit for any skylights that are not facing the interior or windows along the rear or side property lines. Vice Mayor O'Brien Keighran voiced support for the Planning Manager's suggestion. Councilmember Colson agreed with Planning Manager Hurin's suggestion. City Attorney Kane stated that if there's a window requirement for egress under the City's fire or building code and imposing a CUP would defeat the ability to build an ADU, then staff would need to allow the construction of the ADU. Councilmember Colson asked if the City could require opaque windows within a certain distance of the lot line. City Attorney Kane stated that windows aren't allowed on lot lines. Councilmember Brownrigg asked that the proposed ordinance include a line under Section K referring to balconies and decks that states that a green roof does not count as a rooftop terrace or balcony to cover Councilmember Colson's concerns. 10. STAFF REPORTS a. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION City Manager Goldman stated that there was an opening on the Planning Commission and one candidate, John Schmid, had applied. She noted that Council interviewed Mr. Schmid. Mayor Beach opened the item for public comment. No one spoke. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer read the Council's ballots. John Schmid was unanimously selected by the Council to serve on the Planning Commission. Congratulations to John Schmid. b. CONSIDERATION OF TWO APPOINTMENTS TO THE MEASURE I CITIZENS' OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE City Manager Goldman stated that three candidates applied for the two openings on the Measure I Citizens' Oversight Committee. She noted that Council interviewed the three candidates. Mayor Beach opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer read the Council's ballots. Stephanie Lee and Sandeep Shroff were unanimously selected by the Council to be reappointed to the Measure I Citizens' Oversight Committee. 10 Burlingame City Council March 2, 2020 Approved Minutes CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin From: Neel N. Mehta Sent: Sunday, March 8, 2020 10:29 AM To: COUNCIL -Emily Beach; COUNCIL -Ann Keighran; COUNCIL -Michael Brownrigg; COUNCIL -Donna Colson; COUNCIL -Ricardo Ortiz; MGR-Lisa Goldman; CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner, CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin; kkane@burlingame.com Cc: Shreya Shah Subject: Follow up on 3/2/20 City Council Meeting Dear Planning and Community Development Directors, City Manager, City Attorney and City Council Members, I am a Burlingame resident who attended the City Council meeting on 3/2/20 and appreciate the public comment period on the newly proposed ADU laws. As an owner of one of Burlingame's Eichlers in the Mills Estate neighborhood, I wanted to provide follow-up concerns and suggestions on the discussion: 1. I recommend against requiring two pitches on an ADU roof, which was the initial suggestion in yesterday's meeting. As you know, there are a great many housing styles in Burlingame and requiring a dual -pitch on an ADU on our style of house would be in stark contrast to the low -slow roof and deep eaves that Eichler architecture is known for. As brought up during both staff and public comments at Monday's Council meeting, as a homeowner, I would like to see the ADU regulations be flexible enough to allow us to build complimentary to our home's architecture, instead of being prescribed a style that contrasts with it. 2. For sustainability considerations, a single slope is more advantageous for solar panels. And as Councilwoman Colson and the Architect raised, better for green roofs, too. 3. For good neighbor considerations, there is an advantage to having a single -slope on downside hill properties like mine. We can use the slope to our advantage in NOT obstructing our neighbor's views. A dual -pitched roof would be much harder to blend into the hillside setting in our instance. 4. 1 suggest there be further consideration of how to interpret the State's 16' height limit. I don't want a proliferation of 16' flat roof boxes either, but it seems like there should be a middle ground between what is proposed (9' top plate and requiring 2 slopes), and the big box effect. It may make sense to adapt regulations similar to San Mateo's. In that city, just one pitch is allowed and the 16height applies to the top of the roof. You could still prevent the "big tall box" effect by setting the main level top plate to 9', perhaps to just one end of the structure or a certain percentage of the structure to allow a shed roof/sleeping loft situation. Burlingame's currently proposed regulation would prevent any sort of sleeping loft and force us to build a larger, more sprawled footprint if we just want to accommodate an extra mattress. The idea of a sleeping loft is very appealing to me because it means we can build an ADU on a smaller footprint by having some flexibility to go upwards. 5. Minimizing hardscape is a concern of mine being on a hillside property. I think having the flexibility in the regulations to allow us to go "up" (within reason) instead of "out" would be very appealing. Most of us homeowners value our landscape and greenery. I believe most would want the flexibility to build a smart solution for their property, without being forced to prescribe to a dual -pitched, low and sprawling ADU. Please let me know if you have any questions. I truly appreciate your openness to the participation of residents in this process. Thank you, CLEAN VERSION PROPOSED CODE CHANGES TO CHAPTERS 25.59, 25.60, 25.26 AND 25.70 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65852.2 AND 65852.22 Chapter 25.59 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Sections: 25.59.010 Purpose. 25.59.015 Definitions. 25.59.020 Applications and processing. 25.59.030 Appeal. 25.59.040 Revocation of permit. 25.59.055 Minimum standards for eligibility. 25.59.060 General requirements and restrictions. 25.59.070 Development standards for accessory dwelling units. 25.59.080 Development standards for junior accessory dwelling units. 25.59.090 Accessory dwelling units on multifamily residential properties. 25.59.100 Design. 25.59.110 Parking. 25.59.120 Utilities and impact fees. 25.59.130 Delay of enforcement of building standards. 25.59.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) in compliance with California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22. This chapter is intended to implement the Housing Element of the Burlingame General Plan by providing for additional housing opportunities. This will be accomplished by increasing the number of units available within existing neighborhoods while maintaining the primarily single-family and multifamily residential character of the area, and establishing standards for the development and occupancy of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units to ensure that they are compatible with neighboring uses and structures, adequately equipped with public utility services, safe for human occupancy, and do not create unreasonable traffic and safety impacts. In cases of conflict between this chapter and any other provision of this title, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. To the extent that any provision of this chapter is in conflict with State law, the applicable provision of State law shall control, but all other provisions of this chapter shall remain in full force and effect. An accessory residential dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit which conforms to the requirements of this chapter shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located and shall be deemed to be a residential use which is consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning designations for the lot. 25.59.015 Definitions. The following terms shall have the following meanings for this chapter only and shall supersede the terms defined by Chapter 25.08 (Definitions): (a) "Accessory dwelling unit" or "ADU" means an attached or detached residential dwelling unit ancillary to a primary dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one (1) or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated. An accessory dwelling unit also includes an efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code, and a manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code. This Chapter recognizes three types of accessory dwelling units as defined below. Where a proposed accessory dwelling unit does not clearly fall into one of the defined types, the Community Development Director shall make a determination pursuant to Code Section 25.16.150. (1) "Attached accessory dwelling unit" means an accessory dwelling unit that is constructed as a physical expansion (i.e., addition) of an existing primary dwelling unit, including construction of a new basement underneath a primary dwelling unit to accommodate an accessory dwelling unit. (2) "Detached accessory dwelling unit" means an accessory dwelling unit that is constructed as a separate structure from the primary dwelling unit; or contained within the existing space of an accessory structure (as defined herein). (3) "Interior accessory dwelling unit" means an accessory dwelling unit that is contained within the existing space of a primary dwelling unit, including within its living area, basement, or attached garage; constructed as part of a proposed primary dwelling unit; or created from non -livable space of a multifamily dwelling. (b) "Accessory structure" means a structure that is accessory and incidental to a dwelling located on the same lot. (c) "Efficiency kitchen" means a kitchen that includes each of the following: (1) A sink and cooking facility with appliances (e.g., microwave, toaster oven or hot plate). (2) A food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the junior accessory dwelling unit. (d) "Junior accessory dwelling unit" or "JADU" means a residential dwelling unit that: (1) is no more than 500 square feet in size, Otl (2) is contained entirely within an existing or proposed single family dwelling, (3) includes its own separate sanitation facilities (bathroom containing a sink, toilet, and shower or tub), or may share sanitation facilities with the existing or proposed single family structure, and (4) includes an efficiency kitchen, as defined in subsection (c) above. (e) "Living area" means the interior habitable floor area of a dwelling unit, including basements and attics, but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. (f) "Nonconforming zoning conditions" means a physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards. (g) "Passageway" means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to the entrance of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit. (h) "Public transit" means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public. (i) "Tandem parking" means a parking configuration where two (2) or more automobiles are parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another. 25.59.020 Applications and processing. (a) Applications for ADU and JADU permits shall be in writing and filed with the Community Development Department on a form approved by the Community Development Director. (b) As established by council resolution, a fee will be charged for an application for an ADU or JADU permit under this chapter. All ADUs and JADUs are also subject to building permit fees. (c) Within sixty (60) days of receipt of a complete application, the Community Development Department staff shall ministerially process for approval any application for an ADU or JADU permit pursuant to this chapter. Incomplete applications will be returned with an explanation of what additional information is required. Upon finding that the ADU or JADU meets the requirements of this chapter, the application shall be approved ministerially without discretionary review or public hearing and the applicant may proceed to acquire a building permit. All ADUs and JADUs are categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15303 of the CEQA guidelines. (d) If an application for an attached ADU or JADU is submitted with an application for an addition to an existing single family dwelling or construction of a new single family dwelling that is subject to design review or other discretionary permit for the same parcel, the application for the ADU or JADU permit shall not be acted upon until the application for design review or other discretionary permit is approved. Following the approval for design review or other discretionary permit for the primary dwelling unit, the ADU or JADU application will be ministerially processed within 60 days of receipt of a complete application and approved if it meets the requirements of this chapter. 3 (e) If the applicant requests a delay, the 60-day time period for approval shall be tolled for the period of the delay. 25.59.030 Appeal. The applicant that requested the accessory dwelling unit permit may appeal the community development director's denial of the request. The appeal shall be submitted to the community development director in writing within ten (10) days after the date of the community development director's decision. The appeal shall be heard by the planning commission in a public hearing pursuant to the procedures established for discretionary actions in Chapter 25.16. 25.59.040 Revocation of permit. (a) Grounds. An ADU or JADU permit granted pursuant to this chapter may be revoked on any one or more of the following grounds: (1) Failure to comply with the requirements of this chapter; or (2) The ADU or JADU is no longer used for residential purposes; or (3) The parking required by this chapter is no longer provided; or (b) Notice. Written notice to revoke an ADU or JADU permit shall be served on the property owner, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, either personally or by certified mail, and shall state: (1) The reasons for the proposed revocation. (2) That the proposed action will be taken by the Community Development Director unless a written request for a hearing before the Planning Commission is requested within fifteen (15) days after the date of said notice. If no response is received, the Community Development Director will revoke the ADU or JADU permit as set forth in the notice. (c) Hearing. If a hearing is requested, at least ten (10) days' notice thereof shall be given to the requested party. At the hearing, the property owner may call witnesses and present evidence in his or her behalf. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission will determine whether or not the permit will be revoked. Such determination may be appealed to the city council in the same manner as for appeals taken on applications for the granting of conditional use permits or variances. 25.59.055 Minimum standards for eligibility. (a) No minimum lot area is required for creation of an ADU or JADU. (b) An ADU or JADU shall only be allowed on a parcel which has been legally created in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 26 (Subdivisions), and where the ADU or JADU is developed with an existing or proposed single family dwelling, except for ADUs constructed on multifamily residential properties pursuant to Section 25.59.090. 4 (c) ADUs may only be permitted in districts zoned to allow single family dwelling or multifamily dwelling residential uses as a permitted use. ADUs are also permitted on any parcel that has a current and valid nonconforming single family or multifamily residential use, so long as the ADU complies with all other portions of this chapter. (d) JADUs may only be permitted in districts zoned to allow a single family dwelling residential use as a permitted use. JADUs are also permitted on any parcel that has a current and valid nonconforming single family residential use, so long as the JADU complies with all other portions of this chapter. 25.59.060 General requirements and restrictions. The following requirements and restrictions apply to all existing and new ADUs and JADUs, as applicable: (a) ADUs and JADUs shall comply with all applicable provisions of this title and all applicable building, health and fire codes. However, ADUs and JADUs shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers unless required for the primary single family dwelling or multifamily dwelling structure. (b) All development standards contained in the underlying zoning district, including Chapter 25.60, shall apply to ADUs and JADUs unless they are inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter, in which case the development standards of this chapter shall apply. (c) Accessory dwelling units. (1) ADUs may be rented separately from the single family dwelling or multifamily dwelling structure, but may not be sold or otherwise conveyed separately from the other dwellings on the lot, except as provided for by Government Code Section 65852.26. (2) ADUs may not be rented for fewer than 30 consecutive calendar days. (3) ADUs are not subject to any owner -occupancy requirement. (d) Junior accessory dwelling units. (1) JADUs may be rented separately from the single family dwelling, but may not be sold or otherwise conveyed separately from the single family dwelling on the lot. (2) JADUs may not be rented for fewer than 30 consecutive calendar days. (3) JADUs are subject to an owner -occupancy requirement. A person with legal or equitable title to the property shall reside on the property in either the primary dwelling or JADU as that person's legal domicile and permanent residence. However, the owner -occupancy requirement of this paragraph does not apply if the property is entirely owned by another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a JADU, the owner shall record a covenant in a form prescribed by the city attorney, which shall run with the land and provide for the following: 5 (i) A prohibition on the sale of the JADU separate from the sale of the single family dwelling; (ii) A restriction on the size and attributes of the JADU consistent with this section; (iii) A prohibition against renting the property for fewer than 30 consecutive calendar days; and (iv) A requirement that either the primary residence or the JADU unit be the owner's bona fide principal residence, unless the owner is a governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization. (e) If an ADU or JADU which was created within a single family dwelling, accessory structure or multifamily dwelling structure is required to be removed or is voluntarily removed, the kitchen facility shall be removed and the space shall be converted back to its original use. If an ADU was newly constructed, (1) the space or structure shall be entirely removed, or (2) the kitchen facility shall be removed and the space shall be converted to a permitted use allowed within the underlying zoning district, or (3) the kitchen facility shall be removed and the applicant shall obtain the appropriate land use permit for the proposed use within the space. (f) Certificates of occupancy. A certificate of occupancy for an ADU shall not be issued before a certificate of occupancy is issued for the primary dwelling unit. (g) Deed restriction. Prior to issuance of a building permit for an ADU or JADU, a deed restriction must be recorded against the title of the property in the County Recorder's office and a copy filed with the Community Development Department. The deed restriction must run with the land and bind all future owners. The form of the deed restriction will be provided by the City and must provide that: (1) The ADU or JADU shall not be sold separately from the primary dwelling. (2) The ADU or JADU is restricted to the approved size and to other attributes allowed by this Section. (3) The deed restriction runs with the land and may be enforced against future property owners. (4) The deed restriction may be removed if the owner eliminates the ADU or JADU, as evidenced by, for example, removal of the kitchen facilities. To remove the deed restriction, an owner may make a written request of the City, providing evidence that the ADU or JADU has in fact been eliminated. The City may then determine whether the evidence supports the claim that the ADU or JADU has been eliminated. Appeal may be taken from the City's determination consistent with other provisions of this Code. If the ADU or JADU is not entirely physically removed, but is only eliminated by virtue of having a necessary component of an ADU or JADU removed, the remaining structure and improvements must otherwise comply with applicable provisions of this Code. (5) The deed restriction is enforceable by the Community Development Director or his or her designee for the benefit of the City. Failure of this property owner to comply with the deed X restriction may result in legal action against the property owner, and the City is authorized to obtain any remedy available to it at law or equity, including, but not limited to, obtaining an injunction enjoining the use of the ADU or JADU in violation of the recorded restrictions or abatement of the illegal unit. 25.59.070 Development standards for accessory dwelling units. An ADU shall be constructed only in accordance with the following development standards. (a) Location and number. Only one (1) ADU shall be permitted per lot which contains an existing or proposed single family dwelling. ADUs may be located in any of the following: (1) Within the walls of an existing or proposed single family dwelling; (2) Attached to an existing or proposed single family dwelling; (3) Within an existing accessory structure; or (4) Detached from the single family dwelling, but located on the same lot as the existing or proposed single family dwelling. (b) Minimum size. No ADU shall be smaller than the size required to allow an efficiency unit pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1. (c) Maximum size. The maximum floor area for an ADU shall be 850 square feet or 1,000 square for two (2) or more bedrooms. (1) If the ADU is created by converting space within an existing single family dwelling or accessory structure: (i) an expansion limited to 150 square foot beyond the physical dimensions of the existing single family dwelling or accessory structure is permitted strictly to accommodate ingress and egress to the ADU; this additional square footage shall be exempt from lot coverage and floor area ratio requirements. The side and rear setback requirements for the single family dwelling may be reduced to no less than four (4) feet to accommodate an exterior stair and landing that provide required access to the ADU if it is located on the second story; and (ii) the ADU must have side and rear setbacks sufficient for fire and safety, as dictated by applicable building and fire codes. (d) Floor area ratio and lot coverage. An ADU measuring no more than 850 square feet in size shall be exempt from floor area ratio and lot coverage requirements. An ADU greater than 850 square feet shall comply with the floor area ratio and lot coverage regulations as specified by the applicable zoning district. (e) Maximum living area within a single family dwelling. An attached or interior ADU shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the living area of the single family dwelling, except to the extent N necessary to allow an ADU of up to 850 square feet. (f) Kitchen facility. An ADU shall contain no more than one (1) kitchen facility. (g) Setbacks. An ADU (attached or detached) shall conform to the following setback standards: (1) A setback of four (4) feet is required from the side and rear property lines; however, no setbacks shall be required under the following circumstances: (i) Existing livable space or an existing accessory structure that is converted, in whole or in part, to an ADU; (ii) The ADU is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure that is demolished solely for the purpose of constructing the ADU; or (iii) Construction of a new detached ADU entirely located within the rear 30% of the lot. If any portion of the detached ADU is located forward of the rear 30% of the lot, it shall comply with the setback requirements of the applicable zoning district in which it is located, but no more than four (4) foot side or rear setbacks shall be required. (2) There shall be a minimum four (4) foot separation between a detached ADU and any other structure on the lot. (3) Where an existing single family dwelling is located within the rear 60% of the lot, a detached ADU may be located in front of the single family dwelling, but not in any portion of the required front setback. (h) Maximum height and stories. (1) Detached ADUs. (i) All detached ADUs shall be limited to one (1) story in height and shall not be constructed above detached garages or detached accessory structures except for accessory dwelling units created entirely within an existing legal two-story detached accessory structure. (ii) The maximum allowed building height for a detached ADU is 16 feet, as measured from average adjacent grade to the top of the highest roof ridge, and shall comply with the maximum allowed plate height requirements in subsection (iii). (iii) The maximum allowed plate height is 9 feet, as measured from average adjacent grade to the top of plate. For detached ADUs containing a single slope, one side of the structure shall be allowed to have a plate height greater than 9 feet; the plate height of walls parallel with side and rear property lines shall not exceed 9 feet in height. For ADUs located within a designated flood zone, the maximum plate height shall be measured from finished floor. (2) Attached ADUs. Attached ADUs may be constructed on the first or second floor of an existing or proposed single family dwelling and shall be subject to the height requirements of the applicable zoning district in which it is located. n (i) Entrance. An ADU shall have a separate exterior entrance from the main entrance to the existing or proposed single family dwelling. For an ADU located entirely on a second story, this shall require a separate interior or exterior stairway. The entrance to the ADU shall not face the same public street as the entrance to the single family dwelling, unless it is the only location determined to comply with applicable building and fire codes. A passageway from the ADU to a public street may be created, but is not required. 0) Windows and skylights. Windows and glazed openings on walls parallel with property lines shall be located at least 4 feet from property line. Skylights shall be allowed on sloping roofs facing interior yards, on sloping roofs facing side yards as long as the skylight is located at least 10 feet from property line, and on flat roofs. The placement of windows and skylights in ADUs shall comply with all applicable building and fire codes. (k) Balconies/Decks. Balconies, second story decks, and rooftop terraces are prohibited for all ADUs. A green roof shall not be considered a balcony, second story deck or rooftop terrace. (1) Interior Connection. Attached and interior ADUs may, but are not be required, to contain an interior doorway connection between the single family dwelling and ADU. (m) Permanent Foundations. (1) All ADUs shall be permanently attached to a permanent foundation. (2) A recreational vehicle, commercial coach, trailer, motor home, camper, camping trailer, boat or similar vehicle shall not be used as an ADU. (n) Existing ADUs built before January 1, 1954. For existing ADUs built before January 1, 1954 the following additional criteria shall be met: (1) The ADU shall conform to the requirements of the California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3, and the Uniform Housing Code as adopted by Section 17922; (2) Improvements may be made to the ADU so long as it conforms to the requirements of this chapter and corrects any violation of Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3 and the Uniform Housing Code. 25.59.080 Development standards for junior accessory dwelling units. A junior accessory dwelling unit shall be constructed only in accordance with the following development standards: (a) Location. The JADU may only be located within the walls of an existing or proposed single family dwelling. The JADU must have side and rear setbacks sufficient for fire and safety, as dictated by applicable building and fire codes. 9 (b) Number. Only one (1) JADU shall be permitted per lot which contains an existing or proposed single family dwelling. A JADU may be allowed in conjunction with one (1) detached ADU on the same lot as long as the ADU does not exceed 850 square feet. (c) Minimum size. No JADU shall be smaller than the size required to allow an efficiency unit pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1. (d) Maximum size. The JADU shall not exceed 500 square feet in area. An expansion limited to 150 square foot beyond the physical dimensions of the existing single family dwelling is permitted strictly to accommodate ingress and egress to the JADU; this additional square footage shall be exempt from lot coverage and floor area ratio requirements. The side and rear setback requirements for the single family dwelling may be reduced to no less than four (4) feet to accommodate an exterior stair and landing that provide required access to the JADU if it is located on the second story. (e) Kitchen. The JADU shall contain an efficiency kitchen satisfying the following the criteria: (1) Contains a sink and cooking facility with appliances (e.g., microwave, toaster oven or hot plate). (2) Contains a food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the JADU. (f) Bathroom. The JADU may have a separate bathroom, or may share a bathroom with the single family dwelling. The bathroom shall contain a sink, toilet, and shower or tub. If the bathroom is shared, there must be a connecting door between the JADU and the single family dwelling. (g) Entrance. The JADU shall have a separate exterior entrance from the main entrance to the existing or proposed single family dwelling. The entrance to the JADU shall not face the same public street as the entrance to the primary dwelling, unless it is the only location determined to comply with applicable building and fire codes. A passageway from the ADU to a public street may be created, but shall not be required. (h) A JADU is not considered a separate or new dwelling for purposes of fire safety or life safety. 