Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2021.07.06CITY 0 BURLINGAME � os °Re �FATEG JYNE � BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular City Council Meeting on July 6, 2021 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date via Zoom Webinar at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by Councilmember Beach. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O'Brien Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION City Attorney Guina reported that direction was given, but no reportable action was taken. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor O'Brien Keighran reviewed upcoming events in the city. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. CITY RECOGNITION OF FINANCE DIRECTOR CAROL AUGUSTINE Mayor O'Brien Keighran read a proclamation regarding the retirement of Finance Director Augustine and recognizing her for her service to the City. Finance Director Augustine worked with the City for eight years and will be missed. The Council all thanked Finance Director Augustine for her dedication and hard work. They discussed the importance of having a calm and smart finance director in order to help the City make difficult decisions. Congratulations to Finance Director Augustine on her retirement. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA Sandra Lang thanked Finance Director Augustine for her years of service. She asked that the City consider implementing a cooling center plan and evacuation plans for natural disasters. Manito Velasco asked Council to look at the street signal timing at Primrose and Burlingame Avenue. He commented that the new timing is negatively impacting car traffic on Burlingame Avenue. (comment submitted via publiccomment@burlin ag me.org). 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. No items were pulled. Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt the Consent Calendar; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE JUNE 7 2021 CLOSED SESSION City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes for the June 7, 2021 Closed Session. b. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE JUNE 7, 2024 REGULAR MEETING City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes for the June 7, 2021 Regular Meeting. c. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE JUNE 9, 2021 SPECIAL MEETING City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes for the June 9, 2021 Special Meeting. d. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE JUNE 21, 2021 REGULAR MEETING City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes for the June 21, 2021 Regular Meeting. 2 e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH IPS GROUP, INC TO PROVIDE PAYMENT TRANSACTION SERVICES FOR SINGLE SPACE SMART METERS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021-22 Chief of Police Matteucci requested Council adopt Resolution Number 083-2021. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A $1,276,335 AGREEMENT WITH WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC. FOR TREE PRUNING AND STUMP REMOVAL, CITY PROJECT #85450 Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 084-2021. g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE 2ND AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH BAY AREA GEOTECHNICAL GROUP FOR GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION, SPECIAL INSPECTION, AND MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES, AND INCREASING THE CONTRACT BY $104,800 FOR A TOTAL NOT -TO -EXCEED AMOUNT OF $565,450, CITY PROJECT NO. 83240 Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 085-2021. h. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE RAY PARK FIELD AND PARKING LOT PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,864,267.18, PROJECT NO.85750 Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 086-2021. i. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROCUREMENT OF THREE VEHICLES FOR THE CITY'S FLEET SYSTEM AS PART OF THE FY 21/22 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $487,664 Public Works Director Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 087-2021. j. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BROADWAY, CALIFORNIA DRIVE, CADILLAC WAY, AND TROUSDALE DRIVE FEDERAL GRANT RESURFACING PROJECT BY REDGWICK CONSTRUCTION CO., CITY PROJECT NO. 84810 Public Works Director Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 088-2021. k. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL THREE VACANCIES ON THE BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION City Manager Goldman asked the Council to open the nomination period to fill three vacancies on the Beautification Commission. 3 1. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL THREE VACANCIES ON THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION City Manager Goldman asked the Council to open the nomination period to fill three vacancies on the Parks and Recreation Commission. m. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT NO.2 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TFG (THE FERGUSON GROUP) FOR NEEDS ANALYSIS, GRANT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, GRANT WRITING, AND ADVOCACY SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $180,000 City Manager Goldman requested Council adopt Resolution Number 089-2021. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REPLACING CHAPTER 25.77 (WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES) OF TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE; AND ADDING CHAPTER 12.11 (WIRELESS FACILITIES IN PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY) TO TITLE 12 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE (CEOA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEOA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15378, 15061(B)(3), 15302, 15303, AND 15304) ACA Spansail introduced Best Best and Krieger attorney Gail Karish, an expert in wireless regulations. ACA Spansail stated that staff held productive meetings with the wireless carriers between the first reading of the proposed ordinance and this meeting. He noted that staff made no changes to the proposed ordinance. Staff amended portions of the Design and Location Standards Resolution and the Municipal Facility License Agreement, which are included in the next item. ACA Spansail stated that staff will brief the City Council on the wireless ordinance in approximately six to nine months and may recommend amendments to address unexpected issues that arise during its implementation. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the proposed ordinance includes language about location standards and other design requirements. ACA Spansail responded that the proposed ordinance sets the frameworks, and the resolutions that will be considered under the next staff report include the specifics. Mayor O'Brien Keighran opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. 4 Councilmember Brownrigg thanked the public for letting Council find the right balance between telecommunication access and aesthetic development in Burlingame. He reminded the public that the City took on telecommunication companies when the Council felt that the companies were overstepping. However, now the City is in a position where it needs to make the process streamlined for telecommunication companies. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Ordinance 1993; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed by roll call vote, 5-0. b. ADOPTION OF THREE RESOLUTIONS: (1) RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING DESIGN AND LOCATION STANDARDS FOR WIRELESS FACILITIES IN PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF - WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENTS, AND ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAND AND ESTABLISHING STANDARD PERMIT CONDITIONS; (2) RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FORM OF A MUNICIPAL FACILITY LICENSE AGREEMENT (MFLA) FOR SMALL CELL WIRELESS FACILITIES INSTALLATION AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AND AMEND THE AGREEMENT; (3) RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A DEPOSIT FOR WIRELESS PERMIT APPLICATIONS UNDER CHAPTER 12.11 AND ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR WIRELESS PERMIT APPEALS UNDER CHAPTER 12.11, AND AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO AMEND THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE (CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15378,15061(B)(3),15302,15303, AND 15304) Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if each individual resolution is considered separately, or if they will be considered as one. ACA Spansail responded that each resolution would be considered separately. ACA Spansail stated that there are three resolutions for the Council to consider: 1. Resolution Establishing Design and Location Standards for Wireless Facilities. (He noted that this was the only resolution of the three that underwent changes from the last meeting.) 2. Resolution Approving the Form of a Municipal Facility License Agreement (MFLA) for Small Cell Wireless Facilities 3. Resolution Establishing a Deposit for Wireless Permit Applications under Chapter 12.11 and Establishing a Fee for Wireless Permit Appeals. ACA Spansail reviewed the Resolution Establishing Design and Location Standards for Wireless Facilities. He stated that this resolution establishes design and location standards for wireless facilities in the public rights -of -way, utility easements, and on public and private land. He added that the resolution also establishes standard permit conditions for these facilities. He continued that the design standards for installations in the public rights -of -way include requirements for facilities placed on utility poles and on light poles. He noted that the resolution also includes a set of standard permit conditions. Planning Manager Hurin explained that since the June 21 Council Meeting, staff made several changes to the resolution based on feedback from Council, the individual carriers, and the public. 5 Planning Manager Hurin reviewed the changes in the resolution related to graffiti: • All wireless facilities should be constructed or coated with graffiti -resistant materials. • Graffiti must be removed within five days from the time the carrier is notified, unless extension is granted by the City. Planning Manager Hurin reviewed the changes in the resolution related to location preferences: • Location preference order for facilities in public rights -of -way and utility easements. • Higher preference for parks and open space and a lower preference for schools and licensed daycare facilities. • Maintain aesthetically pleasing views from living areas by encouraging facilities to be located near shared property lines between two adjacent lots. Planning Manager Hurin reviewed the change in the resolution related to noise: • Additional space may be given to accommodate a passive cooling system that does not require fans. This will result in a quieter system. (He noted that of the five facilities installed so far, all incorporate a passive cooling system and do not emit any noise.) Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if there are any penalties for not removing graffiti within the five allotted days, and if not, could penalties be incorporated. ACA Spansail responded that after the five days, the City would be able to remove the graffiti. He explained that a penalty would be difficult to enforce. Ms. Karish responded that if the goal is to have the graffiti removed, then it would make more sense for the City to remove it and charge the removal to the permittee. Councilmember Brownrigg thanked staff for making the changes that were discussed at the last meeting. He voiced concern that the approach the City is taking is to set up preferences. He explained that he didn't want the wireless facilities close to homes. He noted that he had proposed prohibiting wireless facilities within 20 feet of livable spaces. ACA Spansail explained that there is a tough balance between technical feasibility and Councilmembers' comments. He noted that the shared property line language covers a lot of concerns. Planning Manager Hurin stated that the location guidelines encourage the wireless facility carriers to look at the poles that are setback and in the public rights -of -way as they are further away from homes. He noted that the facilities will tend to be 20 feet away from homes because typically second stories on homes are located 15 to 20 feet from property lines. Councilmember Brownrigg commented that he appreciated the pragmatic approach but wasn't convinced that the City couldn't be more prescriptive and require the facilities to be 20 feet from homes. Ms. Karish explained the issue with a 20-foot exclusion zone from homes is that it may limit available locations for wireless facilities. She stated that a carrier might challenge the cumulative impact of all of the requirements and whether that leaves them without locations to place their facilities. Councilmember Brownrigg thanked Ms. Karish for her answer. He stated that he would rather put the onus on the wireless companies to show the City that it can't work, rather than the current approach. 2 Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if any of the five facilities currently installed are within 20 feet of homes. Planning Manager Hurin stated that he would need to get back to Council with that information. ACA Spansail reviewed the second resolution entitled: Establishing a Deposit for Wireless Permit Applications under Chapter 12.11 and Establishing a Fee for Wireless Permit Appeals. He noted that since the last meeting, this resolution hadn't changed. He stated that this resolution would: • Establish a $1,000 deposit for Public Works to review applications pursuant to Chapter 12.11. He stated that if the deposit is exhausted, the City could require additional funds. He added that the City chose to establish a deposit rather than a fee to make sure the City doesn't run afoul of the SEC's requirement that a fee not exceed the City's reasonable costs. • Create a $600 wireless permit appeal fee that will be collected when a party appeals the decision on a wireless permit application. This $600 fee is inclusive of noticing costs related to the appeal. ACA Spansail reviewed the third resolution entitled: Approving the Form of a Municipal Facility License Agreement (MFLA) for Small Cell Wireless Facilities. He explained that this resolution would: • Approve the form of a municipal facility license agreement for installation of small cell wireless facilities on City -owned poles and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the agreement. • The MFLA is a template agreement for the City to use with carriers who request to place wireless facilities on City -owned poles in the public rights -of -way. The City owns approximately 1,130 steel light poles; 80 of these are decorative. o Initial term of ten years o $1,00 deposit for City costs, which requires replenishment o Separate from the permitting process — still requires that applicants obtain all required permits o Rent: FCC Declaratory Ruling currently limits annual rent to $270/location per calendar year ■ Alternate Rent: Should the ruling be overturned, rent will be $1,500/location per calendar year. ACA Spansail discussed changes that were made to the MFLA. He stated that the following changes were made as a result of good faith negotiations between the City and wireless carriers: • The agreement automatically renews in five-year intervals, rather than one-year intervals. • The alternate rent amount is subject to an annual adjustment of three percent (3%), rather than four percent (4%). • Changes to notice requirements, including for delinquencies and