25.59.090 Accessory dwelling units on multifamily residential properties. The following requirements and restrictions apply to creation of ADUs on multifamily residential properties. (a) For the purposes of this section, the term "multifamily dwelling structure" means two (2) or more residential units contained within one (1) or more buildings on the same lot. (b) Conversion. A minimum of one (1) and up to 25 percent of the existing dwelling units within a multifamily dwelling structure may be created within existing non -livable space(s), including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, provided that the 10 11 dwellings comply with building and fire codes. An ADU shall not be created within any portion of the habitable area of an existing dwelling unit in a multifamily structure. When calculating the number of allowed ADUs based on the percentage of existing multifamily units, round down to the nearest integer. (1) Spaces required as part of a condition of approval or zoning requirement (e.g. bike storage room) cannot be converted to ADUs. (c) New detached ADUs. In addition to ADUs allowed by subsection (b), up to two (2) new detached accessory dwelling units may be allowed provided that the height does not exceed 16 feet and that four (4) foot side and rear yard setbacks are maintained. These ADUs shall be subject to the standards, requirements, and restrictions of this Chapter. (1) New detached ADUs shall not be located between a multifamily dwelling structure and property line abutting a public street; provided, where an existing multifamily dwelling structure is located within the rear 60% of the lot, a detached ADU may be located in front of the multifamily dwelling structure, but not in any portion of the required front setback. (2) There shall be a minimum four (4) foot separation between a detached ADU and any other structure on the lot. 25.59.100 Design. The design of accessory dwelling units shall conform with the following standards: (a) Attached and detached accessory dwelling units. The design of attached and detached accessory dwelling units shall be compatible or complementary in appearance with the primary structure located on the property, including coordination of exterior building materials and other architectural elements. (b) Interior accessory dwelling units. Interior accessory dwelling units contained within the existing space of an attached garage shall include removal of garage doors which shall be replaced with architectural features the same as those of the primary dwelling unit, including the same wall cladding, window type and trim that remove any appearance that the structure was originally a garage. This wall shall contain at least one (1) window that is consistent in size and type with other existing windows on the same building fagade. 25.59.110 Parking. (a) Unless otherwise provided in this section, one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for the ADU in addition to the off-street parking spaces required for the single family dwelling or multifamily residential structure. All parking shall be provided on a hard, all-weather surface. (b) The parking space may be provided in setback areas or as tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions. 12 13 (c) No parking shall be required for an ADU in any of the following instances: (1) The ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit. For the purposes of this section only, public transit is defined as a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public. (2) The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district. (3) The ADU is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an existing accessory structure. (4) When on -street parking permits are required but not offered tothe occupant of the ADU. (5) When there is an established car share vehicle stop located within one block of the ADU. (d) No parking shall be required for a JADU and any parking displaced by its construction, including conversion of all or part of an existing attached garage, are not required to be replaced. (e) When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU or converted to an ADU, those off-street parking spaces are not required to be replaced. 25.59.120 — Utilities and impact fees. (a) No ADU or JADU shall be permitted if it is determined that there is not adequate water or sewer service to the property. (b) Except as provided in subsection (c), an ADU may be required to have a new or separate utility connection, including a separate sewer lateral, between the ADU and the utility. A connection fee or capacity charge may be charged that is proportionate to the size in square feet of the ADU or its drainage fixture unit (DFU) values. Separate electric and water meters shall be required for the ADU. (c) The following ADUs shall be exempt from any requirement to install a new or separate utility connection and to pay any associated connection or capacity fees or charges: (1) Junior accessory dwelling units. (2) Standard ADUs converted from interior space, unless the unit is constructed within a new single-family home. (d) Impact Fees. 14 (1) No impact fees may be imposed on ADUs that are less than 750 square feet in size. For purposes of this section, "impact fees" include the fees specified in Sections 66000 and 66477 of the Government Code, but do not include utility connection fees or capacity charges. (2) For ADUs that have a floor area of 750 square feet or more, impact fees shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. 25.59.130 — Delay of enforcement of building standards. (a) Prior to January 1, 2030, the owner of an ADU that was built before January 1, 2020, may submit a written request to the Chief Building Official requesting that correction of any violation of building standards be delayed for five (5) years. For purposes of this section, "building standards" refers to those standards enforced by local agencies under the authority of Section 17960 of the California Health and Safety Code. (b) The Chief Building Official will grant the application if the Chief Building Official determines that enforcement of the building standard is not necessary to protect health and safety. In making this determination, the Chief Building Official will consult with the Fire Marshal. (c) No applications pursuant to this section shall be approved on or after January 1, 2030. However, any delay that was approved by the city before January 1, 2030, shall be valid for the full term of the delay that was approved at the time of the approval of the application. (d) Until January 1, 2030, any notice to correct a violation of building standard that is issued to the owner of an ADU built before January 1, 2020, shall include a statement that the owner has a right to request a delay in enforcement of the building standard for an ADU pursuant to this section. CHAPTER 25.60 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN R-1 AND R-2 DISTRICTS 25.60.010 Conditional use permit requirements. Accessory structures in the R-1 or R-2 Districts shall be a conditional use requiring a conditional use permit if any of the following will exist: (a) Two (2) or more accessory structures, each having over one hundred twenty (120) square feet gross floor area, will exist on a single lot, except that there may be two (2) accessory structures if one is an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit; (b) Any single accessory structure will exceed six hundred (600) square feet of gross floor area; except that an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit may be up to 850 square feet or 1,000 square feet for two (2) or more bedrooms; 15 (c) All accessory structures on a single lot will exceed a total of eight hundred (800) square feet gross floor area; except that an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit may be up to 850 square feet or 1,000 square feet for two (2) or more bedrooms; (d) An accessory structure will occupy any portion of the lot in front of the main building; provided, where a dwelling has been erected on the rear sixty (60) percent of the lot prior to January 15, 1954, a garage may be erected in front of the main building, but not in any portion of the front setback; (e) An accessory structure will be erected closer than four (4) feet to any other structure on the same lot; (f) Accessory structures will cover more than fifty (50) percent of the rear thirty (30) percent of a lot; an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit shall not be included in this calculation; (g) The plate line of the accessory structure will be more than nine (9) feet above grade at the closest point between the plate line and adjacent grade; except that an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit with a shed (single slope) roof which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit shall be allowed to have a plate height greater than 9 feet on one side of the structure; the plate height of walls parallel with side and rear property lines shall not exceed 9 feet in height; (h) The roof height of the accessory structure will exceed ten (10) feet above grade, except the height may be increased one foot for each foot of separation from an adjacent property line, up to a maximum height of fifteen (15) feet, provided: (1) The roof height of an accessory structure may have a maximum height of fifteen (15) feet above grade when the roof is pitched from ridge to plate on at least two (2) sides, and the ridge is no closer than five (5) feet to a side property line, and the rear plate line does not exceed nine (9) feet above the natural grade; except that an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit may be up to sixteen (16) feet above grade; and (2) No portion of the space within any accessory structure between the top of plate and the lowest portion of the roof structure including any dormer shall exceed seven (7) feet in height; (i) Windows and glazed openings of the accessory structure on walls parallel with property lines located within four (4) feet of the property line; skylights on sloping roofs facing side yards that are located within ten (10) feet of property line or skylights on sloping roofs facing the rear property line; Q) Water or sewer connections to the accessory structure will exceed building code minimums or the accessory structure will contain any shower, bath or toilet, except for an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit; 16 17 (k) The accessory structure will enclose mechanical equipment, excluding air conditioning equipment, which is designed to operate on a regular or continuous basis, which may be objectionable because of loudness, hours of operation, odor or other reason, and which is to be located less than twenty (20) feet from any structure for habitation, or less than ten (10) feet from any property line; provided such shall be allowed without a special permit if the building official approves the structure as adequately sound insulated; (1) Storage of household goods, tools or equipment in the accessory structure will exceed ten (10) percent of the gross floor area of the main dwelling structure; (m) Any portion of the accessory structure will be used for accessory living quarters, recreation purposes or for use in a home occupation; except for an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit does not require a conditional use permit; (n) The accessory structure will be a greenhouse, trellis, lanai, patio shelter or similar structure exceeding one hundred twenty (120) square feet of gross floor area. CHAPTER 25.26 R-1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS 25.26.035 Uses allowed with a special permit. The following are uses allowed in the district with a special permit: (a) Attached garages for single-family dwelling units; (b) Reduction in the number of parking spaces existing on site; except where the on -site parking requirement is met per Chapter 25.70 for the existing units on -site and the reduction in the number of parking spaces is for the purpose of creating an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59; (c) Construction exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope; (d) An accessory structure exempt from setback restrictions located within the rear forty (40) percent of the lot; (e) An accessory structure that is in the rear of the lot and that is more than twenty-eight (28) feet in width or depth, except for an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit; m CHAPTER 25.70 OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS 25.70.010 Vehicle parking spaces to be provided. (a) Parking Required. At the time of erection of any building or structure, or at the time any building or structure is enlarged or increased in capacity, there shall be provided off-street parking spaces with adequate and proper provision for ingress and egress by standard size automobiles. (b) Parking with Remodel or Reconstruction. When any building is remodeled, reconstructed or changed in use by the addition of dwelling units, gross floor area, seating capacity, change in type of use or intensified use, such additional garage or parking facilities as may be required must be provided, except for accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units approved per Chapter 25.59. (c) Minimum Requirements. The regulations which follow are the minimum requirements unless specific requirements are made for a particular use in a district. Additional spaces may be provided. Unless otherwise expressly permitted by a section of this chapter, parking required by this chapter is to be provided on the same lot as the use for which the parking is required. 25.70.030 Requirements for single-family dwellings. The following are parking requirements for single-family dwellings. (a) Parking Space Requirements. Each single-family dwelling shall provide off-street parking spaces for at least two (2) vehicles, one of which must be covered by a garage or carport. The following further requirements apply to certain additions and to new single-family dwellings: (1) An existing single-family dwelling increased in size to three (3) or four (4) bedrooms and a new single-family dwelling with up to four (4) bedrooms shall provide off-street parking spaces to current code dimensions for at least two (2) vehicles, one of which must be covered by a garage or carport; (2) A single-family dwelling hereafter increased in size to five (5) or more bedrooms and a new single-family dwelling with five (5) or more bedrooms shall provide off-street parking to current code dimensions for at least three (3) vehicles, two (2) of which must be covered by a garage or carport; (3) For the purposes of subsections (a)(1) and (2) of this section, an existing garage not less than eighteen (18) feet wide and twenty (20) feet deep interior dimension shall be considered to provide two (2) covered off-street parking places; (4) For additions to existing single-family dwellings, an existing garage with an eighteen (18) foot depth interior dimension shall be considered to meet the dimensional requirements for a parking space; 19 (5) Bedrooms that are within accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units shall not be counted toward the overall number of bedrooms for the primary single-family dwelling on the lot on which it is located; parking for accessory dwelling units shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 25.59. (b) Parking Aisles and Driveways. Covered parking spaces shall have a twenty-four (24) foot back-up area or be designed to be entered or exited in no more than three (3) maneuvers. All spaces must allow entry in three (3) maneuvers in the forward direction. (c) Parking Limitations. (1) A vehicle shall not be parked between a structure and the front or side property line except in a garage, driveway or other approved parking; except for parking for an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59; (2) Inoperative vehicles, vehicle parts, boats and campers (as defined by Section 243 of the Vehicle Code) shall not be stored or parked in driveways or between a structure and front or side property line; (3) Required covered parking shall not be provided in tandem configuration; except for an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59; (4) For an addition to an existing single-family dwelling and for accessory dwelling units, required uncovered spaces may be provided in tandem configuration and may extend: (A) In areas with sidewalks, to the inner edge of the sidewalk, (B) In areas without sidewalks to five (5) feet from the inner edge of the curb, (C) In areas without either sidewalks or curbs, to five (5) feet from the edge of pavement. 25.70.032 Requirements for duplexes, apartment hotels and condominium. (a) Except as specified below for properties within certain portions of downtown Burlingame as identified in Figure 3-4 of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, the following are parking requirements for duplexes, apartments, apartment hotels and condominiums: (1) There shall be at least one and one-half (1 1/2) permanently maintained parking spaces on the same lot with the building for each studio or one -bedroom dwelling unit in the building. (2) For each dwelling unit containing two (2) bedrooms, or two (2) potential bedrooms, there shall be provided at least two (2) parking spaces. (3) For each dwelling unit containing three (3) or more bedrooms, there shall be provided at least two and one-half (2 1/2) parking spaces. c (b) For properties within the area identified in Figure 3-4 of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, the following are parking requirements for duplexes, apartments, apartment hotels and condominiums: (1) There shall be at least one permanently maintained parking space on the same lot with the building for each studio or one -bedroom dwelling unit in the building. (2) For each dwelling unit containing two (2) bedrooms, or two (2) potential bedrooms, there shall be provided at least one and one-half (1 1/2) permanently maintained parking spaces. (3) For each dwelling unit containing three (3) or more bedrooms, there shall be provided at least two (2) permanently maintained parking spaces. (c) Accessory dwelling units. Where accessory dwelling units are allowed in compliance with Chapter 25.59, parking shall be provided with the provisions of Chapter 25.59. (d) Eighty (80) percent of the total required parking spaces shall be covered or within a garage or carport. Parking spaces shall not be situated in the front or side setback areas. A vehicle shall not be parked between a structure and the front or side property lines except in a garage, driveway or other approved parking. (e) Inoperative vehicles, vehicles, vehicle parts, boats and campers (as defined by Section 243 of the Vehicle Code) shall not be stored or parked in driveways or between a structure and front or side property lines. 21 EFFECTIVE PROVISIONS OF 2019 ADU BILLS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65852.2 AS CHAPTERED BY AB 881 65852.2. In Effect Until 2025 (a) (1) A local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of accessory dwelling units in areas zoned to allow single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use. The ordinance shall do all of the following: (A) Designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where accessory dwelling units may be permitted. The designation of areas may be based on exit^ri ^ that may include, but are not limited the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of accessory dwelling units on traffic flow and public safety. A local agency that does not provide water or sewer services shall consult with the local water or sewer service provider regarding the adequacy of water and sewer services before designating an area where accessory dwelling units may be permitted. (13) (i) Impose standards on accessory dwelling units that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, lot eeveFage, I landscape, architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Places. Resources. These standards shall not include requirements on minimum lot size. (ii) Notwithstanding clause (i), a local agency may reduce or eliminate parking requirements for any accessory dwelling unit located within its jurisdiction. (C) Provide that accessory dwelling units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the accessory dwelling unit is located, and that accessory dwelling units are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot. (D) Require the accessory dwelling units to comply with all of the following: (i) The accessory dwelling unit may be rented separate from the primary residence, but may not be sold or otherwise conveyed separate from the primary residence. (ii) The lot is zoned to allow single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use and includes a proposed or existing single-family- dwelling. (iii) The accessory dwelling unit is either attached to, or located within the living area of within, the proposed or existing primary dwelling OF dwelling, including attached garages, storage areas or similar uses, or an accessory structure or detached from the proposed or existing primary dwelling and located on the same lot as the proposed or existing primary dwelling. (iv) The total area of floor -space of If there is an existing primary dwelling, the total floor area of an attached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 50 percent of the prep e ^r existing ^rim^^ aNyelling living area OF 1,200 square feet. existing primary dwelling. (v) The total floor area of floor -space- for a detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 1,200 square feet. (vi) No passageway shall be required in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit. (vii) No setback shall be required for an existing garage living area or accessory structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit or to a portion of an accessory dwelling unit, and a setback of no more than fire four feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit that is constructed above a garage. not converted from an existing structure or a new structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure. (viii) Local building code requirements that apply to detached dwellings, as appropriate. (ix) Approval by the local health officer where a private sewage disposal system is being used, if required. (x) (I) Parking requirements for accessory dwelling units shall not exceed one parking space per accessory dwelling unit or per bedroom, whichever is less. These spaces may be provided as tandem parking on a driveway. (II) Offstreet parking shall be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions. (III) This clause shall not apply to a- an accessory dwelling unit that is described in subdivision (d). (xi) When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit or converted to an accessory dwelling unit, a-x- the local agency requires shall not require that those ^ffo�tat offstreet parking spaces be replaced, the replacement spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the accessory dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, as covered spaces, uncovered spaces, or- tandem spaces, or- by the use A-f mweh-apie-al -aute-mebile par -king lifts. This clause shall net apply to a unit that is dia-serih-ead- in „i,a;,,W ,,, rai replaced. (xii) Accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence. (2) The ordinance shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth. (3) , this -sub-division, the application A permit application for an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit shall be considered and approved ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing, notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906 or any local ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special use permits, wit -kin 120 days aft receiving the application. permits. The permitting agency shall act on the application to create an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit within 60 days from the date the local agency receives a completed application if there is an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot. If the permit application to create an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling on the lot, the permitting agency may delay acting on the permit application for the accessory dwelling unit or the junior accessory dwelling unit until the permitting agency acts on the permit application to create the new single-family dwelling, but the application to create the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall be considered without discretionary review or hearing. If the applicant requests a delay, the 60-day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay. A local agency may charge a fee to reimburse it for costs that it inetir-s as result of amendments to this paragraph enacted dur-ing the 2001 02 Regular- Session of the Legislature-,- e; incurred to implement this paragraph, including the costs of adopting or amending any ordinance that provides for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit. (4) An existing ordinance governing the creation of an accessory dwelling unit by a local agency or an accessory dwelling ordinance adopted by a local agency subsequent to the effective date of the act adding this paragraph shall provide an approval process that includes only ministerial provisions for the approval of accessory dwelling units and shall not include any discretionary processes, provisions, or requirements for those units, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision. in the mo^t that If a local agency has an existing accessory dwelling unit ordinance that fails to meet the requirements of this subdivision, that ordinance shall be null and void upon the eff,,,.t;,,,, a^t Af the act adding this paragraph- and that agency shall thereafter apply the standards established in this subdivision for the approval of accessory dwelling units, unless and until the agency adopts an ordinance that complies with this section. (5) No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the basis for the delay or denial of a building permit or a use permit under this subdivision. (6) This subdivision establishes the maximum standards that local agencies shall use to evaluate a proposed accessory dwelling unit on a lot z^^^a fff- residential that includes a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. No additional standards, other than those provided in this subdivision, shall be utilized used or imposed, including any owner -occupant requirement, except that a local agency may require an applicant for a permit issued pursuant to this subdivision to be an owner- occupant or- that the property be used for rentals of terms longer than 30 days. (7) A local agency may amend its zoning ordinance or general plan to incorporate the policies, procedures, or other provisions applicable to the creation of an accessory dwelling unit if these provisions are consistent with the limitations of this subdivision. (8) An accessory dwelling unit that conforms to this subdivision shall be deemed to be an accessory use or an accessory building and shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot. The accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth. (b) When a local agency that has not adopted an ordinance governing accessory dwelling units in accordance with subdivision (a) receives an application for a permit to create an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to this subdivision, the local agency shall approve or disapprove the application ministerially without discretionary review pursuant to subdivision (a) within 20days—aTte receiving the applicatiop. (a). The permitting agency shall act on the application to create an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit within 60 days from the date the local agency receives a completed application if there is an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot. If the permit application to create an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling on the lot, the permitting agency may delay acting on the permit application for the accessory dwelling unit or the junior accessory dwelling unit until the permitting agency acts on the permit application to create the new single-family dwelling, but the application to create the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall still be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing. If the applicant requests a delay, the 60-day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay. If the local agency has not acted upon the completed application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved. (c) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), a local agency may establish minimum and maximum unit size requirements for both attached and detached accessory dwelling units. (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a local agencyshall not establish by ordinance any of the following: (A) A minimum square footage requirement for either an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit that prohibits an efficiency unit. (B) A maximum square footage requirement for either an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit that is less than either of the following: (1) 850 square feet. (ii)1,000 square feet for an accessory dwelling unit that provides more than one bedroom. {-c} (C) A local agency may establish minimum and maximum unit size requirements for- both -thee h^d^^a d Pet-Ae h^d^ y dw e11in g u nits. NA- r,;,,;,Y,u Any other minimum or maximum size for an accessory dwelling unit, or- size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, shall be established by ordinance or limits on lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, and minimum lotsize, for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an e€€iciene RhAll PAt he required to provide fir-e spr-inkler-s if they are not required feF the pr-imaFy residepee 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit that is at least 16 feet in height with four foot side and rear yard setbacks to be constructed in compliance with all other local development standards. (d) Notwithstanding any other law, a local agency, whether or not it has adopted an ordinance governing accessory dwelling units in accordance with subdivision (a), shall not impose parking standards for an accessory dwelling unit in any of the following instances: (1) The accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit. (2) The accessory dwelling unit is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district. (3) The accessory dwelling unit is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure. (4) When on -street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the accessory dwelling unit. (5) When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit. (e) (1) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) to (d), inclusive, a local agency shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit *^ ^*^ 4.4.4ithiP ^ fOF single family use one accessoF dwelling unit per- single family lot if the I-IRiA J.S C_-A__PA_PJ_P_P_d_. ;Adthin the existing spaee of a single famil Fesidenee eF accesseFy stFuetuFe, ineluding, but not limited to, a studio, pool house, or- etheF similar - if they aFe RE)t FequiFed for- the primary r-esidenee. A city mayFequiFe owneFoccupancy for- eitheFthe r the dwelling T unit- eveatedthFo gh this process. within a residential or mixed -use zone to create any of the following: (A) One accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit per lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling if all of the following apply: (i) The accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is within the proposed space of a single- family dwelling or existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure and may include an expansion of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure. An expansion beyond the physical dimensions of the existing accessory structure shall be limited to accommodating ingress and egress. (ii) The space has exterior access from the proposed or existing single-family dwelling. (iii) The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety. (iv) The junior accessory dwelling unit complies with the requirements of Section 65852.22. (B) One detached, new construction, accessory dwelling unit that does not exceed four foot side and rear yard setbacks for a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. The accessory dwelling unit may be combined with a junior accessory dwelling unit described in subparagraph (A). A local agency may impose the following conditions on the accessory dwelling unit: (i) A total floor area limitation of not more than 800 square feet. (ii) A height limitation of 16 feet. (C) (i) Multiple accessory dwelling units within the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings. (ii) A local agency shall allow at least one accessory dwelling unit within an existing multifamily dwelling and shall allow up to 25 percent of the existing multifamily dwelling units. (D) Not more than two accessory dwelling units that are located on a lot that has an existing multifamily dwelling, but are detached from that multifamily dwelling and are subject to a height limit of 16 feet and four foot rear yard and side setbacks. (2) A local agency shall not require, as a condition for ministerial approval of a permit application for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit, the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions. (3) The installation of fire sprinklers shall not be required in an accessory dwelling unit ifsprinklers are not required for the primary residence. (4) A local agency shall require that a rental of the accessory dwelling unit created pursuant to this subdivision be for a term longer than 30 days. (5) A local agency may require, as part of the application for a permit to create an accessory dwelling unit connected to an onsite water treatment system, a percolation test completed within the last five years, or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years. (6) Notwithstanding subdivision (c) and paragraph (1) a local agency that has adopted an ordinance by July 1, 2018, providing for the approval of accessory dwelling units in multifamily dwelling structures shall ministerially consider a permit application to construct an accessory dwelling unit that is described in paragraph (1), and may impose standards including, but not limited to, design, development, and historic standards on said accessory dwelling units. These standards shall not include requirements on minimum lot size. (f) (1) Fees charged for the construction of accessory dwelling units shall be determined in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000) and Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 66012). (2) AeeessopyLAn accessory dwellings unit shall not be considered by a local agency, special district, or water corporation to be a new residential use for th-c- purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer tee: service, unless the accessory dwelling unit was constructed with a new single-family dwelling. (3) (A) A local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not impose any impact fee upon the development of an accessory dwelling unit less than 750 square feet. Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. (B) For purposes of this paragraph, "impact fee" has the same meaning as the term 'fee" is defined in subdivision (b) of Section 66000, except that it also includes fees specified in Section 66477. "Impact fee" does not include any connection fee or capacity charge charged by a local agency, special district, or water corporation. {fir} (4) For an accessory dwelling unit described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), a local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not require the applicant to install a new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility or impose a related connection fee or capacity charge. charge, unless the accessory dwelling unit was constructed with a new single-family home. {-E} (5) For an accessory dwelling unit that is not described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), a local agency, special district, or water corporation may require a new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility. Consistent with Section 66013, the connection may be subject to a connection fee or capacity charge that shall be proportionate to the burden of the proposed accessory dwelling unit, based upon either its size- square feet or the number of its plumbing Axttir-es, drainage fixture unit (DFU) values, as defined in the Uniform Plumbing Code adopted and published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, upon the water or sewer system. This fee or charge shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service. (g) This section does not limit the authority of local agencies to adopt less restrictive requirements for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit. (h) I Acaf (1) agencies A local agency shall submit a copy of the ordinance adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption. The department may review and comment on this submitted ordinance. After adoption of an ordinance, the department may submit written findings to the local agency as to whether the ordinance complies with this section. (2) (A) If the department finds that the local agency's ordinance does not comply with this section, the department shall notify the local agency and shall provide the local agency with a reasonable time, no longer than 30 days, to respond to the findings before taking any other action authorized by this section. (B) The local agency shall consider the findings made by the department pursuant to subparagraph (A) and shall do one of the following: (i) Amend the ordinance to comply with this section. (ii) Adopt the ordinance without changes. The local agency shall include findings in its resolution adopting the ordinance that explain the reasons the local agency believes that the ordinance complies with this section despite the findings of the department. (3) (A) If the local agency does not amend its ordinance in response to the department's findings or does not adopt a resolution with findings explaining the reason the ordinance complies with this section and addressing the department's findings, the department shall notify the local agency and may notify the Attorney General that the local agency is in violation of state law. (B) Before notifying the Attorney General that the local agency is in violation of state law, the department may consider whether a local agency adopted an ordinance in compliance with this section between January 1, 2017, and January 1, 2020. (i) The department may review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, and standards set forth in this section. The guidelines adopted pursuant to thissubdivision are notsubject to Chapter3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2. {r} 6) As used in this section, the following terms mean: (2) "Local agency" means a city, county, or- city and eotmb�, whether- general law or- chartered. (3) For- purposes of this section, "neighbor -hood" has the sa as set for-th in Section ti [o [�T {4} (1) "Accessory dwelling unit" means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit which that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more per -sons. persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single- family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following: (A) An efficiency unit. (B) A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) "Accessory structure" means a structure that is accessory and incidental to a dwelling located on the same lot. W (3) An efficieney nit, "Efficiency unit" has the same meaning as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code. { 4 (4) . "Living area" means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit, including basements and attics, but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. (5) "Local agency" means a city, county, or city and county, whethergeneral law or chartered. (6) "Neighborhood" has the same meaning as set forth in Section 65589.5. (7) "Nonconforming zoning condition" means a physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards. f-5} (8) "Passageway' means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the accessory dwelling unit. (9) "Proposed dwelling" means a dwelling that is the subject of a permit application and that meets the requirements for permitting. (10) "Public transit" means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public. f44 (11) "Tandem parking" means that two or more automobiles are parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another. (k) A local agency shall not issue a certificate of occupancy for an accessory dwelling unit before the local agency issues a certificate of occupancy for the primary dwelling. {}} (1) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for accessory dwelling units. (m) A local agency may count an accessory dwelling unit for purposes of identifying adequate sites for housing, as specified in subdivision (a) of Section 65583.1, subject to authorization by the department and compliance with this division. (n) In enforcing building standards pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 17960) of Chapter 5 of Part 1.5 of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code for an accessory dwelling unit described in paragraph (1) or (2) below, a local agency, upon request of an owner of an accessory dwelling unit for a delay in enforcement, shall delay enforcement of a building standard, subject to compliance with Section 17980.12 of the Health and Safety Code: (1) The accessory dwelling unit was built before January 1, 2020. (2) The accessory dwelling unit was built on or after January 1, 2020, in a local jurisdiction that, at the time the accessory dwelling unit was built, had a noncompliant accessory dwelling unit ordinance, but the ordinance is compliant at the time the request is made. (o) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65852.22 AS CHAPTERED BY AB 68 65852.22. (a) Notwithstanding Section 65852.2, a local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of junior accessory dwelling units in single-family residential zones. The ordinance may require a permit to be obtained for the creation of a junior accessory dwelling unit, and shall do all of the following: (1) Limit the number of junior accessory dwelling units to one per residential lot zoned for single- family residences with a single-family residence air-eady built -built, or proposed to be built, on the lot. (2) Require owner -occupancy in the single-family residence in which the junior accessory dwelling unit will be permitted. The owner may reside in either the remaining portion of the structure or the newly created junior accessory dwelling unit. Owner -occupancy shall not be required if the owner is another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization. (3) Require the recordation of a deed restriction, which shall run with the land, shall be filed with the permitting agency, and shall include both of the following: (A) A prohibition on the sale of the junior accessory dwelling unit separate from the sale of the single- family residence, including a statement that the deed restriction may be enforced against future purchasers. (B) A restriction on the size and attributes of the junior accessory dwelling unit that conforms with this section. (4) Require a permitted junior accessory dwelling unit to be constructed within the e)Eist4ng walls of the structure, and require the ;,,,a..-;^„ of an ting bedroom. proposed or existing single-family residence. (5) Require a permitted junior accessory dwelling to include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the structure, with an interior- entFy to the main living area. A permitted junior- accessor dwelling m inelude ^ secend interior- door -way fOF sound attenuation. proposed or existing single- family residence. (6) Require the permitted junior accessory dwelling unit to include an efficiency kitchen, which shall include all of the following: {B) (A) A cooking facility with , tur-al o appliances. {C} (B) A food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the junior accessory dwelling unit. (b) (1) An ordinance shall not require additional parking as a condition to grant a permit. (2) This subdivision shall not be interpreted to prohibit the requirement of an inspection, including the imposition of a fee for that inspection, to determine ;•�Pr- if the junior accessory dwelling unit is in compliance complies with applicable building standards. (c) An application for a permit pursuant to this section shall, notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906 or any local ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special use permits, be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing. " permit shall be is -sued .04thin 120 days of submission of an application for- a permit pur-suant to this section-.- The permitting agency shall act on the application to create a junior accessory dwelling unit within 60 days from the date the local agency receives a completed application if there is an existing single-family dwelling on the lot. If the permit application to create a junior accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling on the lot, the permitting agency may delay acting on the permit application for the junior accessory dwelling unit until the permitting agency acts on the permit application to create the new single-family dwelling, but the application to create the junior accessory dwelling unit shall still be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing. If the applicant requests a delay, the 60-day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay. A local agency may charge a fee to reimburse the local agency for costs incurred in connection with the issuance of a permit pursuant to this section. (d) For the- purposes of any fire or life protection ordinance or regulation, a junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered a separate or new dwelling unit. This section shall not be construed to prohibit a city, county, city and county, or other local public entity from adopting an ordinance or regulation relating to fire and life protection requirements within a single-family residence that contains a junior accessory dwelling unit so long as the ordinance or regulation applies uniformly to all single-family residences within the zone regardless of whether the single-family residence includes a junior accessory dwelling unit or not. (e) For th-e- purposes of providing service for water, sewer, or power, including a connection fee, a junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered a separate or new dwelling unit. (f) This section shall not be construed to prohibit a local agency from adopting an ordinance or regulation, related to parking or a service or a connection fee for water, sewer, or power, that applies to a single-family residence that contains a junior accessory dwelling unit, so long as that ordinance or regulation applies uniformly to all single-family residences regardless of whether the single-family residence includes a junior accessory dwelling unit. (g) If a local agency has not adopted a local ordinance pursuant to this section, the local agency shall ministerially approve a permit to construct a junior accessory dwelling unit that satisfies the requirements set forth in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) of Section 65852.2 and the requirements of this section. W (h) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings: (1) "Junior accessory dwelling unit" means a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within an —existing a single-family structure. residence. A junior accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure. (2) "Local agency" means a city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE SECTION 17980.12 AS CHAPTERED IN SB 13 17980.12. (a) (1) An enforcement agency, until January 1, 2030, that issues to an owner of an accessory dwelling unit described in subparagraph (A) or (B) below, a notice to correct a violation of any provision of any building standard pursuant to this part shall include in that notice a statement that the owner of the unit has a right to request a delay in enforcement pursuant to this subdivision: (A) The accessory dwelling unit was built before January 1, 2020. (B) The accessory dwelling unit was built on or after January 1, 2020, in a local jurisdiction that, at the time the accessory dwelling unit was built, had a noncompliant accessory dwelling unit ordinance, but the ordinance is compliant at the time the request is made. (2) The owner of an accessory dwelling unit that receives a notice to correct violations or abate nuisances as described in paragraph (1) may, in the form and manner prescribed by the enforcement agency, submit an application to the enforcement agency requesting that enforcement of the violation be delayed for five years on the basis that correcting the violation is not necessary to protect health and safety. (3) The enforcement agency shall grant an application described in paragraph (2) if the enforcement determines that correcting the violation is not necessary to protect health and safety. In making this determination, the enforcement agency shall consult with the entity responsible for enforcement of building standards and other regulations of the State Fire Marshal pursuant to Section 13146. (4) The enforcement agency shall not approve any applications pursuant to this section on or after January 1, 2030. However, any delay that was approved by the enforcement agency before January 1, 2030, shall be valid for the full term of the delay that was approved at the time of the initial approval of the application pursuant to paragraph (3). (b) For purposes of this section, "accessory dwelling unit" has the same meaning as defined in Section 65852.2. (c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2035, and as of that date is repealed. BiFRL- 1NAGENDA NO: 9c STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: May 18, 2020 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 4, 2020 From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager — (650) 558-7243 Carol Augustine, Finance Director — (650) 558-7222 Kathleen Kane, City Attorney — (650) 558-7204 Subject: Consideration of an Urgency Ordinance Suspending Current Penalties and Assessments for the Tourism Business Improvement District and Adoption of a Resolution Setting a Public Hearing to Modify the 2020 District Assessments in Response to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council consider an urgency ordinance suspending penalties and interest for current assessments and adopt a resolution to establish a public hearing date to modify the 2020 annual assessments for the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District. In order to do so, the Council should: - Receive the staff report and ask any clarifying questions. - Ask the Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. - By motion, waive further reading and introduce the ordinance. - Hold a public hearing. - Discuss the ordinance and resolution and determine whether to adopt them. - By motion, approve the temporary ordinance. This motion would require 4 affirmative votes. - By motion, approve the resolution of intent for future rate modification. BACKGROUND The San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) was formed in 2001 and now has 13 participating cities throughout San Mateo County and the City of Palo Alto in Santa Clara County. Pursuant to the authority provided by the California Streets and Highways Code (section 36500 et seq.), the District collects assessments from the member hotel properties in the District and uses those annual assessments to fund its successful and wide-ranging hotel - business promotional activities. At the end of each year, the Advisory Board of the District files with the City an annual report stating the past year's activities and accomplishments. In addition, the Advisory Board also recommends the assessment for the coming year. In November 2019, the City Council reviewed and approved the TBID Advisory Board's annual report for 2019. In December 2019, the City Council held a public hearing and approved the assessments for the 2020 calendar year. The City of Burlingame is the government entity in charge of administering 1 Urgency Ordinance/ 2020 Assessments - SMC Tourism Business Improvement District May 18, 2020 the assessment and payment procedures for the TBID under an ordinance adopted at its formation. DISCUSSION As a result of the COVID-19 public health emergency, and with 21% of members' room inventory closed, TBID staff approached the City about suspending penalties and interest for current payments due and modifying the assessments it charges its member hotel properties. An urgency ordinance is required to suspend penalties and interest because the ordinance establishing the TBID contains certain mandates in that regard. The urgency ordinance should be voted on at today's meeting. Prospectively, assessments may be modified by resolution after a hearing. The proposed modifications for calendar year 2020 are: Q1 - no change Q2 - assessment suspended for all hotel partners Q3 - assessment reduced 50% Q4 - assessment reduced 50% In order to make these modifications, the Burlingame City Council must hold a public hearing to vote on the new assessments. Therefore, the City Council should adopt the resolution setting a public hearing for June 15. At the hearing, the City Council will determine if a majority protest has been made and, if not, will approve the modification of the 2020 assessments. Notices to the cities and members of the District will be provided by the District staff. FISCAL IMPACT Assessment revenues provide funding for operations and activities of the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District. The City's annual fee for the billing and collection activities performed on behalf of the District (other than those activities pertaining to Burlingame hotels) is $9,300. Other than the administrative fee revenue, there is no impact to the City's budget. Exhibits: • Proposed Urgency Ordinance • Proposed Resolution of Intent • Letter from TBID Board 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME SUSPENDING APPLICATION OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF CITY OF BURLINGAME ORDINANCE NUMBER 1648, RELATING TO DEFICIENCIES AND PENALTIES FOR UNDERPAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS FOR THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT The City Council of the City of Burlingame ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. FINDINGS. WHEREAS, federal, state, and county authorities and the City of Burlingame have all declared a state of emergency relating to the COVID-19 pandemic; and WHEREAS, several concurrent health advisories and orders have radically limited travel and tourism in the area; and WHEREAS, the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) was established to support the tourism and travel industry in San Mateo County; and WHEREAS, that industry has suffered considerable losses due to the current public health emergency; and WHEREAS, Burlingame Ordinance 1648, establishing the TBID, provides certain procedures for assessing deficiencies in payments and imposing penalties; and WHEREAS, the TBID staff and Board have requested that current and future assessments be reduced during the emergency and penalties be waived; and WHEREAS, Burlingame cannot alter mandates of an ordinance administratively without either amending the ordinance itself or providing for a temporary suspension; and WHEREAS, the current public health emergency and the economic hardship it has created for area hotels warrants an urgency ordinance to immediately suspend any penalties for late or reduced payments on TBID assessments; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare to suspend the imposition of penalties for late or non-payment for TBID assessments; and WHEREAS, the City has the authority under its declaration of emergency to take such action to avoid imposing additional, immediate economic harm on area businesses; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Burlingame does hereby find and declare as follows: SECTION 2. SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF ORDINANCE 1648 SUSPENDED. Sections 11 and 12 of Ordinance 1648, relating to the assessment of deficiencies and penalties for late or non-payment of TBID assessments are hereby suspended for the duration of San Mateo County's declared emergency or through January 1, 2021, whichever occurs first. SECTION 3. INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE. The City Council does hereby declare this action to be an interim urgency ordinance enacted under the powers of the City of Burlingame. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. Enforcement of this interim urgency ordinance shall commence on May 18, 2020, or on the date of its adoption, whichever is later. SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and such section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 6. This is an interim urgency ordinance and requires a 4/5 vote of approval of all of the members of the City Council and goes into effect immediately upon its adoption. SECTION 7. This interim urgency ordinance shall be published once within fifteen (15) days of its adoption. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall have it posted in three (3) public places designated by the City Council. ATTEST: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk Emily Beach, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney I hereby certify that foregoing Interim Urgency Ordinance No. was adopted at a regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council on 12020 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO REDUCE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND APPROVING DISTRICT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE YEAR 2020 WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq., the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District ("District" herein) has been established for the purpose of promoting tourism in the District; and WHEREAS, the District Advisory Board requested the Burlingame City Council to establish calendar year 2020 assessments for the District; and WHEREAS, on November 4, 2019, the City Council approved the District report and adopted a resolution of intention declaring its intent to impose assessments for the calendar year 2020 and setting and noticing a public hearing about the proposed assessments for December 2, 2019; and WHEREAS, notices were provided to the hotel businesses within the District as required by law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Streets & Highways Code, a public hearing on the proposed assessments was duly held on December 2, 2019, at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, at the Council Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Streets and Highways Code, the City Council determined at the conclusion of the public hearing that a majority protest had not been made as to the proposed assessments or as to any proposed program or activity for the District and adopted the 2020 assessments proposed by the Board; and WHEREAS, the City has administered the 2020 assessments according to the adopted schedule from December 2019; and WHEREAS, in light of the COVID-19 public health emergency, and its impacts on the local hotel industry, the District Advisory Board has decided to reduce the assessments for calendar year 2020. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve, determine, and find as follows: 1. It is proposed that the assessments for calendar year 2020 shall be as provided in the approved schedule, except that such assessments will be reduced as follows: • Quarter 1: no change • Quarter 2: 100% reduction • Quarter 3: 50% reduction • Quarter 4: 50% reduction These changes shall be evaluated at the public hearing provided for in this resolution. 2. A public hearing on the proposed reductions in assessments for the year 2020 is hereby set for June 15 at 7:00 p.m., before the City Council of the City of Burlingame. Such hearing shall occur via a virtual meeting as permitted under the State emergency executive orders, the logon for which shall be published at www.burlingame.org. At the public hearing, the City Council will receive testimony and evidence; and interested persons may submit written comments before or at the public hearing via email at publiccomment@burlingame.org, or they may be sent by mail or delivered to the City Clerk, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. 3. Oral or written protests may be made at the hearing. To count in a majority protest against the proposed assessment for the 2020 year, a protest must be in writing and submitted to the City Clerk at or before the close of the public hearing on June 15, 2020. For purposes of this section, "written" protests include those conveyed by email. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of that public hearing. Each written protest shall identify the hotel and its address. If the person signing the protest is not shown on the official records of the City of Burlingame as the owner of the hotel, then the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person is the owner of the hotel. Any written protest as to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceeding shall be in writing and clearly state the irregularity or defect to which objection is made. 4. If at the conclusion of the public hearing, there are of record written protests by the owners of hotels within the District which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District, as to the proposed reductions in assessments for the 2020 year, no reduction in assessment for the 2020 year shall occur. 5. Further information regarding the proposed assessments and procedures for filing a written protest may be obtained from the City Clerk, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, phone 650-558-7203. 6. The City Clerk is instructed to provide notice of the public hearing by publishing this Resolution in a newspaper of General circulation in the City of Burlingame in accordance with the requirements of the Government and Streets & Highways Codes and mailing in accordance with those requirements and Ordinance No. 1648 and 1678. 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 on the 18th day of May, 2020, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk SAN MATZO COUNTY SILICON VALLEY The best of the Scan Francisco Boy Area May 8, 2020 Convention and Visitors Bureau 111 Anza Boulevard, Suite 410, Burlingame, CA 94010 650-348-7600 - 1-800-288-4748 Fax 650-348-7687 info@visitsmcsv.com - www.visitsmcsv.com TO: Burlingame City Council Members and Burlingame City Attorney The COVID-19 health crisis caused an immediate halt to travel causing an unprecedented downward spiral to hotel occupancy. For the month of March, our member hotels experienced a 62% decline in revenue; Palo Alto hotels experienced a 73% decline. Smith Travel Research (STR) predicts hotels will see a 90% decline in revenues for Q2 with a gradual increase as travel restrictions ease and traveler sentiment begins to improve. STR predicts the hotel revenues will decline by at least 50% for 2020. Many of our hotel partners temporarily ceased operation until travel returns to sustainable levels. In San Mateo County, 20% of the guest room inventory is "closed"; in Palo Alto the "closed" rate is higher at 31%. Our hotel members were forced to furlough thousands of their employees. Hotels that remain open are operating with occupancy rates in the single digit/mid-teen range. To assist its hotel members during this unprecedented crisis, on April 17, 2020 the Bureau's Executive Board unanimously adopted the following change to the assessment calculation for 2020: • Q2, April -June 2020 — assessments suspended • Q3, July -September 2020 —assessment reduced by 50% • Q4, October -December 2020 — assessment reduced by 50% The Executive Board authorized the Bureau's President & CEO to engage in dialogue with the City of Burlingame to set in motion the necessary administrative steps to implement this change. The Executive Board recognizes that asking for the assessment to be modified is an unusual but necessary request given the dire financial situation in which its members find themselves. We are recommending that the City Council modify the District for 2020. We are requesting that the City Council adopt a Resolution of Intention to modify the TBID assessments in order to alleviate an additional financial burden on our hotels during this unprecedented time. Sincerely, /J�o u t a r President and CEO Mitch Postel Chair of the Board BORLINGAME To: Date: From: STAFF REPORT Honorable Mayor and City Council May 18, 2020 AGENDA NO: 10a MEETING DATE: May 18, 2020 Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Michael Tsai, Transportation Engineer — (650) 558-7236 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Draft Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations Report Prepared by TJKM Transportation Engineers RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the draft Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations report prepared by TJKM Transportation Engineers. BACKGROUND On May 23, 2018, the City held a Town Hall meeting with residents from Lyon Hoag and adjacent neighborhoods to provide them with an opportunity to share their concerns about cut -through traffic and speeding with the City Council and staff. The Town Hall also gave staff an opportunity to educate attendees about potential solutions to address many of their concerns. During the Town Hall meeting, one of the major concerns the residents expressed was speeding traffic. As an immediate follow up, the Burlingame Police Department conducted an education and enforcement campaign in the Lyon Hoag area between June 8, 2018, and August 31, 2018. During the two -month campaign, traffic stops, citations, and passing checks all saw sharp increases when compared with previous years. The full Police Department report is attached. The Police Department is continuing enforcement in the affected areas as part of their targeted speed enforcement program. In October 2018, the City hired TJKM Transportation Engineers to conduct a comprehensive traffic engineering study in the affected area to investigate resident concerns and identify feasible solutions. DISCUSSION The project study was divided into three main phases in order to: obtain community input regarding concerns, perform traffic studies and data analysis, and then develop preliminary solutions/recommendations with prioritization of various improvements. Residents were involved 1 Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Report May 18, 2020 in each phase, and the draft report presents solutions intended to address not only issues on individual streets but also issues in the area as a whole. Data Collection Speeding and cut -through traffic were the two main concerns residents expressed at the public workshops and in the online survey. Vehicle speeds and volumes were gathered at over 30 locations, and while the overall speeds were within the typical ranges for 25 mph streets, there was a degree of speeding on certain streets. To investigate cut -through traffic, a company called StreetLight Data was utilized to provide origin and destination information based off of anonymized data gathered from smart phones and navigation devices on the roadway. Complete data charts for each category are included in the Draft Report. Outreach TJKM Transportation Engineers conducted an extensive public outreach process that included: - Three community workshops with the neighborhood; - Three citizen advisory panel meetings with select neighborhood leaders; - An online website with 118 unique responses; - One project update to the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission; and - One project update to City Council. Recommendations Traffic calming improvements are typically implemented through an iterative process as they involve changing of traffic patterns and behaviors, and continued monitoring and adjustments. The draft report has therefore categorized improvements based on their complexity and deliverability into three phases. Phase 1: The first phase includes treatments that can be installed relatively quickly such as striping, signage, and temporary islands. The total estimated cost for Phase 1 ranges from $930,000 - $980,000 (figures rounded). Below is a summary of improvements under this phase. • Trial road humps at eight locations • High visibility crosswalks at 24 intersections • Striped traffic circles and/or median islands at 11 intersections • Additional curb marking, signage and striping improvements at various locations Phases 2 and 3: The second and third phases include treatments that are more complex such as permanent traffic circles and bulbouts, which would require extensive engineering design, and construction. The total cost for phase 2 is estimated to range from $590,000 - $620,000. For Phase 3, the estimated cost ranges from $1,700,000 - $1,800,000 (figures rounded). Below is the summary of improvements under these phases. • Permanent road humps at up to eight locations • Speed feedback signs at seven locations 2 Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Report May 18, 2020 • Striped bulbouts with delineators followed by permanent bulbouts at 10 locations • Permanent traffic circles at five locations Please refer to the attached Draft Report for details. Ongoing Analysis and the Iterative Approach Data and observations will be gathered after each phase is completed to assess the effectiveness of the improvements and whether additional improvements are needed. A minimum of one year is recommended for this analysis, which includes an immediate qualitative check after implementation, comprehensive data gathering at four months, and a selective final data gathering after a minimum of ten months. FISCAL IMPACT The following are the range of estimated costs for complete project development including completion of engineering design, specifications and contract documents, construction, and project management as recommended in the attached Draft Report. Phase One Improvements Phase Two Improvements Phase Three Improvements Total $930,000 - $980,000 $590,000 - $620,000 $1,700,000 - $1,800,000 $3,220,000 - $3,400,000 Staff has requested funding for the first phase of improvements as part of the FY 2020-21 budget. Exhibits: • Resolution • PowerPoint Presentation • Lyon Hoag Draft Report • BPD Lyon Hoag Education and Enforcement Campaign Report 3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE DRAFT LYON HOAG AND ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS TRAFFIC CALMING STUDIES & RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT PREPARED BY TJKM TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS WHEREAS, residents residing in Lyon Hoag and the adjacent neighborhoods have raised concerns about cut -through traffic and speeding in their neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, on May 23, 2018, the City held a community meeting with residents to provide a forum to share concerns with the City Council and staff and to educate attendees about potential solutions to address many of their concerns; and WHEREAS, on October 1, 2018, the City hired TJKM Transportation Engineers to conduct a comprehensive traffic engineering study in the affected area to investigate resident concerns and identify feasible solutions; and WHEREAS, the project study process was divided into three main phases: obtain community input regarding concerns, perform traffic studies and data analysis, and develop preliminary solutions/recommendations with prioritization of various improvements; and WHEREAS, vehicle speeds and volumes were gathered at over 30y locations, and while the overall speeds were within the typical ranges for 25 mph streets, there was a degree of speeding on certain streets; and WHEREAS, to investigate cut -through traffic, a company called Streetlight Data was utilized to provide origin and destination information based off of anonymized data gathered from smart phones and navigation devices on the roadway; and WHEREAS, TJKM Transportation Engineers conducted an extensive public outreach process that included multiple community workshops and citizen advisory meetings with the neighborhood, an online website to collect feedback, and project updates to the City Council and Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission, and WHEREAS, as result of the efforts above, the draft report has categorized improvements based on their complexity and deliverability into three phases; and WHEREAS, phase 1 includes treatments that can be installed relatively quickly such as striping, signage, and temporary islands; and WHEREAS, Phases two and three include treatments that are more complex, such as permanent traffic circles and bulb -outs, which would require extensive engineering design and construction; and WHEREAS, data and observations will be gathered after each phase is completed to assess the effectiveness of the improvements and whether additional improvements are needed; and WHEREAS, staff has informed residents in the area of the draft report and provided then with an opportunity to give their comments to staff prior to City Council approval. NOW, THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED, ORDERED AND FOUND by the City Council of the City of Burlingame, State of California, as follows: The foregoing recitals are true and correct. 2. The City Council approves the Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations Draft Report and implementation of traffic calming measures as proposed in the Draft Report. 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 18th day of May, 2020, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Project Area Map _ _a Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Project Goals ✓ Engage with residents to understanc_ concerns • Formed Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP) made up of 3 members of TSPC and 3 residents to serve as a steering committee ✓ Identify and study traffic -related issues ✓ Develop effective strategies to address concerns Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Project Overview Citizen Citizen Citizen Advisory Advisory Advisory Panel Panel Panel Meeting #3 Meeting #1 Meeting #2 TSPC 9/4/2019 2/2019 5/7/2019 Meeting 8/8/2019 -L Data— m Analysis J • i—Analysis1 r — • 1 01 1 Community I i �n►,...�,.�,,.� 4f, Community I r r v■ 01w an E%.r -- + Workshop #2 • workshop 93 2/26/2019 6/10/2019 I 10/2/2019 Retained TJKM to Studies City Council Update 9/3/2019 Lyon Hoag Traffic Calming Community Outreach Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Outreach Efforts LYON•HOAG d ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS TRAFFIC CALMING Project Overview B.d -nd lrmltp MaWaw r..yenlwA w..ry ..rrrr Mew,w Project Website Online Survey (118 responses) COMMUNITY WORK! IDate Camedonj Tuesday, February 26, 2019 6.00 PM - 8.00 PM Location: Burlingame Recreation Center 850 Burlingame Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Please join us to discuss conems regarding trafic, safety and parking concerns in your rreighborhocd. ❑ Please visit proje www-tvonh1.. . . Or ❑ " ' inputto take a survey. Your p the suemss of this projeds:dll qR CACE using )av rtprlE tleHaemxa.s [ne prgec[xee�. Postcards 3 Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP) Meetings before every Workshop • January 22, 2019 before Workshop 1 (February 26, 2019) • May 7, 2019 before Workshop 2 (June 10, 2019) • September 4, 2019 before Workshop 3 (October 2, 2019) Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Community Workshops Community Workshop 1 (Listening Session) Trw OL �. J Community Workshop 2 (Feedback on Preliminary Alternatives) Community Workshop 3 (Feedback on Final Alternatives) Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Community Workshops Cut - Through Traffic Speeding Major Concerns Parking Sight Distance Lyon Hoag & Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming CITY UNGAME Recommended Solutions 'P PORATED � Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Recommended Solutions e Centerline / Parking Lane Marking Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Red Curb Extension Median Island Road Hump (Trial and High Visibility Speed Crosswalk Feedback Sign o Bulbout (Trial and Permanent) Traffic Circle (Trial and Permanent) Permanent) c� h °fir yz ; �d' gvoC � J vy0 � va Sya� ova a $urlingame High 5�hool washingron Eleme�rtary Gad �!! �� Schad P �� "Mod commercwl YctoriaP a IN �aP Q Stop Sign (p Existing 5top5ignl ✓ s Bulbout � Red Curb Extension Median Island 1�\ % Pacific aim ® Rectangular Rapid Flashing beacon mtemanonal Q permanent Speed Feedback Sign / nad Traffic Circle uIIR High Visibility Crosswalk (Yellow) uu High Visibility Crosswalk (White) Standard Ladder Crosswalk (White) Road Hump Centerline/Parking Lane Marking c - - r .� �z'� 3 eommercwi ti r �pc` r', Yctoria Pa t - _ "�¢c r ai _ ♦S� '� of ! � i- ♦i r- � r � e?Z11 o- High � e ♦i Visibility�\w.� a ° Howard Ave and C intersectic rnN wnrw CITY O #' *a✓4 a RPORATEU 4 \ a •i 0 a / jr� Washington 9 ,,♦i, �e ; ElemeMary Gw ♦i„�♦ 11 r. Q Stop Slgn (® Existing Stop Sign school PiP ♦ o� . a / Qe r • Bulbout • Red Curb Extension d5a-.,\ � Median Island ! * ♦� / Ndk Rim • Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon �1,1 /� Interndttonal Permanent Speed Feedback Sign Traffic Circle ° alit High Msibildty Crosswalk (Yellow) un High >CslbilityCrosswalk WNW — Standard Ladder Crosswalk (White) i Road Hump Centerline/Parking Lane Marking s Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming High Visibility Crosswalk Howard Avenue and Dwight Road Intersection �` f New 4-way High Visibility Crosswalks r at 4-way Stop' 9: h - a • \ •ORPORATE1 •� � — ----t-Read--� -. - "1 -1. � I KOC f-A Yctoria P ��'•� - --, oar ♦ �_,�. 'rF Oa Cod QP° � ♦�4 `?b . �} �_. ♦ I $urlingame � ?9 �' Righ school Pp ♦ � ♦ �°lac �� � �i' � a s sh ♦ `tea , . - Wash'rogton Park \ Cj / r �� a •� iA� ♦ P a I ♦ h • i�v� ✓ ♦ N washingron elementary Gw \i„\\ S�aP/ �. Q Stop Sign (p Existing Stop Sign � � � . � . � • / I School -`O/P � cF i 0 Bulbout Red Curb Extension Median Island Caltrain Station ?a I� ,Z\\ /� Pa,ifia pig, ® Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon mtemanonal Q Permanent Speed Feedback Sign ,t\\ s�nool Traffic Circle s • olio HiHigh>rsihif]ty Crosswalk (Yellow) uu High Visibility Crosswalk (White) — Standard Ladder Crosswalk (White) BURLINGME — Road Hump •� � A� Centerline/Parking Lane Marking Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Bulbouts Striped Bulbouts with Delineators Detached Bulbouts Full Bulbouts 3 Yctoria- - - �I ♦�h t � ♦ ate'?9 � - � PP ,t • Baca �� � s \ �9h \ a •i 0 a /i wohinglon v ♦obi ae Ele..Mary Gw `�� ♦�` SJ0 4� Stop Slgn (® Existing Stop Sign I _ xnow Pi ♦ o Bulbout � Red Curb Extension 9�f �� ♦� N Median Island ?P \ ?a 1� ,\1�� �� vanes plm Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon m eernaeonal permanent Speed Feedback Sign %�j,�♦♦ s�nooi F Traffic Circle ° uIIR High Vlsibildty Crosswalk (Yellow) inn High Visibility Crosswalk WNW — Standard Ladder Crosswalk (White) + Road Hump Centerline/Parking Lane Marking s Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Traffic Circle - �-' Rollins Road �z9 commercial Victoriah � \% oar ♦ 1 •�,� a 01 Awo . ` Traffic Circle at Bayswater Ave ChdJ:�{ HigHig hngame 7�'9 -„ ✓/j� h Schooland Bancroft Rd intersection yP eat ♦y Washington Park • j i� �� �o o p v- 4 - �� a \ s Wn,hi tlarnenniry�a4�� V� © Stop Sign (a Existing Stop Sign 1 a f Qe /- � Bulbout '� �i� 9� \\�� • Red Curb Extension 0 Median Island Downtown 6urlingame �y7P I \ / Ca€train Station Ca \� / vacific Aim Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon \ international ,t\\� School Permanent Speed Feedback Sign Traffic Circle � olio High Visibility Crosswalk (Yellow) uo High VisibilityCrosswalk Crosswalk — Standard Ladder Crosswalk (White) - - _ — Road Hump BUR�"�NGAME' i'* :¢ - Centerline/Parking Lane Marking Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Traffic Circle r ff-i ``�� �r Bayswater Avi• 77 PA I dirk -T a � • Intersection of Bayswater Avenue and Bancroft Road Ronirn Road �z9 commemllai VicmnaP a`t `o. e Burlingame High School / �� _ Air Washington Park � j i� i• eo o cp � - 4 - �� a 19 wa, a O`'°r��,- Z` • elemheixery Stop Slgn (® Existing Stop Sign 1 'i I scnod -Pik, a � Q1/ 0 Bull �i OG � Red Curb Extension • Median island Downtown Burlingame Ca€train Station vaclec Aim • Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon mtemariooal O permanent Speed Feedback Sign i • • Burlingame Ave and hoa Traffic Circle HIM High Msibility Crosswalk (Yellow) East Lane • intersection Rill High Visibility Crosswalk (white) Standard Ladder Crosswalk (White)) , Road Hump BUf2� �NG.4ME Centerline/Parking Lane Marking Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Bulbouts Intersection of Burlingame Avenue and East Lane � Y 4�e �e vyo paw Burlingame High School Washington Park 5 Downtown Burl ingattle J Ca€train Station BURLINGAME Rollirn Road 3 commemal Ac Victoria High Visibility Crosswalks, Stop Sign at Howard Ave• • ♦♦♦' tiI Victoria • intersection ,eF �a�1 �a�eP ,+�� � �/odvp, • + P ♦y i +j+� +• eoo cps- 4 - a washingrun N fie: Stop Slgn (® Existing Stop Sign 1 ,op schod -PiP �cs a I Qe /- • Bull AA, • Red Curb Extension •- Median island PPP. �j ��� / Paclec Alm • Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon International 0 permanent Speed Feedback Sign Traffic Circle ulRl High Visibility Crosswalk (Yellow) -� - Rill High Visibility Crosswalk (white) 4 Standard Ladder Crosswalk (White) 1� _ — Road Hump Centerline/Parking Lane Marking ! ' v Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming High Visibility Crosswalk, Stop Sign Howard Avenue and Victoria Road Intersection q •, r, New 4-way High Visibility Crosswalks and Stop Signs at Howard Avenue approaches J C u* J t •; �f� r . r Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Other Solutions - Road Hump Y_ 40 {. .h . Trial Road Hump and Permanent Road Hump Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Other Solutions - Centerline, Edgeline Marking Existing Cross - Section of Bayswater Ave Proposed Cross - Section of Bayswater Ave Lyon Hoag Traffic Calming Implementation Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Implementation by Phase Phase • Low-cost solutions • Trial Phase for high -cost, permanent solutions such as Traffic Circles, Road Humps • Improved striping Phase • Medium -cost solutions • Trial Phase for high -cost, permanent solutions such as Bulbouts • Permanent Road Hump if successful in Phase I • High -cost signage Phase • High -cost solutions • Permanent Traffic Circles and Bulbouts if successful in Phase I and Phase II ��� commer�iai /: �\ II Viciorla Park Pie o'ye O� Burlingame \`, f / \� High School Washington Park Downtown Burlin ame Caltrein Station BURLINGAME ® a ♦ Washington Elementary 10 Stop Sign (® Existing Stop Sign) Patin s - Red Curb Extension 0 Median Island i Trial Traffic Circle I ' • ] £ J� .. f ru#II High Visibility Crosswalk (Yellow) .:', X,4.�:. uu High Visibility Crosswalk (White) t, 4� a Standard Ladder Crosswalk (White) Trial Road Hump Centerline/Parking Lane Marking ,. -. Rahlns Road - -Z commerdai - ,�°� Vlcioria Park .. bier �a3 +• . °fir • � .. a3 Oa �e�oo° �ePJz . ��d • • a O,a "Pa • H PP t 0 Burlingame \ 79 High,11-1 90, �°jai mil � i 9p sh \ 9a Washington Park a 3 11 ,. �a�����aQ • Washington 9 ae � ��P • Elementary '� \aDowntown School -cs� r•97?d HI � . Y Caltrain Station, ,�Pa -- Padhc 1, N mtem `�%.;� (�, .� �. • Bwho�tw�thoe�'neator • `'a.,,w _ ,t/r. Recrangular Rap d Hashing Beacon 0 Permanent Speed Feedback Sian BURLINGAME CHI ~S' — RoadH—p Washington Park E Downtown Burlin ame Caltrain Station BURLINGAME v y�a`l o� PJz �a �a �d •?YL p0 y� P y.. �e PadSc 1, _ /' ��'+'• 'N ��va;0 Bulb—u D—hed/Full) 1 , Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Cost Estimates Phase $930k - $980k • Low-cost solutions • Trial Phase for high -cost, permanent solutions such as Traffic Circles, Road Humps • Improved striping Phase $590k - $620k • Medium -cost solutions • Trial Phase for high -cost, permanent solutions such as Bulbouts • Permanent Road Hump if successful in Phase I Phase $1.7m - $1.8m • High -cost solutions • Permanent Traffic Circles and Bulbouts if successful in Phase I and Phase II Duestic LYDn HOAG AND ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS TRAFFIC CALMING STUDIES S RECOMMENDATIONS DRAFT APRIL 24, 2020 9 \"�PORAT 1/ Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations LYON HOAG AND ADJACENT NEIGHB0RH0005 TRAFFIC CALMING STUDIES 5 RECOMMENDATIONS DRAFT APRIL 24, 2020 Prepared for: City of Burlingame Prepared by: TJKM Transportation Consultants JT KM WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT City Council Traffic Safety and Parking Commission Emily Beach, Mayor Lynn Israelit, Chair Ann O'Brien Keighran, Vice Mayor Howard Wettan, Vice Chair Ricardo Ortiz, Councilmember Chris Bush, Commissioner Michael Brownrigg, Councilmember Donna Colson, Councilmember Project Citizen Advisory Panel Chris Bush Lynn Feeney Laura Hesselgren Jeff Londer John Martos Jennifer Pfaff Jeff Londer, Commissioner John Martos, Commissioner Project Staff Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works Art Morimoto, Public Works Department Andrew Wong, Public Works Department Michael Tsai, Public Works Department Consultant Team TJKM Transportation Consultants Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY................................................................................................................. 1 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1 1.1 Goals and Objectives................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Plans and Policies.......................................................................................................................2 2. EXISTING CONDITION...............................................................................................................3 2.1 Data Collection.........................................................................................................................4 2.2 Transit service.........................................................................................................................23 2.3 Existing Field Inventory.................................................................................................................24 2.4 Roadway segment..................................................................................................................... 27 3. COMMUNITY OUTREACH...........................................................................................................39 3.1 Outreach Purpose and Objectives........................................................................................................40 3.2 Major Outreach Tools..................................................................................................................40 3.3 Outreach Feedback....................................................................................................................41 4. NEEDS ANALYSIS..................................................................................................................49 4.1 Community Needs.....................................................................................................................50 4.2 Feasibility............................................................................................................................61 5. RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC CALMING SOLUTIONS.....................................................................................63 6. PRIORITIZATION & PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES....................................................................................71 6.1 Phase I Improvements (Near Term)........................................................................................................72 6.2 Phase II Improvements (Medium Term).....................................................................................................77 6.3 Phase III Improvements (Long Term).......................................................................................................83 LIST OF FIGURES FigureES-1. Study Area........................................................................................................................2 Figure ES-2. Lane Width Correlation with Higher Speeds.............................................................................................3 Figure ES-3. Major Cut -Through Routes (Weekday Average)..........................................................................................5 Figure 1. Major Cut -Through Routes (Weekday Average in vpd).......................................................................................7 Figure 2. Motor Vehicle Speeds (in mph)..........................................................................................................13 Figure 3. Existing Lane Geometry (Intersection 1 to 12)..............................................................................................17 Figure 4. Existing Lane Geometry (Intersection 13 to 21).............................................................................................18 Figure 5. Existing Vehicular Turning Movements and Peak Hour Volumes (Intersection 1 to 12)..............................................................19 Figure 6. Existing Vehicular Turning Movements and Peak Hour Volumes (Intersection 13 to 21)............................................................ 20 Figure 7. Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes (Intersection 1 to 12).................................................................................21 Figure 8. Existing Pedestrian and Bike Volumes (Intersection 13 to 21)................................................................................. 22 WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations & Figure 9. Traffic Controls, Crosswalk Markings, Speed Dips, and Signs................................................................................ 25 Figure 10. Percentage of Vehicles Traveling Above or Below 25 mph Speed Limit....................................................................... 53 Figure 11. Major Cut -Through Routes (Weekday Average).......................................................................................... 59 Figure 12. Recommended Traffic Calming Solutions................................................................................................ 69 Figure 13. Phase I Improvements (Near Term)..................................................................................................... 75 Figure 14. Concept for Striped Bulbouts with Delineator............................................................................................ 79 Figure 15. Phase II Improvements (Medium Term).................................................................................................. 81 Figure 16. Concept for Detached Bulbout........................................................................................................ 84 Figure 17. Concept for Full Bulbout.............................................................................................................. 84 Figure 18. Concepts for Traffic Circle............................................................................................................ 84 Figure 19. Concept for Bulbouts at the intersection of Burlingame Avenue and East Lane.................................................................. 85 Figure 20. Phase III Improvements (Long Term).................................................................................................... 87 LIST OF TABLES Table ES-1. Travel Lane Widths & Speeds within Study Area.......................................................................................... 4 Table 1. Average Daily Traffic(vpd).............................................................................................................. 5 Table 2. 851h Percentile Motor Vehicle Speeds (mph)............................................................................................... 10 Table3. Speed Survey Results................................................................................................................. 51 Table 4. Overall Results of Analysis Showing Number of Cars between Origin (rows) and Destinations (columns) ............................................ 56 Table 5. Overall Results of Analysis Showing Percentage of Cars Traveling between Origin (rows) and Destinations (columns) .................................. 57 Table 6. Phase I Traffic Calming Solutions and Cost Estimate......................................................................................... 72 Table 7. Phase II Traffic Calming Solutions and Cost Estimate........................................................................................ 77 Table 8. Phase III Traffic Calming Solutions and Cost Estimate........................................................................................ 83 APPENDICES APPENDIX A - Programs, Policies and Goals APPENDIX B - Traffic Data Counts B 1 - Average Daily Traffic and Speed Survey B2 - Turning Movement Counts APPENDIX C - Online Survey Results APPENDIX D - Community Workshop Summary D1 - Community Workshop Summary D2 - Community Workshop Comments Master Table APPENDIX E - Burlingame Police Department: Lyon -Hoag District Education and Enforcement Campaign APPENDIX F - Design Feasibility for Traffic Circles and Bulbouts APPENDIX G - Stop Warrant Analysis WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM This page intentionally left blank. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 40 Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations This report describes a study of traffic calming options for the area known as Lyon Hoag & Adjacent Neighborhoods in Burlingame, aimed at developing comprehensive traffic calming solutions in response to resident concerns. Through a collaborative effort that included a review of existing conditions, extensive community outreach, and analysis, the study identified recommended traffic calming measures to address community concerns. The study area, as shown in Figure ES-1, is bordered by Oak Grove Avenue to the north, Peninsula Avenue to the south, California Drive to the west, and Humboldt Road to the east. The study area is further divided into three neighborhoods: Lyon Hoag (West of Dwight Road), Victoria Park (East of Dwight Road), and Oak Grove Manor. Study Purpose The City of Burlingame undertook the study in response to resident concerns about cut -through traffic and speeding through the neighborhood by drivers avoiding Peninsula Avenue, a major east -west arterial that connects with US 101 northbound on and off -ramps. In addition, residents also expressed concerns about a proposed Peninsula Avenue Interchange project by the City of San Mateo that would relocate the US 101 Figure ES-1. Study Area southbound ramps from Poplar Avenue to Peninsula Avenue, and potentially impacting the frequency of cut -through traffic. Existing Condition Findings The existing conditions review included a review of existing roadway characteristics and traffic conditions on neighborhood streets within the study area. The neighborhood streets within the study area have speed limits of 25 miles per hour (mph), or 15 mph near schools that are in session, while travel lane widths vary. Motor Vehicle Speeds & Travel Lane Widths Travel speeds often correlate with lane widths. One of the most cost-effective solutions to reduce motor vehicle travel speeds can be simply reducing the width of car lanes and reallocating the space for other uses, such as bike lanes or wider sidewalks. As stated in the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)'s Urban Street Design Guide: "motor vehicle lane widths of 10 feet are appropriate in cities and towns and have a positive effect on a street's safety without affecting traffic operations. Reduced ® EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations V lane widths would also result in reduced crossing distances for pedestrians". Figure ES-2 shows the typical correlation between lane widths and motor vehicle speeds based on research cited by NACTO. Table ES-1 shows the travel lane widths and 85th percentile travel speeds on the neighborhood streets within the study area. The 85th percentile travel speeds were found to range from 22 to 32 mph within the neighborhood. Based on the travel lane widths Wider travel lanes are correlated with h1ghervehIclespeeds. Average Lane width rfeet converted from meters) ,",a - 62.1 58-0 55.9 52.9 E x g 49.7 7 46.& 43.5 n E 40.4 a n N 373 e 34�2 M 31.1 and speed comparison above: • Travel speeds are higher on the neighborhood streets with wider lane widths. Most streets within the study area have 11-foot travel lane widths, and those streets were found to have overall 85th percentile travel speeds of 27 to 29 mph. • Travel speeds are lower on the neighborhood streets with narrower lane widths. Those streets with travel lane widths of 10 feet (Channing 'As thew idt h of the lane in creased. Regros s ton Ll ne the speed an the roadway increased,,, When lane widths are 1 m (3.3 ft) greater, • 85th parcentcte speeds are predicted to be 15 kmlh speed of Traffle (9.4 mph) faster." Chart SDurce: RtEpatrick, Kay, Paui carlson.Maecus Brewer, and Mark wooldrioge. 2000. "Oeskgn FacPors That Affect ❑river511eedan5utsurhan5treets." Transportation Research Recarri3751: 19-25. 12M4 Figure ES-2. Lane Width Correlation with Higher Speeds la's" Road, Bancroft Road, Stanley Road, and Burlingame Avenue) were found to have overall 85th percentile travel speeds of 24 to 26 mph, more than 10 percent lower than the streets with wider lanes. WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4WLyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations Table ES-1. Travel Lane Widths & Speeds within Study Area LtreetNarnepq Channing Road Tra I Lair Zidthl 8 feet Motor Vehicle Speeds Average 24 mph (85t' Percentile) Range' 22 to 25 mph Bancroft Road 8 feet 25 mph 24 to 27 mph Stanley Road 8 feet 25 mph 24 to 25 mph Victoria Road 8 feet 26 mph 25 to 26 mph Burlingame Avenue 10 feet 26 mph 23 to 29 mph Arundel Road 11 feet 27 mph 26 to 28 mph Clarendon Road 11 feet 27 mph 25 to 28 mph Anita Road 11 feet 28 mph 27 to 29 mph Bloomfield Road 11 feet 28 mph 27 to 29 mph Humboldt Road 11 feet 28 mph 27 to 28 mph Dwight Road 11 feet 29 mph 28 to 29 mph Howard Avenue 11 feet 29 mph 23 to 33 mph Bayswater Avenue 14 feet 29 mph 29 to 32 mph Notes: 'Travel Lane Width on unstriped roadways is one-half of the 2-way travel width, determined by subtracting 7 feet on each side where on -street parking is permitted (thus 14 feet is subtracted from the curb -to -curb width to determine the 2-way travel width where on -street parking is permitted on both sides). 2Speed survey was conducted at different locations along the streets EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations 40 Traffic Volumes Traffic volumes within the study area were found to be highest on Dwight Road, Howard Avenue, Bayswater Avenue, Burlingame Avenue, and Humboldt Road. With the exception of Burlingame Avenue - the streets with the highest volumes were also among those streets with wider travel lanes and higher travel speeds. A N Origin/Destination southbound Rollins Road southbound California Drive Westbound Peninsula Avenue Northbound Dwight Road Cut -Through Traffic Non-residential traffic, including commute and school traffic, was one of the top concerns of the residents of Lyon Hoag and adjacent neighborhoods. Also referred to as cut -through traffic, non-residential traffic is often attributed to traffic diversion from the congested City arterials during peak commute hours. The perceived cut -through traffic in the study area was investigated using a location -based service (LBS) that Figure ES-3. Major Cut -Through Routes (Weekday Average) captures smartphone users by their GPS signals. The result of the analysis revealed that, though considered insignificant in volumes, some degree of cut -through traffic was found within the study area, with some non- resident drivers using neighborhood access streets as alternate routes to major arterials. The popular routes observed among non-residential road users are shown in Figure ES-3. For additional details refer to Table 4. :mac• ��+ WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations qqw Street Parking Demand Observed on -street parking conditions indicated that parking demand was higher in the proximity of commercial areas and sometimes spilled over into residential blocks. However, this does not create an immediate need to increase public parking supply within the study area as parking was observed to be available along the majority of the neighborhood streets. The City's Residential Permit Parking Program is a potential mechanism to address the aforementioned concerns of residents of Lyon Hoag and the adjacent neighborhoods. Community Outreach A vital component of any successful project is to have a robust community outreach process. Hearing from residents of the community affected by the project fosters trust and communication between the residents and the City, and provides solutions that have the backing of the community. Outreach not only identifies issues but also develops plausible countermeasures to mitigate the mentioned concerns. The target audience includes residents in Lyon Hoag, Victoria Park, and Oak Grove Manor. The community outreach process included a project website, survey, stakeholder meetings, and three community workshops. The objectives of the outreach were to: • Provide neighborhood awareness of the project; • Solicit and summarize concerns pertaining to traffic calming and parking, using various outreach methods and platforms; • Obtain neighborhood consensus on summarized concerns; • Provide the residents with technical knowledge on data, analysis, traffic calming measures, and strategies; • Identify holistic traffic calming and parking issues based on neighborhood concerns and technical analysis; • Develop implementable strategies and improvement projects that thoroughly address neighborhood concerns; • Obtain neighborhood feedback and suggestions on improvement strategies and street design concepts; • Refine planned strategies and projects based on feedback and suggestions; and • Obtain a neighborhood consensus to support the final plan. Key Concerns of Community The most common type of concern that community members expressed was related to traffic speed, mainly through the school zone along Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue. The participants claimed that high speeding vehicles are a significant concern on the streets of the neighborhoods, especially on the major arterials. Residents also believed that the lack of four- way stop signs along some of the major intersections lead drivers to pass through without paying attention to pedestrians. The second most discussed concern both in the workshops and in the online survey is the issue of cut - through traffic. In the online survey, approximately 79 percent of the respondents said that cut -through traffic is one of the major issues dealt with by the community. When asked to prioritize and rank issues between 1 and 7 (with 7 the most important), respondents prioritized the issue of cut -through traffic with a score (weighted average) of 5.29. Residents indicated that cut -through traffic has increased in the wake of drivers being routed by their GPS apps off of the major arterials and onto the neighborhood streets. Drivers also run through the neighborhood as streets like Bayswater Avenue, Howard Avenue, Dwight Road, and Bloomfield Road have direct access to the US- 101 freeway. Residents stated that this causes a lot of speeding through the neighborhoods and congestion at the junction of Peninsula Avenue and Dwight Road. Residents also indicated that the supply of unused on -street parking in the neighborhoods has decreased with increasing population and limited parking outside the surrounding neighborhoods. The participants of the workshops voiced concerns regarding new developments that might exacerbate an already overcrowded parking condition. Lack of parking at businesses along Humboldt Road and in the City of San Mateo has also caused people to park commercial and customer vehicles within the neighborhoods. Residents have also stated that parking at intersections cause limited visibility for drivers and is unsafe during turns. Residents also ® EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations V noted that non-residents leave their vehicles parked on neighborhood streets long term, taking app-based cab rides to the nearby San Francisco International Airport or other destinations. In the online survey, 62 percent of respondents expressed that parking intrusion from non-residents is one of the major concerns related to traffic and safety. When asked to prioritize and rank issues between 1 and 7(with 7 the most important), respondents prioritized the need for new parking restrictions with a score (weighted average) of 3.73. Participants expressed that most of the intersections in the study area have sight distance issues, where it is challenging to observe oncoming cars while making right turns. Residents indicated that this could be attributed to cars or over -sized trucks parked at intersections, wide -angled intersections, limited stop signs in the interior roads, and fewer red curbs at the corners of intersections. Residents believe that many intersections have thus become accident-prone for both pedestrians and vehicles. The wide -angled intersections that lead onto Rollins Road also obstruct the view from high speeding traffic on Rollins Road. Recommended Traffic Calming Measures Proposed traffic calming solutions were developed based on the outreach efforts and preliminary engineering verifications in the field. Best practices were referenced, including NACTO and Burlingame's adopted Residential Traffic Calming Program. The proposed improvements would provide visual and physical cues to slow drivers, making the streets more inviting to people of all ages and abilities, and develop connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists. Proposed locations for the measures are described in detail in Chapter 5. Figure 12 shows the recommended traffic calming solutions for the entire neighborhood. The key types of improvement recommendations include: • Pavement markings that designate parking lanes and narrow the width of motor vehicle lanes to 10 feet to reduce vehicular speeds. • High visibility crosswalks at intersection approaches or mid -block crossing locations as permitted. These are preferable to standard parallel pavement markings as they are more visible to approaching vehicles and have shown to improve yield behavior. • Speed feedback signs to alert drivers of their speeds. Speed feedback signs are typically installed along with speed limit signs. • Road humps (with cutouts for emergency vehicle unaffected access) to reduce passenger car speeds. They can be offset to allow unhindered passage by emergency vehicles and typically used on crucial emergency response routes. Road humps and road cushions should not be installed on bus routes. • Median striping islands at select intersections that require drivers to make slight maneuvers, resulting in slower vehicle speeds. • Parking restrictions with red curbs on some segments to restrict vehicles from stopping, standing, or parking at locations with sight distance constraints or locations where clearance must be accommodated. • Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at select crosswalk locations that provide pedestrian crossing warning signs with yellow flashing lights. Pedestrian push buttons activate these lights • Corner bulbouts that extend curbs to reduce pedestrian crossing distances at crosswalks. These bulbouts visually and physically narrow the roadway, creating safer and shorter crossings for pedestrians. • Traffic circles at select intersections using simple markings or raised island, best applied in conjunction with plantings that beautify the street and the surrounding neighborhood. They require drivers to maneuver through an intersection, thus reducing speed of traffic in the corridors. WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations Implementation The plan is recommended to be implemented in three phases that will incorporate low-cost measures such as signage, striping and quick installs in the near term (Phase 1), medium -cost with minimal engineering solutions in the medium term (Phase 11), and high -cost extensive engineering solutions in the long term (Phase 111). After each phase, an improvement monitoring analysis should be conducted prior to implementing the next phase and incorporate changes as deemed appropriate based on monitoring data. Phasing recommendations are described in Chapter 6. Preliminary Estimated Costs The overall preliminary cost estimate for the recommended solutions ranges from $932,960 to $979,608 for Phase I; $588,000 to $617,400 for Phase 11; and $1,736,000 to $1,822,800 for Phase III. Cost estimations by phases are described in Chapter 6. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM INTRODUCTION 4WLyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations In response to community concerns regarding the cut -through traffic, speeding, and parking issues, the City of Burlingame has developed the Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhood Traffic Calming Studies and Recommendations, which are aimed at enhancing traffic safety and mobility for all modes of transportation. As part of the project, the City initiated studies to understand community concerns and develop solution to address those concerns. A holistic approach was applied to achieve the vision of a calm and safe neighborhood street network that serves the residents and road users of all ages and abilities. The study identified infrastructure improvements throughout the neighborhoods that will alter the existing streetscape with traffic calming strategies and devices. To develop a sustainable impact on the safety of the residential streets, the project aims to alter the streetscape features of the streets with traffic calming devices. Traffic calming is defined as a process to reduce vehicular speeds and manage traffic concerns. It is comprised of strategies and engineering solutions to improve safety for all modes and, mitigate the impact on residential neighborhoods and school zones, thus, enhancing the quality of life. Through a collaborative effort that included input from City staff and extensive community outreach, a list of traffic calming measures has been identified to tackle the issues that the residents have identified. With these measures, the streets will have visual and physical cues to slow drivers, making the streets more inviting to people of all ages and abilities, and develop connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists. The plan will be implemented in three phases an incremental, iterative approach to change traffic behavior. It will incorporate low-cost measures such as signage, striping, and quick installs in the near term, medium cost, minimal engineering solutions in the medium term, and high -cost extensive engineering solutions in the long term. 1.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The primary goal of the project was to develop a comprehensive traffic calming strategies to reduce vehicular speeds, cut -through traffic, and parking issues on the neighborhood streets within the study area in response to residents' concerns. The key objectives of the study are as follows: • Assess and validate public concerns through engaging community members in the decision - making process • Identify challenges to and opportunities for calming traffic and providing safe access to road users and residents • Enhance transportation infrastructure with projects that are context -sensitive and sustainable • Implement priority projects that will benefit the residents and achieve the overarching goals in the near term • Develop preliminary cost estimates and a robust phasing mechanism that allows the City to plan for funding opportunities and implementation 1.2 PLANS AND POLICIES The study builds on the City's efforts to enhancing safety and mobility for all modes of transportation. In order to develop an in-depth understanding of the existing condition, several previously prepared plans and policies have been reviewed. This includes the following planning documents, programs, and processes: • City of Burlingame General Plan, • Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, • El Camino Real Task Force, • Downtown Specific Plan, • Sidewalk Repair Program, and • Residential Traffic Calming Program Information Booklet A brief review of the relevant plans and studies is provided in Appendix A. © INTRODUCTION WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM EXISTING CONDITION 4WLyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations Understanding the existing transportation infrastructure and traffic patterns within the study area is essential for identifying key constraints, opportunities, and priority locations for traffic calming improvements. This section summarizes the existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transit system, roadway system, and safe routes to schools within and around the three neighborhoods: Lyon Hoag, Victoria Park, and Oak Grove Manor. Relevanttraffic data, including average daily traffic (ADT), intersection turning movement counts, speed survey, and origin -destination data, was collected to establish a baseline traffic condition for the analysis. 2.1 DATA COLLECTION Average Daily I raffic (AV i I Average daily traffic (ADT) data was collected on 34 roadway segments throughout the study area. 24 hour, bi-directional counts were conducted on the following dates: September 26 - 28, 2018 and October 17 - 19, 2018. Table 1 summarizes the ADT data collected at the roadway segments within the study area demonstrated with vehicles per day (vpd). Under the existing conditions, the highest volume of traffic was experienced on Dwight Road, Howard Avenue, Bayswater Avenue, Burlingame Avenue, and Humboldt Road. Figure 1 shows the Average Daily Traffic volume in each segment. EXISTING CONDITION WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations ** Table 1. Average Daily Traffic (vpd) 1 Street Name Burlingame Avenue between Myrtle Road and Anita Road Wednesday E./NB W./S. 1,128 1,268 Thursday E./NB W./S. 1,201 1,286 Friday E./NB W./S. 1,252 1,332 Average E./NB 1,194 W./S. 1,295 Weekday Total 2,442 2 Burlingame Avenue between Bloomfield Road and Clarendon Road 720 562 663 546 745 586 709 565 1,246 3 Burlingame Avenue between Dwight Road and Stanley Road 357 243 345 319 374 279 359 280 632 4 Burlingame Avenue between Bancroft Road and Victoria Road 286 182 271 193 305 211 287 195 466 5 Rollins Road between Burlingame Avenue and Dwight Road 1,548 1,805 1,540 1,844 1,617 1,767 1,568 1,805 3,369 b Howard Avenue between Myrtle Road and Anita Road 1,819 1,759 1,863 1,866 1,858 1,874 1,847 1,833 3,654 7 Howard Avenue between Bloomfield Road and Clarendon Road 1,469 1,280 1,406 1,286 1,557 1,461 1,477 1,342 2,721 8 Howard Avenue between Dwight Road and Stanley Road 1,025 1,000 974 1,060 1,090 1,173 1,030 1,078 2,030 9 Howard Avenue between Bancroft Road and Victoria Road 903 840 851 884 997 988 917 904 1,739 10 Bayswater Avenue between Myrtle Road and Anita Road 1,259 1,368 1,315 11439 1,348 1,455 1,307 1,421 2,691 11 Bayswater Avenue between Bloomfield Road and Clarendon Road 1,136 1,189 1,107 1,126 1,210 1,264 1,151 1,193 2,279 12 Bayswater Avenue between Dwight Road and Stanley Road 841 1,121 844 1,074 923 1,117 869 1,104 1,940 13 Bayswater Avenue between Bancroft Road and Victoria Road 812 884 832 828 908 904 851 872 1,678 14 Peninsula Avenue between Arundel Road and Bloomfield Road 8,138 8,659 7,772 8,592 8,120 9,284 8,010 8,845 16,581 15 Peninsula Avenue between Dwight Road and Stanley Road 10,174 8,902 9,731 8,491 10,045 9,347 9,983 8,913 18,649 16 Peninsula Avenue between Bancroft Road and Victoria Road 10,780 10,582 10,226 10,536 10,674 11,294 10,560 10,804 21,062 17 California Drive between Burlingame Avenue and Howard Avenue 8,645 7,151 8,808 6,888 9,221 130 8,891 4,723 15,746 18 California Drive between Bayswater Avenue and Peninsula Avenue 8,064 8,067 8,407 7,931 8,566 8,137 8,346 8,045 16,235 19 Anita Road between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue 483 414 488 424 516 459 496 432 905 20 Anita Road between Bayswater Avenue and Peninsula Avenue 486 491 470 465 503 539 486 498 956 21 Arundel Road between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue 353 421 331 1 416 385 444 356 427 1 761 WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM EXISTING CONDITION �w Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations Table 1 (Continued). Average Daily Traffic (vpd) rWednesday # 22 Street Name Bloomfield Road between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue E./NB W./S. 333 614 Thursday E./NB W./S. 349 632 Friday E./NB W./S. 380 621 Average E./NB 354 W./S. 622 Weekday Total 964 23 Bloomfield Road between Bayswater Avenue and Peninsula Avenue 308 496 315 514 295 551 306 520 817 24 Clarendon Road between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue 169 234 166 204 215 248 183 229 387 25 Clarendon Road between Bayswater Avenue and Peninsula Avenue 231 224 249 204 279 210 253 213 454 26 Dwight Road between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue 1,373 1,855 1,292 1,686 1,309 1,639 1,325 1,727 3,103 27 Dwight Road between Bayswater Avenue and Peninsula Avenue 1,444 1,948 1,495 1,996 1,500 1,880 1,480 1,941 3,442 28 Stanley Road between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue 146 121 155 102 149 133 150 119 262 29 Channing Road between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue 162 146 160 116 156 119 159 127 292 30 Bancroft Road between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue 98 120 97 111 103 99 99 110 213 31 Victoria Road between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue 137 182 139 173 145 187 140 181 316 32 Humboldt Road between Bayswater Avenue and Peninsula Avenue 2,389 2,968 2,497 2,817 2,741 2,651 2,542 2,812 5,336 33 Humboldt Road between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue 1,613 1,987 1,754 1,755 1,962 1,636 1,776 1,793 3,555 34 Amphlett Boulevard between Peninsula Avenue and Bayswater Avenue 417 970 376 793 471 720 421 828 1,278 EXISTING CONDITION WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Rollins Road 3,369 IF Commercial Victoria Park 4p L ,. r � S ° Pie S SA AOO Burlingame 1' L High School Cy t7 o ,? o� 015 Washington Park 901 CQ> Pie `9��x40 ,p rhd� Washington rye Elementary 0 �aP� J School S>g6 Downtown -= Burlingame Cy N } Caltrain Station 9�� Pacific Rim In •_/; -� ,r- �,. �Lr� ,� .9 '�� �'� ternational / 0�P �bo� s6 pc' \b Ak --I -WA, School Average DailyTraffic (ADT) Figure 1. Major Cut -Through Routes (Weekday Average in vpd) WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM nWatiaQ Performing as Center EXISTING CONDITION This page intentionally left blank. Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations 40 Motor Vehicle Speeds A three-day, 24-hour speed survey was conducted at the same locations as ADT to collect 851h percentile speed. This data was collected three consecutive days: September 26 - 28, 2018. The 85'h percentile speed is defined as the speed that 85 percent of drivers drive at or below under free -flowing conditions. The current speed limit for all the neighborhood collectors and local residential streets within the neighborhoods is 25 mph. Speed limits are higher on the arterial streets that border the neighborhood: the speed limit on Rollins Road and Peninsula Avenue is 35 mph. Table 2 summarizes the 85'h percentile speed collected at the roadway segments within the project area. The 85'h percentile speed indicates that the following roads have higher speeds: Rollins Road, Howard Avenue, Bayswater Avenue, Dwight Road, Bloomfield Road, Humboldt Road, and Anita Road. Figure 2 shows the 85'h percentile motor vehicle speeds on each segment, demonstrated in miles per hour (mph). WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM EXISTING CONDITION i __ Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations Table 2. 85'' Percentile Motor Vehicle Speeds (mph) Fl. Street Name Burlingame Avenue between Myrtle Road and Anita Road Posted Speed Limit 25 Wednesday EB/NB 23 WB/SB 23 Thursday EB/NB WB/SB 23 23 Friday EB/NB WB/SB 23 23 Average EB/NB WB/SB 23 23 2 Burlingame Avenue between Bloomfield Road and Clarendon Road 25 27 27 27 26 27 27 27 27 3 Burlingame Avenue between Dwight Road and Stanley Road 25 26 26 26 25 26 26 26 25 4 Burlingame Avenue between Bancroft Road and Victoria Road 25 29 27 28 26 27 25 28 26 5 Rollins Road between Burlingame Avenue and Dwight Road 35 43 40 43 40 43 41 43 41 6 Howard Avenue between Myrtle Road and Anita Road 25 26 28 27 28 27 27 27 27 7 Howard Avenue between Bloomfield Road and Clarendon Road 25 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 8 Howard Avenue between Dwight Road and Stanley Road 25 25 23 24 23 25 23 25 23 9 Howard Avenue between Bancroft Road and Victoria Road 25 34 32 33 32 33 32 33 32 10 Bayswater Avenue between Myrtle Road and Anita Road 25 28 28 28 27 28 28 28 28 11 Bayswater Avenue between Bloomfield Road and Clarendon Road 25 29 I 29 29 29 28 29 29 29 12 Bayswater Avenue between Dwight Road and Stanley Road 25 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 13 Bayswater Avenue between Bancroft Road and Victoria Road 25 31 32 31 32 31 31 31 32 14 Peninsula Avenue between Arundel Road and Bloomfield Road 35 38 32 38 32 38 32 38 32 15 Peninsula Avenue between Dwight Road and Stanley Road 35 32 I 29 33 29 33 28 32 29 16 Peninsula Avenue between Bancroft Road and Victoria Road 35 37 34 37 33 37 33 37 33 17 California Drive between Burlingame Avenue and Howard Avenue 30 29 I 29 29 29 29 33 29 30 18 California Drive between Bayswater Avenue and Peninsula Avenue 30 33 32 33 32 32 32 32 32 19 Anita Road between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue 25 27 28 27 28 27 28 27 28 20 Anita Road between Bayswater Avenue and Peninsula Avenue 25 28 29 29 29 28 29 28 29 21 Arundel Road between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue 25 28 27 27 26 27 26 27 26 22 Bloomfield Road between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue 25 28 28 29 28 29 28 29 28 23 Bloomfield Road between Bayswater Avenue and Peninsula Avenue 25 28 28 28 28 27 27 28 27 24 Clarendon Road between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue 25 25 26 26 26 28 27 26 26 25 Clarendon Road between Bayswater Avenue and Peninsula Avenue 25 27 28 27 27 28 26 27 1 27 EXISTING CONDITION WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations 40 Table 2 (Continued). 85' Percentile Motor Vehicle Speeds (mph) I? 26 Street Name Dwight Road between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue Posted Speed Limit 25 Wednesday EB/NB 29 WB/SB 29 Thursday EB/NB WB/SB 29 29 Friday EB/NB WB/SB 29 29 Average EB/NB WB/SB 29 29 27 Dwight Road between Bayswater Avenue and Peninsula Avenue 25 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 Stanley Road between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue 25 25 25 26 24 25 24 25 24 29 Channing Road between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue 25 25 22 25 22 25 23 25 22 30 Bancroft Road between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue 25 27 25 25 25 25 24 25 25 31 Victoria Road between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue 25 26 I 26 26 25 26 25 26 25 32 Humboldt Road between Bayswater Avenue and Peninsula Avenue 25 28 27 28 28 28 28 28 28 33 Humboldt Road between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue 25 29 28 28 27 29 27 29 27 34 Amphlett Boulevard between Peninsula Avenue and Bayswater Avenue 30 37 37 37 1 37 37 37 37 37 WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM EXISTING CONDITION Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations This page intentionally left blank. ® EXISTING CONDITION WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Burlingame School High School Washington Park Cd//f Or��O Downtown 4 14 Burlingame }_ Caltrain Station KYf 06. __ d� r Figure 2. Motor Vehicle Speeds (in mph) WWW.LYONHOAGIRAFFICCALMING.COM Rollins Road s . _ a.` rw :� Washington Elementary School 43(41) I Commercial J �6 J o 11 _)9��9J \� d y O Cv rco -w Col Sow a r o i CY ^' 9� Pacific Rim In- ternational c, ��,�ti1 School 85th Percentile Speed �' !: NB/EB(SB/WB) OK (miles per hour) EXISTING CONDITION 40 This page intentionally left blank. Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations 40 Intersection Volumes Pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle counts were collected at 21 intersections in and around the project area. The intersection of Howard Avenue and Bloomfield Road saw the highest bicycle volume of all 21 intersections, while the intersection of Carolan Avenue and East Lane saw the highest pedestrian volume. The results suggest that most pedestrian and bicycle volumes are on Bloomfield Road, Burlingame Avenue, Howard Avenue, Bayswater Avenue, and Humboldt Road. Detailed counts at the intersections can be found in Appendix B. Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the lane geometry of all intersections. Figure 5 and Figure 6 represent the existing vehicular turning movement counts. Figure 7 and Figure 8 represent the pedestrian and bicyclist turning movement counts. Counts were collected on November 14, 15 and 29, 2018 for AM peak (8 a.m. to 10 a.m.), mid -day peak (12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.) and PM peak (5 p.m. to 7 p.m.). © Study Intersection s WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM EXISTING CONDITION Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations This page intentionally left blank. EXISTING CONDITION WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Intersection #1 Intersection #2 Intersection #3 California Dr. / North Ln. East Ln.-Carolan Ave. / North Ln. Bloomfield Rd. / Burlingame Ave. a; a' �. 2 + + 0 North Ln. North Ln. Driveway Burlingame Ave. ® o v .E V s w O _O m Intersection #4 Intersection #5 Intersection #6 Clarendon Rd. / Burlingame Ave. Dwight Rd. / Burlingame Ave Rollins Rd. / Burlingame Ave. urlingame Ave. Burlingame Ave. Burlingame Ave. ®-4 0 - C V Intersection #7 California Dr. / Howard Ave Intersection #8 Bloomfield Rd. / Howard Ave Intersection #9 Clarendon Rd. / Howard Ave. 4 1 L r f, Howard Ave. Howard Ave. Howard Ave. ® a - V 0 O O m c v m U Intersection #10 Dwight Rd. / Howard Ave. Intersection #11 Humboldt Rd. / Howard Ave. Intersection #12 California Dr. / Bayswater Ave. Howard Ave. Howard Ave. Bayswater Ave. 0 + + 0 4 m 3 E = _o — m V Figure 3. Existing Lane Geometry (Intersection 1 to 12) LEGEND OX Study Intersection ID Stop Sign Traffic Signal WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM EXISTING CONDITION Intersection #13 Intersection #14 Intersection #15 Bloomfield Rd. / Bayswater Ave. Clarendon Rd. / Bayswater Ave. Dwight Rd. / Bayswater Ave. ft 0 Bloomfield Rd. Bayswater Ave. Bayswater Ave. a' N C O � T m v R V 3 Q Intersection #16 Intersection #17 Intersection #18 Humboldt Rd. / Bayswater Ave. California Dr. / Peninsula Ave. Arundel Rd. -Woodside Way / Peninsula Ave. 3 v ® a 0 E�1 + + 3 1 Bayswater Ave. Peninsula Ave. Peninsula Ave. ® + c w = w V 3 Q Intersection #19 Intersection #20 Intersection #21 Clarendon Rd. -Claremont St. / Peninsula Ave. Dwight Rd. -Delaware St. / Peninsula Ave. Humboldt Rd. / Peninsula Ave. ® 0 o 91 V + v Q Peninsula Ave. Peninsula Ave. Peninsula Ave. 06 ® o W L 9 � V � Figure 4. Existing Lane Geometry (Intersection 13 to 21) LEGEND OX Study Intersection ID Stop Sign 9 Traffic Signal EXISTING CONDITION WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Intersection #1 Intersection #2 Intersection #3 California Dr. / North Ln. North Ln. / East Ln.-Carolan Ave. Bloomfield Rd. / Burlingame Ave. a O o m m ^' 0 [2] (2) N m 108 [271 (71) �_ u 38 [16] (37) N om n 61 [25] (103) North Ln. I 13 [3] (10) Burlingame Ave. tr North Ln. Driveway �1 t 37 [11] (15) o n o_ 205 [48] (63) I I 54 [38] (57) ` ° `n 14 [21 (12) m `" 5 [8] (8) m 83 [601 (86)� ° v o " m U N O o ^� V V - M m Intersection #4 Intersection #5 Intersection #6 Clarendon Rd. / Burlingame Ave. Dwight Rd. / Burlingame Ave Rollins Rd. / Burlingame Ave. .-. N .-. 00 OD M lD 00 n w v F 51 [22] (31) v Co o F- 20 [7] (12) y 0 [1] (2) �-- 5 [2] (3) N J Burlingame Ave. Burlingame Ave. Burlingame Ave. 3[1](7)� (� t 6[2](7)� v 58 [36] (55) d I C v 26 [15] (22) �_ �_ 32 [111 (15) 6 [4] (4) G u u 35 [21] (7) m O 10 [131 (9) o v W Ol M � U N lD Intersection #7 Intersection #8 Intersection #9 California Dr. / Howard Ave Bloomfield Rd. / Howard Ave Clarendon Rd. / Howard Ave. o_ O M +-56 [561 (58) t-6 [51 (8) v +-6 [31 (4) o v N F 132 [81 ] (15 1) ^ 0 113 [661 (98) m -0— 111 [731 (106) f-67 [321 (54) ,--0 [21 (2) f-4 [31 (1) Howard Ave. Howard Ave. Howard Ave. 85 [1141 010) t r* 23 [121 (25) --a 1 [71 (6) 149 [811 (152)—► 00 M a 0 0 74 [87] (128)—► 0 m v 79 [77] (124) m o v 86 [127] (118) N o 13 [61 (12) v m " 1 [41 (8) o " C v 6 O 7 r` t0 tD C l0 M m OD lD N Do m V D m U Intersection #10 Intersection #11 Intersection #12 Dwight Rd. / Howard Ave. Humboldt Rd. / Howard Ave. California Dr. / Bayswater Ave. n O v ° +-7 [81 (12) � � t-1 [101 (4) m N +-68 43 48 [ ]( ) N j j F78 [591 (75) rn M J F-14 [12] (13) `^ �73 [40] (69) L. �11 [81 (12) �12 [151 (8) L. f-59 [261 (10) 'i Howard Ave. Howard Ave. Bayswater Ave. 8 ---� (� t I 2 [4] (9) t 29 [271 (38)� t [51 (7) m 9 26 24 [ 1 ( ) ? 82 [501 (83)� 42 [62] (86) —� C 51 [32] (56) `Nr, 'a 39 [251 (35) ""� o N N o ° ip 29 [631 (82)� m, o N m N n = V m O Figure 5. Existing Vehicular Turning Movements and Peak Hour Volumes (Intersection 1 to 12) LEGEND () Study Intersection ID XX AM Peak Hour Volumes [XX] Midday Peak Hour Volumes (XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM EXISTING CONDITION Intersection #13 Intersection #14 Intersection #15 Bloomfield Rd. / Bayswater Ave. Clarendon Rd. / Bayswater Ave. Dwight Rd. / Bayswater Ave. o C Lg v L2 M v [5] (6) v [5] (10) L 9 [91 O m �I0 � 76 [72] (98) O J F 109 [70] (94) °emu° E—1 ] ( 1 y f-12 [21 (5) f-4 [1] (2) [) er 2016] (21) Bayswater Ave. Bayswater Ave. Bayswater Ave. 4 [8] (13) I 3 [4] (6) I 10 [6] (8) t I 124 [731 (98) —> o m 80 [71 ] (93)—> co 49 [491 (62) —> 8 [71 (21) v u u 5 [61 (3) o eo r w 41 [30] (27) O a V 0 N 0 0 v o m '3 u1 M [0 00 N p U u N W Intersection #16 Intersection #17 Intersection #18 Humboldt Rd. / Bayswater Ave. California Dr. / Peninsula Ave. Arundel Rd. -Woodside Wy. / Peninsula Ave. n a N v +_9 [101 (9) m opo m o � v w ° v o L24 [111 (34) o IF 4-17 t-223 [273] (299) M^J n r 0 4--534 v rn [251 (25) 00 r- N v `°' �234 [2001 (279) [533] (664) I^ �41 [451 (41) t. r32 [351 (69) y y f-93 [751 (102) Peninsula Ave. Bayswater Ave. Peninsula Ave. 9 [101 (7)- t 27 [121 (18) a 6 [71 (7)� I t a'o Z a,v 585 [4281 (544) � 0 a N 23 [201 (26)� N v 268 [1711 (242) �i a ^ 33 [23] (35) 2 w `, v 76 [27] (32)� o u 2 u 22 [32] (27) $ w m � °D N u E u 2 m Intersection #19 Intersection #20 Intersection #21 larendon Rd. -Claremont St. / Peninsula Ave. Dwight Rd. -Delaware St. / Peninsula Ave. Humboldt Rd. / Peninsula Ave. N v N � o w �6 [5] (27) � v N �95 [161 (116) =v �_ " t-145 [136] (145) m m o I F636 [6081 (583) `2 4-568 [4871 (491) o F-713 [727] (737) y �5 [211 (13) tJ �6 [1061 (17) y I 4--12 [1851 (200) Peninsula Ave. Peninsula Ave. Peninsula Ave. 14 [71 (37)J 76 [14] (91)� t 138 [10] (12)-J 570 [472] (714)30 -6 co v " 455 [3761 (593)-0- C a 598 [4741 (521)--4- �a a N 3 [9] (10)—�`0 " N 30 [931 (32)—� in 112 [1801 (168)� o rn ^ _ 0 CO n l0 V'0 U� N Figure 6. Existing Vehicular Turning Movements and Peak Hour Volumes (Intersectio LEGEND () Study Intersection ID XX AM Peak Hour Volumes [XX] Midday Peak Hour Volumes (XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes 1 EXISTING CONDITION WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Intersection #1 Intersection #2 Intersection #3 California Dr. / North Ln. Carolan Ave. -East Ln. / North Ln. Bloomfield Rd. / Burlingame Ave. H> 0[0](6) .fi VVVV`"` ¢ H 90[43](24) j H 17[7](10)1� v o m o o m n Os0 n o 0 0 0[0](0) a o o o[o](o) � 010](1) o 0 o I u v OI N O j � L. 110](0) 6k 010](0) ,�, I ,�, North Ln. North Ln. Burlingame Ave. 1[0](6) t zi(o) t p` � 1[11 (0) l7RJ 0[1](5) -o o m 1[1](2) a 010](0) -�6 0 0 0 ET 1181(11) H o — o o v 150[62](69)H a `r° t32[8](14)FI 0 N E 6 6 x- W � m Intersection #4 Intersection #5 Intersection #6 Clarendon Rd. / Burlingame Ave. Dwight Rd. / Burlingame Ave Rollins Rd. / Burlingame Ave. f4-0-16[2](10)lx 4-0-11[2](7) 0[0](0)1X �o oov o m o o _010](0) m o00 o 0 0 0 7 O O p[pl(p) 0 a o 0 0 N O OI 010](0) ,�--(( 2[0](0) V 010](0) O I J I L. - 2[0](0)( 0[01(0) � j t- 0[0](0) 010](0) E+ ,� urlingame Ave. t Burlingame Ave. 0[0](0)� t Burlingame Ave. � 0[0](0)� 0[11(0) 1 C�i 0[0](3)� -d 66 O[O](2) —� 1, 010](0)� o C 000 m -6 FFE N d. a O 19[2](18) H> 6 ONO ,!� 20[2](12) H> � rn '�C 010l(0) H .S Intersection #7 Intersection #8 Intersection #9 California Dr. / Howard Ave Bloomfield Rd. / Howard Ave Clarendon Rd. / Howard Ave. _ f H> 31[11](32),K _ H> 43[8](11)-X H> 28[101(0) I` O O O O O O O o o 0[O1(0) 010](0) o v o 0[0](0) 1](4) C` 110[O](0) I I <J y 4-010]() ( 0[0](0) O O O O I I l.� 3[1](1) 0[0](0) � LJ � Howard Ave. Howard Ave. Howard Ave. 010](0)- t f } %1(1) r t O[01(0) -I t r 306) 5[1](2)— C 1[3](5) � MD 4[11(3) — �y C �o o 010](0) o v o�o N 1[0](3) -d �,. o 0 0 mo o v .M Or O M N �00 0 N O O 36[17](21) F> V 63[7](7) H °o „Q 32[9](0) H Intersection #10 Intersection #11 Intersection #12 DwigGgh�t Rd. / Howard Ave. Humboldt Rd. / Howard Ave. California Dr. / Bayswater Ave. S` H 15[8](8) '� % H 15[8](8) '� H 15[8](8) w ono N, ;:7 ;:7 o v o 0 o 010](0) io 666 v o 0 o 010](0) 0 ono r, o v o rn o O[O](0) I F 3[1](1) I I 010](1) <. I I 1[o](0) (pa 010](0) !+ `i 010](0) E+ Y 010](0) Howard Ave. Howard Ave. Bayswater Ave. 010](0)—J 0[0](o)� 0[0](0)� 4[1](3)� 0[0](0)—� ( 0[0](0)� o 0 o Q � moo m 110](0)� o0o m 110](0)� o `✓ o a omo m N 7[10](6) H NOOO o y �` 7[10](6) H �� O ? j '"- t 7[10](6) H ONO Y- = V Figure 7. Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes (Intersection 1 to 12) LEGEND OStudy Intersection ID XX AM Peak Hour Volumes [XX] Midday Peak Hour Volumes (XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM EXISTING CONDITION Intersection #13 Intersection #14 Intersection #15 Bloomfield Rd. / Bayswater Ave. Clarendon Rd. / Bayswater Ave. Dwight Rd. / Bayswater Ave. H> 0[41(3)� AK H 0[5](3) �` •� H 0[4](3) 0 0 o 0 0[0](3) FF. o o o O coo 0[1](0) 0 oVo o 0[0](0) O JI I I L. H 2[O1(1) 0[0](4) E+ I Y 0 1111(1) dib 1101(0) o o n o j L. H 2[01(1) CW 010](0) Bayswater Ave. Bayswater Ave. Bayswater Ave. 010](1)� t 0101(0)- t 010](0) t 0[1](1)—> d ovo 0[1](1)--� d o 0 0 o � 011](0) � ono o[o](o) 0 0 0 N OHO � o[oxo) o 0 o s 0.031 o[o](o) s s s 1[11](0) H a 0 1[5](0) H R g 1[6](0) H o r� Intersection #16 Intersection #17 Intersection #18 Humboldt Rd. / Bayswater Ave. California Dr. / Peninsula Ave. Arundel Rd. -Woodside Wy. / Peninsula Ave. kC H 10[5](1) j H 1[13](2) � T 3 w H 4[11](4) a o o 4— 010](0) oho o o L o[ouo) m o0o s o 0 o v S 1-010](0) 4— 0[2](0) 0[0](0) ♦ I `r L. 0[2](0)6ib J I� 3 0[01(0) �010](1) �010](0) Bayswater Ave. Peninsula Ave. Peninsula Ave. O1(0) t 1[0](0) 0(o) C0[O1(0) � 1121(0) v o 0 0 O N M 1[01(0) o v o 'E O M 010](0) ?? G m p[ 0 0 6[4]R) H „Q �C 0[13](9) 1[4](10) H 2 Intersection #19 Intersection #20 Intersection #21 larendon Rd. -Claremont Rd. / Peninsula Ave Dwight Rd. -Delaware St. / Peninsula Ave. Humboldt Rd. / Peninsula Ave. 0 o s H 2[61(2) f H3[4](4) fi o0o FFF N E N 0101 (0) ro ohoDT O 0111 (0) O O O O O JI vH 0[3](3) C b � 010](0) 0 7 0 H 0[2](2)C� 010](0) 01 u o o N � O O 1 E— OI11i2) d f— J � � � 010](3) Peninsula Ave. Peninsula Ave. Peninsula Ave. 010](0) 2[1](1) t 0101(0)- t 010](0) o 0 0 C� 0[0](1)� & 1[01(3) H 0 0 0 s _ O O O o O 000 0[O1(0)_ _ in o o v p 0 tD 0101(0) v O O O O O O 7[14](33) 12[7](49) H m '.0 6[3](14)4--* ? u 0 = Figure 8. Existing Pedestrian and Bike Volumes (Intersection 13 to 21) LEGEND (X) Study Intersection ID XX AM Peak Hour Volumes [XX] Midday Peak Hour Volumes (XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes ® EXISTING CONDITION WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations 40 2.2 TRANSIT SERVICE Caltrain Services Caltrain serves as the regional rail service, connecting the Peninsula and Santa Clara Valley area with downtown San Francisco, in addition to providing opportunities to transfer to Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) trains at Millbrae Station. The Burlingame Caltrain Station is the hub for most users in the city, including the study area and the downtown. It is located between the Lyon Hoag neighborhood and downtown. The station is bordered by parking spaces that commuters use to park their cars for the whole day. Frequent service is provided throughout the day, ranging from approximately 15-minute headways during the weekday commute periods, to approximately 90-minute headways on the weekends. SamTrans SamTrans provides bus service throughout San Mateo County and operates Route 46 within the study area, operating via a one-way loop on Burlingame Avenue, Arundel Road, Bayswater Avenue, and Anita Road. In addition, SamTrans Route 292 operates adjacent to the project area and has stops along Peninsula Avenue and California Drive. Route 53 has stops on Peninsula Avenue. WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM EXISTING CONDITION AIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII AWLyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations 2.3 EXISTING FIELD INVENTORY Walking in Lyon Hoag The City has undertaken a Sidewalk Repair Program to keep the sidewalks maintained and connected throughout the city for people of all ages and abilities. Sidewalks are in place on all the streets within the study area. They are in good condition with retrofitting work performed regularly. Additionally, the City performs an annual inspection for tripping hazards and prioritizes a list of areas for repair. The sidewalks are generally five to seven feet wide throughout the study area, except for those adjacent to commercial land uses and schools, including Washington Elementary School, which ranges from eight to ten feet wide. Crosswalk markings are essential to reinforce pedestrian right-of-way and alert drivers to expect crossing pedestrians at locations with high pedestrian activities. Four -legged crosswalk markings are located at approximately six percent of all intersections within the study area, mostly near Washington Elementary School, Washington Park, and Victoria Park. These intersections are all -way stop- controlled intersections. In addition, crosswalks are placed on one leg of the intersection at approximately 15 percent of all the intersections in the study area to accommodate north - south connections. These are mostly uncontrolled crossing. Intersection Controls Approximately 25 percent of all of the intersections within the study area are all -way stop -controlled, most of which are present at intersections along major neighborhood roadways — Burlingame Avenue, Howard Avenue, Bayswater Avenue, Dwight Road, Bloomfield Road, and Humboldt Road. The rest are minor stop -controlled (major street does not stop) intersections where motorists are required to come to a full stop at minor street approaches. Regulatory and Advisory Signs The study area includes signs for indicating speed limits, school zones, pedestrian crossings, and dips. Most signs are located along Howard Avenue, Bayswater Avenue, and Bloomfield Road. School zone signs are placed near the elementary school along Howard Avenue. "Dip" warning signs are placed along Bloomfield Road, and pedestrian crossing signs can be found at all uncontrolled crossing locations along Howard Avenue, Bayswater Avenue, and Burlingame Avenue. Figure 9 shows the locations of all traffic control types, speed limit signs, crosswalk markings, pedestrian crossing signs, school zone signs, dips, and dip warning signs within the study area. EXISTING CONDITION WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Rollins Road -� �0 ``\\ • r Commercial Victoria Park IS N 1 s� \ o/a �s cl e � a ono O oo yh Cy Q � � s s ❑ �C ® oCy s� P 4' 6/1- , 0 i C9�� s� d/ f ® Lid' � +' i r or�d �s Washin ton 9r O Je Elemen ary ' School r O Q. \ Burlingame O Pacific Rim International - n f�- n Caltrain Station Li School I be - le 25 mph Speed Sign Q Stop Sign 15 mph Speed Sign O Traffic Signal "let1 +f # ��, School Crosswalk (Yellow) Standard Crosswalk (Yellow) glow Standard Crosswalk Standard Crosswalk (White) r'-^rs}, .0 s r DIP Existing Speed Dip Sign Existing Speed Dips i > i��s • . ; ' ,•{k.r` � ,��i�r..• � ,� '�' Existing Bus Stop Figure 9. Traffic Controls, Crosswalk Markings, Speed Dips, and Signs WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM P A ` STOP w STOP ■ S10P 16, r- �. High School Washington Park EXISTING CONDITION This page intentionally left blank. Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations 40 2.4 ROADWAY SEGMENT This section summarizes the existing conditions of four key collector roadways - Howard Avenue, Burlingame Avenue, Dwight Road, and Humboldt Road - and two neighborhood access streets: Bayswater Avenue and Bloomfield Road. Each of the segments mentioned in the previous subsection has been detailed for characteristics such as street width, parking provision, speed limit, 85th percentile speeds, average daily traffic volume, and the existing traffic signs. Howard Avenue Howard Avenue is an undivided, 45 to 46 feet wide east -west neighborhood collector that runs between East Lane and Humboldt Road in the study area. It extends towards Amphlett Boulevard in the east and El Camino Real in the west. It connects the eastern and western borders of the study area and is a major neighborhood collector for all the residential streets within the study area. Howard Avenue, from Victoria Road to Washington Elementary School, is considered to be a major route for elementary school pick-up and drop-off. It is a two-way roadway with one lane in each direction and a posted speed limit of 25 mph, with a four feet wide Class II bike lane. The ADT on Howard Avenue ranges from 1,700 to 3,600 vehicles per day (vpd). There are no signalized intersections along this segment. All -way stop -controlled intersections are at Anita Road, Arundel Road, Dwight Road, and Humboldt Road. The rest of the intersections are two-way stop -controlled from the perpendicular streets. Parallel parking is provided on both sides fronted primarily by residences except for commercial fronts between East Lane and Anita Road, and Washington Elementary School between Anita Road and Arundel Road. Existing Bike Lane in Howard Avenue WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM EXISTING CONDITION Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations ArAw• O o� chaa/ �4d9"I l D 7 Q m v Lane Lane 45' - 46' Howard Avenue Cross -Section O a Howard Ave n v o h v W < v Z) 73 n �. 7 n o 0 Q z D Q n Howard Avenue Plan View 3 0- 0 Q EXISTING CONDITION WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations 40 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame Avenue is an undivided, 33 to 34 feetwide, east -west neighborhood collector street that runs between East Lane and Rollins Road in the study area. It extends to El Camino Real in the west. It connects the eastern and western borders of the study area and is a major neighborhood collector for all the residential streets within the study area. It is a two-way street with one lane in each direction, with unrestricted and unmarked parking on both sides and a posted speed limit of 25 mph. The ADT on Burlingame Avenue ranges from 400 to 2,500 vehicles per day (vpd). The segment is fronted mostly by residences, except for a few blocks between East Lane and Arundel Road that have commercial fronts, the Burlingame Parks and Recreation Department, and Washington Park. Most of the intersections are all -way stop -controlled, except for the intersections with Myrtle Road, Arundel Road, Clarendon Road, Stanley Road, and Bancroft Road, which are two-way stop -controlled intersections. There are no signalized intersections along the segment of the study area. Burlingame Avenue WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM EXISTING CONDITION 40 Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations 3 3' - 34' Burlingame Avenue Cross -Section Burlingame Avenue Plan View EXISTING CONDITION WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations 40 Humboldt Road Humboldt Road is an undivided, 35 to 36 feet, north -south neighborhood collector street starting at Peninsula Avenue and extending to Rollins Road. It is a two-way street with one lane in each direction, with unrestricted and unmarked parking on both sides and a posted speed limit of 25 mph. The ADT on Humboldt Road ranged from 3,500 to 5,400 vehicles per day (vpd). The segment's intersection with Peninsula Avenue is a signalized intersection. The rest of the intersections are all -way stop -controlled, except for the intersection at Rollins Road, which is a minor stop -controlled intersection. The eastern half of Humboldt Road is part of the City of San Mateo with commercial frontage while the western half, consisting of homes, is part of the City of Burlingame. Humboldt Road WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM EXISTING CONDITION Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations 35' - 36' i. Humboldt Road Cross -Section Humboldt Road Plan View ® EXISTING CONDITION WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations 40 Dwight Road Dwight Road is an undivided, 35 to 36 feet wide neighborhood collector street that runs between Rollins Road and Peninsula Avenue. It is a residential, two-way street with one lane in each direction, with unrestricted and unmarked parking on both sides and a posted speed limit of 25 mph. Dwight Road is also a Class III bike route. The ADT on Dwight Road ranges from 3,100 to 3,500 vehicles per day (vpd). Most of the intersections are all - way stop controlled except the intersections of Dwight Road at Plymouth Way, Lexington Way, and Vernon Way. The only signalized intersection is at Peninsula Avenue providing access to the City of San Mateo. The segment ends at a three-way stop -controlled intersection on Rollins Road. Dwight Road WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM EXISTING CONDITION 40 Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations oaa 'OL a 35' - 36' 1. Dwight Road Cross -Section Dwight Road Plan View EXISTING CONDITION WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations 40 Bayswater Avenue Bayswater Avenue is an undivided, 41 to 42 feet wide, east -west neighborhood access street that runs between the Caltrain railroad track and Humboldt Road in the study area. It extends towards Amphlett Boulevard in the east and El Camino Real in the west. It connects the east and western borders of the study area and is also a major school route within the study area. It is a two-way street with one lane in each direction, with unrestricted and unmarked parking on both sides and a posted speed limit of 25 mph. The ADT on Bayswater Avenue ranges from 1,700 to 2,700 vehicles per day (vpd). Most of the intersections are two-way stop -controlled except for all -way stop intersections at Anita Road, Arundel Road, Bloomfield Road, Dwight Road and Humboldt Road. There are no signalized intersections along the segment of the study area. Bayswater Avenue WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM EXISTING CONDITION Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations 41'-42' Bayswater Avenue Cross -Section N� f 00�'d2 �j 07 D o D O co D v Q n CD v cD Q O LO (D 7 O A D _;T 1< cc aN 15 N Bayswater Ave ry Wo Bayswater Avenue Plan View EXISTING CONDITION WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations 40 Bloomfield Road Bloomfield Road is an undivided, 35 to 36 feet wide, north -south neighborhood access street that runs between Rollins Road and Peninsula Avenue. It is one of the thoroughfares connecting Rollins Road and Peninsula Avenue through the neighborhood and connecting with the City of San Mateo. Bloomfield Road from Burlingame Avenue to Rollins Road is considered to be a major route for school pick-up and drop-off. It is a two-way street with one lane in each direction, with unrestricted and unmarked parking on both sides and a posted speed limit of 25 mph. The ADT on Bloomfield Road ranges from 800 to 1,000 vehicles per day (vpd). The segment is fronted by residences. Most of the intersections are two-way stop -controlled with the exception of all -way stop controls at Bayswater Avenue, Burlingame Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue. There are no signalized intersection along this segment. Bloomfield Road ends at Rollins Road where Oak Grove Avenue intersects and provides access through the study area. Bloomfield Road WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM EXISTING CONDITION 40 Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations � o O T c � I` I II<V1 35' - 36` 1. Bloomfield Road Cross -Section Bloomfield Road Plan View 1 I. EXISTING CONDITION WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM COMMUNITY OUTREACH Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations 3.1 OUTREACH PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES A vital component of a study like this one is a robust community outreach process. Hearing from residents of the community affected by the project fosters trust and communication between the residents and the City, and provides solutions that have the backing of the community. Outreach not only identifies issues but also develops plausible countermeasures to mitigate the mentioned concerns. The target audience of the outreach includes residents in Lyon Hoag, Victoria Park, and Oak Grove Manor. The objectives of the outreach are to: • Provide neighborhood awareness of the project; • Solicit and summarize concerns pertaining to traffic calming and parking, using various outreach methods and platforms; • Obtain neighborhood consensus on summarized concerns; • Provide the residents with technical knowledge on data, analysis, traffic calming measures, and strategies; • Identify holistic traffic calming and parking issues based on neighborhood concerns and technical analysis; • Develop implementable strategies and improvement projects that thoroughly address neighborhood concerns; • Obtain neighborhood feedback and suggestions on improvement strategies and street design concepts; • Refine planned strategies and projects based on feedback and suggestions; and • Obtain neighborhood consensus to support the final plan. 3.2 MAJOR OUTREACH TOOLS Project Theme A theme was created with the layout and logo that was used in all the outreach materials to create a distinctive identity for the project. The intent was to create a unique identity and leave a lasting impression about the City of Burlingame's proactive efforts in developing traffic calming measures within the project area. Project Website The project website was a tool used to engage the residents to submit ideas, concerns, priorities, and desired streetscape elements. The project website was advertised through the City website, flyers, postcards, social media, and email blasts. Website Link - lyonhoogtrafficcalming.com Online Survey The online survey included 11 questions that asked the respondents about their location, and eagerness to walk, bike, take public transit, and carpool. It also asked their major traffic -related concerns in the neighborhoods, locations of concerns, and priority ranking of such issues. The survey was available for two months, between February and April 2019. The survey received 118 responses, with 95 percent of 1 COMMUNITY OUTREACH WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations 40 respondents living within the study neighborhoods. Survey results have been summarized in Appendix C. Stakeholder Meetings To assist the City in ensuring that the outreach was comprehensive and well received, a six -person Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP) was formed to discuss how the community workshops would be handled and how all the information should be articulated. Three CAP meetings were held before each of the three community workshops to inform stakeholders of project updates and solicit feedback for major submittal and community input. • CAP Meeting #1 was held on January 22, 2019 before the first community workshop to discuss how all the feedback from the community should be collected • CAP Meeting #2 was held on May 7, 2019, before the second community workshop to provide feedback on community workshop presentation slides, coordination on facilitation approach, and input on the preliminary traffic calming solutions proposed by the project team. • CAP Meeting #3 was held on September 4, 2019, before the third community workshop to discuss facilitation of the third community workshop, and provide feedback on community workshop presentation slides, and input on the refined alternatives developed as per the second community workshop. 3.3 OUTREACH FEEDBACK The City held community workshops on February 26, June 10, and October 2, 2019 to better understand the needs and concerns of the community, residents, employees, and visitors of the neighborhoods. As part of the first workshop, a survey was conducted, distributed online and via postcards, and promoted through the official project website. The first workshop was held to Find out the community's key concerns in order to develop an idea of the major issues within the project area, and in turn, develop alternatives to tackle the issues. For the second workshop, concerns and comments collected from the workshop participants and survey respondents were summarized, and feasible measures and strategic solutions were identified, along with the estimated costs. The third and final workshop was held to finalize all the traffic calming measures and cost estimation for the project. Detailed workshop notes and summaries for the three workshops are contained in Appendix D. Community Workshop #1 This section consolidates and summarizes all individual comments from the online survey and notes taken at the workshop. There were about 40 participants in the first community workshop; 118 responded to the online survey. The major traffic and safety -related issues included speeding, cut -through traffic, parking, and sight distance concerns. Nof� .,.' _., •�,"'�--��:' �' era WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM COMMUNITY OUTREACH Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations Speeding The most common type of concern was related to traffic speed, mainly through the school zone, along Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue. The participants stated that high speeding vehicles are a major concern on the streets of the neighborhoods, especially on the major arterials. Nearly 88 percent of the online survey respondents indicated that speeding occurs very frequently. When asked to prioritize and rank issues between 1 and 7, vehicular speed claimed the top spot with a score (weighted average) of 5.46, with participants noting that some of the roadways in the study area connect to roadways that provide direct access to the freeways, leading to drivers speeding. Residents stated the need for speed enforcement within the study area. The City of Burlingame has conducted an education and enforcement campaign since 2018 in the study area to monitor driver behavior and speeding. The City created a selective traffic enforcement list of problematic locations based on citizen input, and watches those locations for traffic violators and issues citations as needed. Detailed information on the campaign is provided in Appendix E. Residents also indicated that the lack of four-way stop signs along some of the major intersections leads the drivers to sail through without paying attention to pedestrians. Some stated that auto dealerships around their neighborhoods test their cars along the major streets, which results in exceeding the speed limit. COMMUNITY OUTREACH WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations 40 Locations with speeding concerns include: • Howard Avenue • Bayswater Avenue • Bloomfield Road • Dwight Road • Burlingame Avenue • Rollins Road • Victoria Road • Humboldt Road Cut -Through Traffic The second most discussed concern both in the workshop and online survey is the issue of cut -through traffic. In the online survey, approximately 79 percent of the respondents said that cut -through traffic is one of the major issues dealt with by the community. When asked to prioritize and rank issues between 1 and 7, respondents prioritized the issue of cut -through traffic with a score (weighted average) of 5.29. Residents indicated that cut -through traffic has increased in the wake of drivers with GPS apps using neighborhood streets to avoid congestion on major arterials. Drivers also speed through the neighborhood because streets like Bayswater Avenue, Howard Avenue, Dwight Road, and Bloomfield Road have direct access to the US-101 freeway. Residents stated that this causes a lot of speeding through the neighborhoods and congestion at the junction of Peninsula Avenue and Dwight Road. Roadways of cut -through traffic concerns include: • Bayswater Avenue • Howard Avenue • Dwight Road • Bloomfield Road Parking Residents indicated that parking supply in the neighborhoods has decreased with increasing population and limited parking outside the surrounding neighborhoods. The participants of the workshop voiced concerns regarding new developments that might exacerbate an already overcrowded parking condition. Lack of parking at businesses along Humboldt Road and in the City of San Mateo has also caused people to park commercial and customer vehicles within the neighborhoods. Residents have also stated that parking at intersections cause limited visibility for drivers and is unsafe during turns. Residents also noted that non-residents leave their vehicles parked on neighborhood streets long term, taking app-based cab rides to the nearby San Francisco International Airport or other destinations. In the online survey, 62 percent of respondents expressed that parking intrusion from non-residents is one of the major concerns related to traffic and safety. When asked to prioritize and rank issues between 1 and 7, respondents prioritized the need for new parking restrictions with a score (weighted average) of 3.73. Locations of parking issues include: • Howard Avenue • Bayswater Avenue • Victoria Road • Burlingame Avenue • Dwight Road • Bloomfield Road • Oak Grove Avenue Sight Distance The participants expressed that most of the intersections in the study area have sight distance issues, where it is challenging to observe oncoming cars while making right turns. Residents indicated that this could be attributed to cars or over -sized trucks parked at intersections, wide -angled intersections, limited stop signs in the interior roads, and fewer red curbs at the corners of intersections. Residents believe that many intersections have thus become accident-prone for both pedestrians and vehicles. The wide -angled intersections that lead onto Rollins Road also obstruct the view from high speeding traffic on Rollins Road. Locations with sight distance concerns include: • Burlingame Avenue intersections • Victoria Road/Rollins Road • Humboldt Road/Rollins Road • Dwight Road/Rollins Road • Bloomfield Road/Rollins Road • Howard Avenue/East Lane WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM COMMUNITY OUTREACH Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations Community Workshop #2 There were about 50 participants in the second community workshop; 20 of these participants also attended the first workshop. The detailed notes from the workshop are provided in Appendix D. This section consolidates and summarizes all individual comments from notes taken at the workshop as per each of the corridors of Howard Avenue, Bayswater Avenue, Bloomfield Road, Dwight Road, and Bloomfield Road. Howard Avenue The workshop participants agreed on converting all the existing crosswalks to high visibility crosswalks. Additional high visibility crosswalks should be added at locations such as the intersection of Dwight Road and Bloomfield Road. They also indicated that the existing four -foot bike lane should be widened to Five feet to accommodate more room for biking. Participants also favored road humps and rectangular rapid flashing beacons and asked to increase the enforcement within the area, especially near Washington Elementary School. Bayswater Avenue Residents indicated that additional traffic calming measures, such as bulbouts, traffic circle, and road humps are required on Bayswater Avenue between the intersections of Dwight Road and Humboldt Road. The participants agreed on converting all COMMUNITY OUTREACH WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations 40 the existing crosswalks to high visibility crosswalks. Residents also expressed a desire to add measures such as rectangular rapid flashing beacons, red curb extensions at intersections, and permanent speed feedback signs. Bloomfield Road Residents indicated that the segment on Bloomfield Road between Rollins Road and Burlingame Avenue requires additional traffic calming measures to combat speeding and cut -through traffic. Permanent speed feedback signs are highly desired. The participants agreed on converting all the existing crosswalks to high visibility crosswalks and suggested the City implement such improvements as lane definitions, narrowing through centerline, and parking lane striping for the entire segment of Bloomfield Road. Dwight Road The participants indicated that road humps along the entire corridor of Dwight Road, especially towards Rollins Road and Peninsula Avenue, would help in combating speeding and cut -through traffic. Additional enforcement is also required, and permanent speed feedback sign should be installed for cars entering the neighborhood through Rollins Road. The participants agreed on converting all the existing crosswalks to high visibility crosswalks and asked for additional high visibility crosswalks at locations such as Bayswater Avenue and Howard Avenue. Burlingame Avenue The participants agreed on converting all the existing crosswalks to high visibility crosswalks. WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM COMMUNITY OUTREACH Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations Community Workshop #3 Approximately 55 residents participated in the third workshop; 50 percent of participants also attended the first community workshop, while 33 percent also attended the second workshop. The purpose of the workshop was to solicit feedback on the refined alternatives developed after the discussion in the second community workshop. Key components of the third community workshop included a presentation on the refined alternatives and discussion on finalizing the alternatives in phases. Following is the summary of all the comments received as per the division of neighborhoods — Lyon Hoag (West of Dwight Road), Victoria Park (East of Dwight Road), and Oak Grove Manor (North of Burlingame Avenue). Lyon Hoag (West of Dwight Road) Residents indicated that the Howard Avenue and Bloomfield Road intersection requires additional traffic calming measures. Since speeding of vehicles is observed on Howard Avenue, participants suggested that speed feedback signs would be helpful in the corridor. Additional road humps were requested on Bloomfield Road. Participants supported the proposed solutions that include converting existing standard crosswalks to high visibility crosswalks along with adding new high visibility crosswalks, rectangular rapid flashing beacon, bulbouts near Washington Elementary School, road humps on Bloomfield Road, 14 N z COMMUNITY OUTREACH WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations 40 red curb extensions at intersections, median flappers, and rectangular rapid flashing beacons. The residents also indicated the need for additional enforcement within the neighborhood. Victoria Park (East of Dwight Road) The workshop participants agreed with the conversion of existing standard crosswalks to high visibility crosswalks and new high visibility crosswalks at other locations. They expressed the need for additional traffic calming measures on Humboldt Road and Victoria Road to solve issues like speeding and cut - through traffic. They also noted that centerlines and existing signages require repainting. It was suggested that the intersection of Humboldt Road and Rollins Road be narrowed to restrict high speeding traffic entering the neighborhood with the addition of a median alongside the proposed bulbout. Participants supported the proposed traffic calming measures such as traffic circles, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, median islands, road humps, centerline, and parking lane striping, high visibility crosswalks, and bulbouts. Oak Grove Manor (North of Burlingame) The participants agreed with the proposed traffic calming solutions of bulbouts and red curb extensions at the intersections of Rollins Road and Bloomfield Road, and Rollins Road and Dwight Road, as measures to reduce speeding while entering the neighborhoods. They also agreed with other traffic calming measures such as traffic circles, bulbouts, road humps, and permanent speed feedback signs. They noted that the proposed conceptual traffic circle at the intersection of Vernon Way and Dwight Road could effectively slow down traffic. Stop Control vs. Traffic Calming The participants requested the installation of stop signs at specific locations. As a result of this request, a stop warrant analysis was conducted to analyze nine intersections. All of the intersections failed to meet the criteria of a stop sign except for the intersection of Howard Avenue and Victoria Road. Detailed stop warrant analysis is contained in Section 4.2. WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM COMMUNITY OUTREACH This page intentionally left blank. NEEDS ANALYSIS �F Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhood Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations The traffic calming needs and opportunity analysis presents resident concerns and engineering validation on existing traffic concerns and challenges. The result of the analysis shows that resident concerns of cut - through traffic, speeding on certain streets, and parking can be addressed through a comprehensive program. There are opportunities for improvements to further enhance the quality of life in Lyon Hoag and the adjacent neighborhoods. 4.1 COMMUNITY NEEDS This section consolidates feedback and suggestions from various sources, including the online survey, individual responses received from the project website, and the three community workshops. Travel Speeds The most common concern was vehicular speeds on neighborhood streets, particularly along east -west connection streets. Nearly 88 percent of the online survey respondents indicated that speeding occurs very frequently. The residents prioritized speeding as the topmost concerns. The residents also indicated that the lack of stop controls results in drivers sailing through the corridors. Some stated that auto dealerships around their neighborhoods test cars along the major streets, which results in speeding. A speed survey was conducted within the study area. On Howard Avenue, between Bloomfield Road and Clarendon Road, the 85th percentile speed was observed to be 31 miles per hour (mph), and 22 percent of the drivers traveled at higher than 30 mph. In addition, on Howard Avenue between Bancroft Road and Victoria Road, the 85th percentile speed was 33 mph, and approximately 32 percent traveled at more than 30 mph. Along similar segments of Bayswater Avenue (between Bloomfield Road and Clarendon Road, and between Bancroft Road and Victoria Road), the 85th percentile speed was observed to be 30 mph and 32 mph, while 10 percent and 24 percent drove at more than 30 mph, respectively. On Bloomfield Road, between Plymouth Way and Lexington Way, the 85th percentile speed was observed to be 29 mph, and 22 percent drove at more than 30 mph. On Dwight Road between BayswaterAvenue and Howard Avenue, the observed 85th percentile speed was 29 mph, and 10 percent drove at more than 30 mph. Table 3 lists the speed survey results. Figure 10 shows the percentage of drivers speeding below and above 25 mph posted speed limit. NEEDS ANALYSIS WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhood Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations ** Table 3. Speed Survey Results Road Segment W 5 25 % 25 < JEO/C. > 30 % 5 25 11�5 < :5 % > 30 44 vpd mph 30 mp mph vpd mph 0 mph mph Howard Avenue between Myrtle Road and Anita 1,819 1,355 74% 417 23% 47 3% 1,759 1,094 62% 588 33% 77 4% Road Howard Avenue between Bloomfield Road and 1,469 398 27% 711 48% 360 25% 1,280 458 36% 571 45% 251 20% Clarendon Road Howard Avenue between Dwight Road and Stanley 1,025 860 84% 159 16% 6 1 % 1,000 947 95% 53 5% 0 0% Road Howard Avenue between Bancroft Road and Victoria 903 188 21 % 366 41 % 349 39% 840 275 33% Road Bayswater Avenue between Mrytle Road and Anita 1,259 707 56% 460 37% 92 7% 1,368 801 59% 491 36% v V Roadv Bayswater Avenue between Bloomfield Road and 1,136 522 46% 511 45% 103 9% 1,189 522 44% 529 44% 138 12% Clarendon Road Bayswater Avenue between Dwight Road and 841 519 62% 269 32% 53 6% 1,121 668 60% 387 35% 66 6% Stanley Road Bayswater Avenue between Bancroft Road and 812 277 34% 341 42% 194 24% 884 325 37% 349 39% 210 24% Victoria Road Bloomfield Road between Bayswater Avenue and 308 223 72% 62 20% 23 7% 496 325 66% 141 28% 30 6% Peninsula Avenue Bloomfield Road between Howard Avenue and 333 198 59% 116 35% 19 6% 614 336 55% 237 39% 41 7% Bayswater Avenue Bloomfield Road between Plymouth Way and 736 481 65% 207 28% 48 7% 1,244 726 58% 401 32% 117 9% Lexington Way Dwight Road between Bayswater Avenue and 1,444 833 58% 501 35% 110 8% 1,948 1,272 65% 565 29% 111 6% Peninsula Avenue Dwight Road between Howard Avenue and 1,373 686 50% 561 41 % 126 9% 1,855 785 42% 874 47% 196 11 % Bayswater Avenue 1 Burlingame Avenue between Myrtle Road and Anita 1,128 1,076 95% 52 5% 1 0% 1,268 1,213 96% 53 4% 2 0% Road Burlingame Avenue between Bloomfield Road and 720 482 67% 211 29% 27 4% 562 383 68% 151 27% 28 5% Clarendon Road WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM NEEDS ANALYSIS �W Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhood Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations Table 3 (Continued). Speed Survey Results MM"M"M [Road Segment 1W rvpd :525 EB/NB 25 < x:5 > 30 5 25 -/]1PO WB/SB 5 < x:5 > 30 mph % JO mph % mph % vpd mph mph % mplo Burlingame Avenue between Dwight Road and 357 267 75% 77 22% 13 4% 243 198 81 % 40 16% 5 Stanley Road Burlingame Avenue between Bancroft Road and 286 171 60% 85 30% 30 10% 182 138 76% 42 23% 2 Victoria Road Anita Road between Bayswater Avenue and 486 285 59% 157 32% 44 9% 491 271 55% 166 34% 54 11 % Peninsula Avenue Anita Road between Howard Avenue and Baywater 483 346 72% 110 23% 27 6% 414 284 69% 103 25% 27 7% Avenue Arundel Road between Howard Avenue and 353 233 66% 92 26% 28 8% 421 328 78% 74 18% 19 5° Bayswater Avenue Dwight Road between Bayswater Avenue and 231 168 73% 51 «, 146 65% 60 27% Peninsula Avenue Dwight Road between Howard Avenue and 169 140 83% 23 14% 168 72% 5 24% Bayswater Avenue Stanley Road between Howard Avenue and 146 118 81 % 25 17% 3 2% 121 104 86% 16 13% 1 Bayswater Avenue Channing Road between Howard Avenue and 162 137 85% 23 14% 2 1 % 146 138 95% 8 5% - 0 /° ° Bayswater Avenue Bancroft Road between Howard Avenue and 98 75 77% 18 18% 5 5% 120 106 88% 10 8% 4 3% Bayswater Avenue Victoria Road between Howard Avenue and 137 111 81 % 20 15% 6 4% 182 143 79% 30 16% 9 5% Bayswater Avenue Humboldt Road between Bayswater Avenue and 2,389 1,423 60% 774 32% 192 8% 2,968 2,055 69% 742 25% 171 6% Peninsula Avenue Humboldt Road between Howard Avenue and 1,613 879 54% 570 35% 164 10% 1,987 1,283 65% 584 29% 120 6% Bayswater Avenue ® NEEDS ANALYSIS WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM - Rollins Road t i \U/ Washington Park LEGEND Existing Dips Existing All -Way Stop Intersection Speed Data Location XX% Vehicles Traveling Below 25 mph XX% Vehicles Traveling Between 25 and 30 mph XX% Vehicles Traveling Above 30 mph �0 �r 6uo�X_11 0 Cbolo ,e. olo ' o 60 0 0 Washington Elementary School ,Do Commercial olo Victoria Park �O� olo 1, olo 3 d3 Qo 0 0 CR �90 1s Qo 100 o 0 0 Qa+O Qo 0 Pacific Rim In- - V_ ternational School big a Figure 10. Percentage of Vehicles Traveling Above or Below 25 mph Speed Limit WWWOONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM NEEDS ANALYSIS This page intentionally left blank. Cut -Through Traffic The second most highlighted concern both in the workshops and in the online survey is the observation of cut -through traffic — commute traffic using neighborhood streets as alternate routes to major arterials or collectors. Based on the online survey, approximately 79 percent of the respondents considered cut -through traffic as one of the significant concerns and ranked it as second highest following speeding. The residents indicated that commuters often use Bayswater Avenue, Howard Avenue, Dwight Road, Bloomfield Road, and Humboldt Road; and they noted that cut -through traffic had increased after ride -sharing services (Transportation Network Companies like Uber, Lyft, etc.) were introduced to the market. To verify the amount of cut -through traffic in the Lyon Hoag neighborhood, an origin - destination analysis was conducted to understand traffic patterns and identify specific cut -through routes within and surrounding the study area. These trips were captured using Location -Based Services (LBS) - real-time GPS data from retrieved from smartphones. Sixteen origins/destinations were selected based on community feedback and traffic engineering observations and judgment. These origins/ destinations routes captured within the study area were verified to represent the majority of traffic flow, traveling in and out of the study area. Table 4 lists the overall results of the origin -destination analysis for average weekdays between February and May Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhood Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations 40 in 2017. As a result, 12 routes highlighted in Figure 11 were identified as "popular" to commuters during regular weekdays. Note that the sample size of 16,430 includes GPS pings that were received during the data collection period between February and May 2017 and does not represent the actual total number of cars traveling through the neighborhoods. WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM NEEDS ANALYSIS 1 III•,� -1•_ Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhood Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations Destination Origin (E) Peninsula Ave at US 101 } a m > Q aSc o H w E o mo Z .. L> a o V Z s L 0 c c m 0 0) ° �' a m Z 0 ° s o c Gi > E a °) o .S L Z coN -:E 'o -a > Gi 00 Q :E E a 0 L c ao ciV N s -° >> d .=so m V 0 W 0 o > E ° a) c L V m 'a ° E V 0 c 0 -8 0 N a 3 a 0 N _ a > Q (D 3 a a) 3 `a E a d 3 a 0 3 } m > o c 3 V m c 0 o 0 0 � °c 0 W m 0 (N) Bloomfield Rd California ®®_�®m , m®m� • • ®®mmm®m® (N) Clarendon Rd north of Burlingame Ave (S) Amphlett Blvd south of Peninsula Ave (S) California Dr (S) Clarendon Rd south of Burlingame Ave (S) Dwight Rd south of Burlingame Ave (S) Humboldt Rd Woodside • (W) Bayswater Ave at Mrytle Rd (W) Burlingame Ave at Mrytle Rd (W) Howard Ave at Mrytle Rd 101 i N Gate®®��®m , •®�© , , ®� •,®®®® Rollins Rd (north of Bloomfield Rd) Grand Total ®� i • m®�� i • ® i i ®®�®® , • ®® • , • "Sample size of 16,430 are GPS pings that were recieved during the data collection period between February and May, 2017 and does not represent the actual total number of cars traveling through the neighborhoods. NEEDS ANALYSIS WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhood Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations ** Table 5. Overall Results of Analysis Showing Percentage of Cars Traveling between Origin (rows) and Destinations (columns) . . (E) Peninsula Ave at US 101 :4 0.0% - 0.2% - 3.4% -:E co 0.0% ho co 0.1 % 0 0.0% 1.6% to 0 0.0% -C 0) ad ca 0.1 % 0.1 % -V 0.0% 0.8% 1.9% 1.8% 5.0% 1.2% 0.2% 2.9% 19.20% 0.0% (N) Bloomfield Rd 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.6% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1 % 0.7% 2.59% (N) California Dr 1.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.2% 0.6% 0.2% 2.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.2% 0.9% 0.2% 748% (N) Clarendon Rd north of Burlingame Ave 0.0% 0.0% 0.1 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.19% (N) Dwight Rd north of Burlingame Ave 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.1 % 0.70% (5) Amphlett Blvd south of Peninsula Ave 0.0% 0.0% 0.1 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.2% 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.0% 0.75% (S) California Dr 2.2% 0.3% 0.8% 0.0% 0.1 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1 % 0.0% 0.1 % 0.2% 0.1 % 1.6% 0.3% 0.7% 7.23% (S) Clarendon Rd south of Burlingame Ave 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1 % 0.0% 0.1 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.1 % 0.51 % (S) Dwight Rd south of Burlingame Ave 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 0.6% 1.2% 0.5% 0.1 % 1.6% 7.66% (S) Humboldt Rd 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.3% 0.5% 0.0% 1.4% 3.02% (S) Woodlake Condo 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.15% (S) Woodside Way 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1 % 0.2% 0.1 % 0.4% 0.1 % 0.0% 0.1 % 1.68% (W) Bayswater Ave at Mrytle Rd 0.5% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 0.1 % 2.43% (W) Burlingame Ave at Mrytle Rd 0.5% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.1 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1 % 0.7% 0.1 % 3.00% (W) Howard Ave at Mrytle Rd 1.0% 0.2% 0.1 % 0.0% 0.1 % 0.2% 0.2% 0.1 % 0.7% 0.6% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1 % 0.0% 0.1 % 0.3% 0.8% 0.4% 5.03% (W) Peninsula Ave at California Dr 3.0% 0.1 % 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1 % 0.0% 0.1 % 1.4% 0.6% 0.1 % 0.4% 0.0% 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.0% 1.6% 1.1 % 0.8% 10.20% 101 SB N Gate 1.2% 1.4% 0.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 1.4% 0.8% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 1.0% 0.5% 0.2% 0.9% 0.2% 9.59% 101 SB S Gate 0.1 % 0.1 % 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.7% 0.8% 2.0% 0.6% 0.1 % 0.9% 7.74% Rollins Rd (north of Bloomfield Rd) 1.5% 2.1 % 0.6% 0.0% 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.4% 0.0% 1.4% 1.4% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 1 1.2% 0.4% 0.1 % 0.9% 0.0% 10.85% Grand Total 11.6% 5.1 % 1 11.3% 0.3% 1.1 % 1.0% 4.6% 0.5% 8.5% 1 5.1 % 0.2% 2.0% 2.3% 1 4.5% 1 6.8% 1 10.6% 1 7.5% 6.9% 1 10.0% 100% WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM NEEDS ANALYSIS This page intentionally left blank. RplGns R _ � rn.r�+. 11 '16 ¢N 1p • •• , -/ Washington re • sfr �a ~as ing Elementary ~X�lllllllp Ill, School a Q, 9� O� g S O Cy Origin/Destination d Southbound Rollins Road 9'�� Pa L to .. , t�� /�� Sc 0 CySouthbound California Drive lr�r A r. i� Westbound Peninsula Avenue IFti _ vo �(�y 00* Northbound Dwight Road Figure 11. Major Cut -Through Routes (Weekday Average) WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM t 4 i Nc NEEDS ANALYSIS This page intentionally left blank. Parking Residents indicated that parking demand in the neighborhoods has increased with increasing population and limited parking supply outside the neighborhoods. There is also an issue of customers of the businesses along Humboldt Road parking their vehicles within the neighborhoods. With regards to increase in housing and commercial development in the neighborhood, residents raised concerns about worsening parking conditions. In the online survey, 62 percent of the respondents expressed that parking intrusion from non-residents is one of the major concerns related to traffic and safety. Parking was ranked as the third most concerning issue after speeding and cut -through traffic. The City has a Residential Permit Parking Program that exempts permit holders from public parking restrictions and is in effect in residential streets adjacent to commercial areas. This program could be expanded to Lyon Hoag, but further coordination between Lyon Hoag residents and City staff would be needed to implement such permit zone designations. Under the existing terms of the program, residents must submit a petition signed by 1/4 of the residents of the street to include that street in the program. Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhood Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations 40 Sight Distance The visibility at most intersection approaches was poor due to limited corner sight distances. Such sight distance constraints hinder drivers from viewing oncoming vehicles while approaching or making turns at the intersections. Through field verifications, it was observed that vehicles were parked close to the curb returns at some intersections. Other physical obstructions, such as large trees and signposts, were observed to result in sight distance constraints. There were overgrown shrubs along Myrtle Road, Dwight Road, Victoria Road, Burlingame Avenue, Howard Avenue, and the exit onto Rollins Road, blocking regulatory signs. The following locations were identified as having corner sight distance issues: • All Burlingame Avenue intersections within the study area • Victoria Road/Rollins Road • Humboldt Road/Rollins Road • Dwight Road/Rollins Road • Bloomfield Road/Rollins Road • Howard Avenue/East Lane 4.2 FEASIBILITY Traffic Circle and Bulbout Design Feasibility A design feasibility analysis was conducted to determine the practicality of installing traffic circles at five locations and bulbouts at six locations. These locations were further grouped into four categories of similar characteristics. They are listed below. • Group 1 Intersections — Bulbouts at Howard Avenue and Anita Road, Howard Avenue and Arundel Road, and Howard Avenue and Humboldt Road: • There are four-way stops with eight feet marked shoulders and four feet wide bike lanes on Howard Avenue. There are storm drain inlets, utility manholes, and valves in the roadway. • Group 2 Intersections — Bulbouts at Rollins Road and Victoria Road, Rollins Road and Bloomfield Road, and Rollins Road and Dwight Road: • There are one-way stops with through traffic on Rollins Rd. There are storm drain inlets, utility manholes, and valves in the roadway. • Group 3 Intersections — Traffic Circle at Bayswater Avenue and Bancroft Road, Howard Avenue and Bancroft Road, Plymouth Way and Bloomfield Road, and Plymouth Way and Dwight Road: • There are four-way intersections and two- way stops at BayswaterAvenue and Bancroft WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM NEEDS ANALYSIS AIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 40 Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhood Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations Road, Howard Avenue and Bancroft Road, and Plymouth Wayand Bloomfield Road.The T-intersection at Plymouth Way and Dwight Road is uncontrolled. There are storm drain inlets, a valley gutter at Howard Avenue and Bancroft Road, asphalt depression at Plymouth Way and Bloomfield Road, and utility manholes and valves in the roadway. • Group 4 Intersections — Traffic Circle at Vernon Way and Dwight Road: • This is an uncontrolled four-way intersection with an existing triangular median. There are subsurface utilities, including street light within the island and utility manhole and valves in the roadway. The results of the analysis showed that the preliminary design is infeasible for Group 1 intersections for striped bulbouts with delineators. Full or detached bulbouts are recommended as the delineators will be damaged by turning fire trucks in case of striped bulbouts. For Group 2 intersections, concrete bulbouts are possible, and the through lanes should be a minimum of 11 feet wide. For Group 3 intersections, the left turn for fire trucks would be difficult. Thus, it is recommended that on -street parking next to intersection corners should be removed to provide a better turning opportunity. For Group 4 intersections, all movements are possible, but it is still recommended that cars parked close to the intersection should be removed. Detailed information on the analysis and recommendations is provided in Appendix F. Stop Warrant Analysis Stop signs are installed at intersections to help drivers and pedestrians establish right-of-way. These are installed at locations where the conflicting traffic is high enough to require control. They are not intended to reduce speeding and are primarily used as a traffic controlling device and not as a traffic calming solution. The justification for the installation of stop signs is determined by guidelines listed in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD) under Section 2B.07, and engineering judgment. The guidelines consider factors like the number of vehicles and pedestrians entering the intersection (turning movement counts) at a continuous eight -hour period, 24-hour bi-directional traffic counts (average daily traffic), the speed of traffic, the availability of safe crossing opportunities, and collision patterns within the area. A warrant analysis was conducted at the following intersections: • Howard Avenue/Victoria Road • Howard Avenue/Channing Road • Howard Avenue/Bloomfield Road • Bayswater Avenue/Victoria Road • Bayswater Avenue/Channing Road • Bayswater Avenue/Clarendon Road • Bloomfield Road/Plymouth Way • Dwight Road/Lexington Way • Burlingame Avenue/Arundel Road As a result of the analysis, an all -way stop control is recommended for the intersection of Howard Avenue and Victoria Road due to its direct proximity to Victoria Park, a major pedestrian generator in the neighborhoods. The conversion would require east - and westbound motorists on Howard Avenue to come to a full stop when approaching Victoria Road, providing safer and walkable north -south pedestrian connections for park -goers. Detailed information of the analysis is provided in Appendix G. NEEDS ANALYSIS WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC CALMING SOLUTIONS Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations Traffic calming solutions are developed based on the outreach efforts and preliminary engineering verifications in the field. Best practices were referenced, including the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) and Burlingame's adopted Residential Traffic Calming Program. This section outlines a number of the recommended solutions, along with photos, the traffic calming effect, and the drawbacks of each solution. Figure 12 shows the recommended traffic calming solutions for the entire neighborhood. The recommended improvements are to be implemented in three phases. After each phase, an improvement monitoring analysis should be conducted prior to implementing the next phase and the City should incorporate changes as deemed appropriate based on monitoring data. High Visibility Crosswalk High visibility crosswalks are ladder -style crosswalks at intersection approaches or mid -block crossing locations as permitted. These are preferable to standard parallel pavement markings as they are more visible to approaching vehicles and have been shown to improve yield behavior. Traffic Calming Effect • Heightens awareness of pedestrians • Slows vehicle speeds approaching crosswalks • Increases visibility during nighttime Drawback • Though it heightens awareness of crossing locations, it provides a false sense of pedestrian security, and oversubscribing will lessen its impact on motorists. Centerline, Edgeline, and Parking Lane Markings Pavement striping that designates travel lanes and parking lanes and creates narrowed roadways to slow vehicular speeds. Traffic Calming Effect • Slows vehicle speeds • Does not slow emergency vehicles Drawback • Ongoing additional maintenance RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC CALMING SOLUTIONS WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations V Red Curb Red curbs restrict vehicles from stopping, standing, or parking at locations with sight distance constraints or locations where clearance must be accommodated. Traffic Calming Effect • Provides clearance where appropriate, e.g., bus shelters, crosswalks, intersection corners Drawback • Not aesthetically appealing • Reduced parking supply Speed Limit Sign/Feedback Sign Speed feedback signs are radar speed detectors designed to alert drivers of their speeds. Speed feedback signs are typically installed along with speed limit signs. Traffic Calming Effect • Heightens awareness of traveling speed • Low-cost with high benefit Drawback • Little benefit once removed • Less effective without enforcement Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) are pedestrian crossing warning signs with yellow flashing lights. Pedestrian push buttons activate these lights. Traffic Calming Effect • Increases awareness of pedestrian crossing • Lower cost than lighted crosswalk Drawback • Requires periodic maintenance • Could be solar powered • Could be down due to battery issues WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC CALMING SOLUTIONS Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations Median Island Road Hump/Speed Cushion Corner Bulbout Median islands are painted medians atthe intersection that force drivers to make slight maneuvers, resulting in slower vehicle speeds. Traffic Calming Effect • Slows vehicle speeds in the vicinity • Does not slow emergency vehicles Drawback • Requires more regular maintenance Road humps are vertical pavement deflection or speed tables that create a 3.5 to 4-inch raise with cutouts for emergency vehicle unaffected access while reducing passenger car speeds. They can be offset to allow unhindered passage by emergency vehicles and are typically used on key emergency response routes. Road humps and road cushions should not be installed on bus routes. Traffic Calming Effect • Reduces vehicle speeds • Low-cost with high benefit Drawback • Potential vehicle damage when traversed at high speed rI Bulbouts are extended curbs designed to reduce crossing distances at crosswalks. They visually and physically narrow the roadway, creating safer and shorter crossings for pedestrians. Traffic Calming Effect • Shortens pedestrian crossing distance • Increases awareness of pedestrians • Slows vehicle speeds at intersection Drawback • May potentially impact emergency vehicle access • Higher design and construction costs .. RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC CALMING SOLUTIONS WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations 40 Traffic Circle Traffic circles are installed at intersections using simple markings or raised islands and are best applied in conjunction with plantings that beautify the street and the surrounding neighborhood. They require drivers to maneuver slowly through an intersection, thus obstructing the flow of speed in the corridors. Traffic Calming Effect • Slows vehicle speeds at intersection • Lowers conflict of opposing traffic • Provides the opportunity for landscaping Drawback • May potentially impact emergency vehicle access • Higher design and construction cost WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC CALMING SOLUTIONS This page intentionally left blank. e ell Washington Park ■ d�/ fOr�/a O y r �P f r R . s Burlingame f.� Downtown Caltrain Station le a��"� r• Figure 12. Recommended Traffic Calming Solutions Rollins Road - _ - �a- Je�� Washington Elementary School Aq, �r • �"4 Commercial Victoria Park Pacific Rim International School Stop Sign (© Existing Stop Sign ) 40 Bulbout Red Curb Extension r • Median Island Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Q Permanent Speed Feedback Sign Traffic Circle IIIIII High Visibility Crosswalk (Yellow) 171 High Visibility Crosswalk (White) = Standard Ladder Crosswalk (White) / Road Hump Centerline/Parking Lane Marking WWW.LYONHOAGIRAFFICCALMING.COM RECOMMENDED PROJECTS This page intentionally left blank. PRIORITIZATION & PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations This chapter details the prioritization of the projects per implementation phases, delivering outcomes as near, medium, and long-term improvements. The prioritization was based on data collected (average daily traffic, 85th percentile speed, origin -destination analysis), and feedback from the community workshops and online survey. 6.1 PHASF ' IMPROVEMENTS (NEAR TERM) Phase I improvements are those improvements that could be implemented relatively soon. They include low-cost and quick solutions such as upgrading existing standard crosswalks to high visibility crosswalks or installing new high visibility crosswalks at stop -controlled legs of intersections. Other solutions include marking centerline, edgeline and parking lane, installing median islands, red curbing corners of intersections to mark no -parking zones, installing rubberized road humps, and striping traffic circles with delineators. Selected locations will be monitored by the City to make road humps and traffic circles more permanent. Table 6 lists the locations, solutions and the cost estimates for improvements under Phase I. Figure 13 shows the Phase I improvements at locations throughout the neighborhood. Table 6. Phase I Traffic Calming Solutions and Cost Estimate Location • Proposed Alternatives Cost Range INTERSECTIONS Bayswater Avenue and Myrtle Road CW-1 High Visibility Crosswalk X 1 on North Leg (White) $ 5,000 to 5,250 Bayswater Avenue and Anita Road CW-2 High Visibility Crosswalk X 4 (Yellow) $ 20,000 to 21,000 Bayswater Avenue and Arundel Road CW-3 High Visibility Crosswalk X 4 (Yellow) $ 20,000 to 21,000 Bayswater Avenue and Bloomfield Road CW-4 High Visibility Crosswalk X 4 (White) $ 20,000 to 21,000 Bayswater Avenue and Clarendon Road MC-1 Median Island (Striped) $ 2,000 to 2,100 Bayswater Avenue and Dwight Road CW-5 High Visibility Crosswalk X 4 (White) $ 20,000 to 21,000 Bayswater Avenue and Channing Road MC-2 Median Island (Striped) $ 2,000 to 2,100 CW b High Visibility Crosswalk X 1 on East Leg (White) $ 5,000 to 5,250 Bayswater Avenue and Bancroft Road TTC-1 Trial Traffic Circle $ 5,000 to 5,250 Bayswater Avenue and Victoria Road RC-1 Red Curb Extension $ 2,000 to 2,100 Bayswater Avenue and Humboldt Road CW-7 High Visibility Crosswalk X 4 $ 20,000 to 21,000 Howard Avenue and Myrtle Road CW-8 High Visibility Crosswalk X 1 on East Leg (White) $ 5,000 to 5,250 Howard Avenue and Anita Road CW-9 High Visibility Crosswalk X 4 (Yellow) $20,000 to 21,000 Howard Avenue and Arundel Road CW-10 High Visibility Crosswalk X 4 (Yellow) $ 20,000 to 21,000 Howard Avenue and Bloomfield Road CW-11 High Visibility Crosswalk X 1 on East Leg (White) $ 5,000 to 5,250 MC-3 Median Island (Striped) $ 2,000 to 2,100 Howard Avenue and Dwight Road CW-12 High Visibility Crosswalk X 4 (White) $ 20,000 to 21,000 Howard Avenue and Channing Road CW-13 High Visibility Crosswalk X 1 on East Le g (White) $ 5,000 to 5,250 MC-4 Median Island (Striped) $ 2,000 to 2,100 Howard Avenue and Bancroft Road TTC-2 Trial Traffic Circle $ 4,000 to 4,200 Howard Avenue and Victoria Road RC-2 Red Curb Extension $ 2,000 to 2,100 SS-1 Stop Sign X 2 on East and West Legs $ 1,000 to 1,050 CW-14 High Visibility Crosswalk X 4 (White) $ 20,000 to 21,000 Howard Avenue and Humboldt Road CW-15 High Visibility Crosswalk X 4 (White) $ 20,000 to 21,000 ® PRIORITIZATION 5 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations 40 Table 6 (Continued). Phase I Traffic Calming Solutions and Cost Estimate Burlingame Avenue and East Lane CW-16 High Visibility Crosswalk X 2 on East$ and South Legs (White) 10,000 to 10,500 Burlingame Avenue and Myrtle Road CW-17 High Visibility Crosswalk X 1 on SouthLeg (White) $ 5,000 to 5,250 Burlingame Avenue and Anita Road CW-18 High Visibility Crosswalk X 3 (White) $ 12,675 to 15,000 Burlingame Avenue and Arundel Road RC-3 Red Curb Extension $ 1,000 to 1,050 CW 19 Standard Ladder Crosswalk X 1 on South Leg (White) $ 2,000 to 2,100 Burlingame Avenue and Bloomfield Road CW-20 High Visibility Crosswalk X 4 (White) $ 20,000 to 21,000 Burlingame Avenue and Clarendon Road RC-4 Red Curb Extension $ 1,000 to 1,050 Burlingame Avenue and Dwight Road CW-21 High Visibility Crosswalk X 4 (White) $ 16,900 to 17,745 Burlingame Avenue and Stanley Road RC-5 Red Curb Extension $ 1,000 to 1,050 Burlingame Avenue and Channing Road CW 22 High Visibility Crosswalk X 1 on West Le g (White) $ 5,000 to 5,250 MC-5 Median Island (Striped) $ 2,000 to 2,100 Burlingame Avenue and Victoria Road RC-6 Red Curb Extension $ 500 to 525 MC-6 Median Island (Striped) $ 10,000 to 10,500 Bloomfield Road and Peninsula Avenue CW-23 High Visibility Crosswalk X 1 on North Leg (Yellow) $ 5,000 to 5,250 Bloomfield Road and Plymouth Way TTC-3 Trial Traffic Circle $ 5,000 to 5,250 Bloomfield Road and Oak Grove Avenue RC-7 Red Curb Extension $ 1,000 to 1,050 Dwight Road and Peninsula Avenue CW-24 High Visibility Crosswalk X 1 on North$ Leg (White) 5,000 to 5,250 Dwight Road and Vernon Way TTC-4 Trial Traffic Circle $ 5,000 to 5,250 Dwight Road and Plymouth Way TTC-5 Trial Traffic Circle $ 5,000 to 5,250 Dwight Road and Trenton Way RC-8 Red Curb Extension $ 1,000 to 1,050 SEGMENTS Entire Howard Avenue BL-1 5-feet Bike Lane $ 75,000 to 78,750 Entire Bayswater Avenue CP-1 Centerline, Parking Lane Marking $ 65,000 to 68,250 WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM PRIORITIZATION & PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations Table 6 (Continued). Phase I Traffic Calming Solutions and Cost Estimate Location ID Proposed Alternatives Cost Range Bloomfield Road between Peninsula TRH-1 Trial Road Hump $ 3,000 to 3,150 Avenue/Bayswater Avenue Bloomfield Road between Bayswater TRH-2 Trial Road Hump $ 3,000 to 3,150 Avenue/Howard Avenue Bloomfield Road between Howard TRH-3 Trial Road Hump $ 3,000 to 3,150 Avenue/Burlingame Avenue Bloomfield Road between Trenton Way/ TRH-4 Trial Road Hump $ 3,000 to 3,150 Rollins Road Entire Bloomfield Road CP-2 Centerline, Parking Lane Marking $ 75,000 to 78,750 Dwight Road between Peninsula Avenue TRH-5 Trial Road Hump $ 3,000 to 3,150 and Bayswater Avenue Dwight Road between Bayswater Avenue TRH-6 Trial Road Hump $ 3,000 to 3,150 and Howard Avenue Dwight Road between Howard Avenue and TRH-7 Trial Road Hump $ 3,000 to 3,150 Burlingame Avenue Dwight Road between Plymouth Way and TRH-8 Trial Road Hump $ 3,000 to 3,150 Lexington Way Entire Dwight Road CP-3 Centerline, Parking Lane Marking $ 65,000 to 68,250 Subtotal $ 666,400 to 699,720 Engineering Design, Plans and Specification $ 133,280 to 139,944 Cost (20% of Subtotal) Construction Inspection and Management Cost $ 133,280 to 139,944 (20% of Subtotal) Grand Total $ 932,960 to 979,608 PRIORITIZATION 5 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM e ell Washington Park Rollins Road 6, i y f i s R ;;y Downtown Burlingame '•, ,# �, Caltrain Station ny i Iwo 00 Figure 13. Phase I Improvements (Near Term) Washington Elementary School S e. % �r • Commercial Victoria Park -01 */X ��� e� Pacific Rim • International School It Stop Sign (© Existing Stop Sign ) Red Curb Extension Median Island Trial Traffic Circle nim High Visibility Crosswalk (Yellow) lni High Visibility Crosswalk (White) Standard Ladder Crosswalk (White) Trial Road Hump Centerline/Parking Lane Marking WWW.LYONHOAGIRAFFICCALMING.COM PRIORITIZATION & PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES This page intentionally left blank. Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations 40 6.2 PHASE II IMPROVEMENTS (MEDIUM TERM) Phase II improvements are those improvements that would be implemented in the near future. They include solutions such as permanent speed feedback signs and rectangular rapid flashing beacons. Phase II projects also include temporary or trial bulbouts as striped with delineators. Selective locations will be monitored by the City to make the striped bulbouts more permanent. If the temporary road humps seem effective in the period of Phase I improvements, they would be upgraded to permanent road humps in Phase 11. Such road humps might be added in the future if deemed necessary. Table 7lists the locations, solutions, and the cost estimates for improvements under Phase 11. Figure 14 shows the concept drawing for striped bulbouts with delineators. Figure 15 shows the Phase 11 improvements at locations throughout the neighborhood. Table 7. Phase II Traffic Calming Solutions and Cost Estimate %ocation ID Proposed Alternatives Total Cost INTERSECTION Bayswater Avenue and Channing Road FB-1 RRFB X 2 $ 50,000 to 52,500 Bayswater Avenue and Anita Road SBB-1 Striped Bulbout with Delineators X 4 $ 8,000 to 8,400 Bayswater Avenue and Arundel Road SBB-2 Striped Bulbout with Delineators X 4 $ 8,000 to 8,400 Howard Avenue and Anita Road SBB-3 Striped Bulbout with Delineators X 4 $ 8,000 to 8,400 Howard Avenue and Arundel Road SBB-4 Striped Bulbout with Delineators X 4 $ 8,000 to 8,400 Howard Avenue and Bloomfield Road FB-2 RRFB X 2 $ 51,000 to 53,550 Howard Avenue and Channing Road FB-3 RRFB X 2 $ 51,000 to 53,550 Howard Avenue and Humboldt Road SBB-5 Striped Bulbout with Delineators X 4 $ 8,000 to 8,400 Burlingame Avenue and East Lane SBB-b Striped Bulbout with Delineators X 2 $ 4,000 to 4,200 Burlingame Avenue and Victoria Road SBB-7 Striped Bulbout with Delineators X 2 $ 4,000 to 4,200 Bloomfield Road and Oak Grove Avenue SBB-8 Striped Bulbout with Delineators X 2 $ 4,000 to 4,200 Dwight Road and Trenton Way SBB-9 Striped Bulbout with Delineators X 2 $ 4,000 to 4,200 Humboldt Road and Bayswater Avenue SBB-10 Striped Bulbout with Delineators X 4 $ 8,000 to 8,400 SEGMENT Bayswater Avenue between Victoria SF-1 Speed Feedback Sign $ 17,000 to 17,850 Road/Bancroft Road Burlingame Avenue between Channing SF-2 Speed Feedback Sign $ 17,000 to 17,850 Road/Bancroft Road Bloomfield Road between Peninsula RH-1 Road Hump $ 17,000 to 17,850 Avenue/Bayswater Avenue Bloomfield Road between Bayswater RH-2 Road Hump $ 17,000 to 17,850 Avenue/Howard Avenue Bloomfield Road between Howard RH-3 Road Hump $ 17,000 to 17,850 Avenue/Burlingame Avenue Bloomfield Road between Plymouth SF-3 Speed Feedback Sign $ 17,000 to 17,850 Way/Trenton Way Bloomfield Road between Trenton Way/ RH-4 Road Hump $ 17,000 to 17,850 Rollins Road Dwight Road between Peninsula Avenue/ RH-5 Road Hump $ 17,000 to 17,850 Bayswater Avenue WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM PRIORITIZATION & PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES AIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations Table 7 (Continued). Phase II Traffic Calming Solutions and Cost Estimate Location • Proposed Alternatives Total Cost Dwight Road between Bayswater RH-6 Road Hump $ 17,000 to 17,850 Avenue/Howard Avenue Dwight Road between Howard Avenue/ RH 7 Road Hump $ 17,000 to 17,850 Burlingame Avenue Dwight Road between Plymouth Way/ RH-8 Road Hump $ 17,000 to 17,850 Lexington Way Dwight Road between Plymouth Way/ SF-4 Speed Feedback Sign $ 17,000 to 17,850 Trenton Way Subtotal $ 420,000 to 441,000 Engineering Design, Plans and Specification Cost (20% of Subtotal) --'--- Construction Inspection and Management $ 84,000 to 88,200 Cost (20% of Subtotal) Grand Total $ 588,000 to 617,400 PRIORITIZATION 5 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations 40 Figure 14. Concept for Striped Bulbouts with Delineator WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM PRIORITIZATION 8 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES This page intentionally left blank. _ • � ��� - �� Rollins Road Commercial �p Victoria Park 4 oJr • • i D o, b 0C' i Cat �a� L • ' �0 Pie o . • • awe3. � �'PQ. • 10 C a Burlingame >sy High School PQ Pie s � fo Washington Park �Q .a ■ Cd//�Or��a � y r �P f R ' Downtown Burlingame Caltrain Station %. # & - fir -ALaz -Abe Figure 15. Phase II Improvements (Medium Term) WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM wasningion Elementary Pacific Rim International o4 School P1 PRIORITIZATION 5 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES 10 This page intentionally left blank. Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations �O&` 6.3 PHASE III IMPROVEMENTS (LONG TERM) Phase III improvements are those improvements that would be implemented in the long run. They include high -cost solutions such as permanent traffic circles, and full or detached bulbouts. The trial traffic circle from Phase I and striped bulbouts with delineators from Phase II would be monitored for their effectiveness in solving issues such as speeding, cut -through traffic, and unsafe environment for pedestrians and bicyclists to determine whether they should be made more permanent in Phase III. If residents or the City feels additional traffic circles or bulbouts are required in certain locations, then after further monitoring they would be added as temporary structures as in Phase I and Phase II. Table 8 lists the locations, solutions, and a range of costs for these improvements under Phase III. Figure 16, Figure 17, Figure 18 and Figure 19 shows the concept drawing for full and detached bulbouts, and traffic circle. Figure 20 shows the Phase III improvements at locations throughout the neighborhood. Table 8. Phase III Traffic Calming Solutions and Cost Estimate Location.... Alternatives NEFF' Total Cost INTERSECTION Bayswater Avenue and Anita Road BB-1 Bulbout (Detached/Full) X 4 $ 95,000 to 99,750 Bayswater Avenue and Arundel Road BB-2 Bulbout (Detached/Full) X 4 $ 95,000 to 99,750 Bayswater Avenue and Bancroft Road TC-1 Traffic Circle $ 85,000 to 89,250 Howard Avenue and Anita Road BB-3 Bulbout (Detached/Full) X 4 $ 95,000 to 99,750 Howard Avenue and Arundel Road BB-4 Bulbout (Detached/Full) X 4 $ 95,000 to 99,750 Humboldt Road and Bayswater Avenue BB-10 Bulbout (Detached/Full) X 4 $ 95,000 to 99,750 Howard Avenue and Bancroft Road TC-2 Traffic Circle $ 85,000 to 89,250 Howard Avenue and Humboldt Road BB-5 Bulbout (Detached/Full) X 4 $ 95,000 to 99,750 Burlingame Avenue and East Lane BB-6 Bulbout (Detached/Full) X 2 $ 50,000 to 52,500 Burlingame Avenue and Victoria Road BB-7 Bulbout (Detached/Full) X 2 $ 50,000 to 52,500 Bloomfield Road and Plymouth Way TC-3 Traffic Circle $ 85,000 to 89,250 Bloomfield Road Oak Grove Avenue BB-8 Bulbout (Detached/Full) X 2 $ 50,000 to 52,500 Dwight Road and Plymouth Way TC-4 Traffic Circle $ 85,000 to 89,250 Dwight Road and Trenton Way BB-9 Bulbout (Detached/Full) X 2 $ 50,000 to 52,500 Dwight Road and Vernon Way TC-5 Traffic Circle $ 1,30,000 to 1,36,500 Subtotal $ 1,240,000 to 1,302,000 Engineering Design, Plans and Specification Cost (20% of Subtotal) $ 248,000 to 260,400 Construction Inspection and Management Cost (20% of Subtotal) $ 248,000 to 260,400 Grand Total $ 1,736,000 to 1,822,800 WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM PRIORITIZATION 8 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES Figure 18. Concepts for Traffic Circle 40 Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations Figure 16. Concept for Detached Bulbout ipm ri Figure 17. Concept for Full Bulbout PRIORITIZATION 8 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Lyon Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Studies & Recommendations 40 Figure 19. Concept for Bulbouts at the intersection of Burlingame Avenue and East Lane c, 0 EU WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM PRIORITIZATION & PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES This page intentionally left blank. e ell d y R ; Downtown Burlingame Caltrain Station i ip ASP •,, Figure 20. Phase III Improvements (Long Term) WWW.LYONHOAGTRAFFICCALMING.COM Rollins Road - - n n .• 0 wasningion Elementary ommercial • • i i a w� V ti 1 :a \v/ O'l Pacific Rim International School E i p PRIORITIZATION & PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES This page intentionally left blank. For more information, visit www.lyonhoagtraffiiccalming.com Contact us at (650) 558-7230 pwcounter@burlingame.org Eric Wollman Chief Of Police 150 120 90 60 30 0 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TRAFFIC STOPS Lyon Hoag District JUNE 8THROUGH AUGUST 31 2016 2017 2018 SELECTIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCMENT Lyon Hoag District JUNE8THROUGH AUGUST31 2016 2017 2018 HGANI LICE Mike Matteucci Police Captain TRAFFIC CITATIONS Lyon Hoag District JUNE 8 THROUGH AUGUST 31 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2016 58 2017 2018 What is selective traffic enforcement? Every week, the Director of Traffic creates a selective traffic enforcement list of problematic locations based on citizen input. Currently, there are eleven locations throughout all parts of the city (Trousdale Dr to Peninsula Ave) on the selective traffic enforcement list. Any officer may work selective traffic enforcement when they have time. An officer will park their marked patrol vehicle and monitor an intersection or street. The purpose is to watch for traffic violators and improper driving behaviors. If a violator is observed, the officer will leave the post, stop the violator, and address (cite, warning, etc.) the violation with the driver. What are passing checks? A passing check is when an officer monitors a specific location, like a park walkthrough or vacation house check, for unlawful activity. It is basically the number of times an officer has driven through the neighborhood during their normal patrol. They are not working selective enforcement, and not responding to a call for service. Because Lyon Hoag is listed on our "passing checks" list, officers are required to do extra checks of the area and log their check in our computer system. Checkout the Burlingame Police Department out on our social media sites: MIM Qp Facebook: facebook.com/burlingamepolice Twitter: @burlingamepd Web Site: www.burlingame.org/police 250 200 150 100 50 PASSING CHECKS Lyon Hoag District JUNE 8THROUGH AUGUST 31 2016 2017 2018 The Burlingame Police Department's policy on reported abandoned vehicles The Burlingame Police Department is committed to addressing all traffic complaints in a timely and appropriate manner. Abandoned cars can be disruptive to the overall quality of a neighborhood. The Burlingame Police Department realizes the importance of removing abandoned vehicles promptly, and within the specifications of law. Some signs of an abandoned vehicle include cobwebs, leaves and debris . around the tires, debris on the vehicle, dirt, low tires, and missing and/or broken vehicle parts. Even if a vehicle is parked in front of the owner's residence, registered and insured, the vehicle can still be considered abandoned or stored if it's been parked in excess of 72 hours without being driven. The Burlingame Police Department will place a yellow courtesy notice on the vehicle that explains the Burlingame Municipal Code section. The owner will be given 72 hours to either remove the vehicle from the street or drive it a minimum of one tenth of one mile. The marking officer will return no sooner than 3 days to determine if the owner has complied. If, at that time, the vehicle has not been driven or moved, the car can be towed and cited pursuant to State Law. The vehicle cannot be moved a few feet or across the street just to avoid the tow. The vehicle must be completely removed or actually driven for the officer to determine that it's not just being stored on the street. REPORTED ABANDON VEHICLES BY DMV REGISTERED OWNERS Lyon Hoag District JUNE 8THROUGH AUGUST 20 Burlingame City Of San Mateo San Mateo County San Francisco Santa Clara County Other Counties Out Of State Other Reported Abandon Vehicles Lyon Hoag District January 1, 2018 through August 20, 2018 CITY OF REGISTERED OWNER NUMBER Burlingame 55 San Mateo 35 San Francisco 17 Out Of State 7 Milpitas 6 Redwood City 6 San Carlos 6 San Jose 5 South San Francisco 4 Total 185 .P: Meatimk.8ther � Wng.Park a, s From January 1, 2018 to August 20, 2018, the Burlingame Police Department checked 185 reported abandon vehicles in the Lyon Hoag District. Of the 185 abandon vehicles, 35 vehicles were registered to owners in San Mateo. The map below are approximate locations of registered owners in the north -end of San Mateo. �,•. ��� � yG �rppryH.. �.� 'SS ZA Lexington Way �,aQ' % ani "rl zany o� 4 a `rr 04 Ns % 9hr Aar �c�c Poplar Creek °l'v ern �b `Pr `Z Galt course G°� aFepa v .t N,aP ag ¢iP QA LEI h °� WashingL-Park �j.°� s pv ® _ ._ ' a e h Op `aPy� iyah � QoQ�yc rn n old 41. El Burtmg—, w Vv sngtan Eke tary5,hoak Calri°�JaO b J a A y�� huh 4 gIp a �i CkYbhOu ee. a �a a San Mareo p High School ti'a Q �Qa yy G 30 a sf pue ex S� Sd7 eti 5ti a tSa�n � G.Oa EC The red box indicates number of rep8cted abagdon vehicles from the approximate locatidTi. air 11a �URLINGAME Memorandum To: City Council Date: May 18, 2020 From: Mayor Emily Beach Subject: Committee Report Apologies that I ran out of time for a detailed committee report. Here are some brief highlights: Broadway Grade Separation INFRA grant application: flurry of activity among City staff, lobbyists and me resulting from Department of Transportation's follow-up questions about our application this week. This is a good sign that demonstrates DOT'S strong interest in our project. Precipitated need for Mayor to assist lobbying team by re-engaging elected channels and key staff decision makers whom we met in DC to help nudge things along. Expect grant decision to happen in June, but this is an important week for our project. Significant work spent in my capacity as Chair of San Mateo County Transportation Authority and San Mateo County Express Lane JPA Board Member. In addition to both governing bodies' monthly meetings during this period, I participated in (at least) 6 meetings related to Finance Committee's $100m loan agreement between both organizations. Top constituent issues which demanded particularly significant time and attention during this period: small cell wireless infrastructure, safe streets, communicating shelter in place changes, SIP enforcement, restaurant suffering and relationships with property owners. These issues required many phone calls, Zoom meetings, email communications. Hosted two more constituent Q&A sessions open to the public (weekly during shelter in place) - all residents welcome. Participants very much appreciate this accessibility. • Participated in San Mateo County Official COVID-19 virtual Zoom Meeting coordination updates every M,W,F. Provided daily written summaries after each meeting to City Manager for roll -up, verification, and distribution among City Council and staff leaders. • Planning Commission Joint Meeting preparation & follow-up Beach Committee Report May 18, 2020 • League of California Cities Peninsula Division Board Meeting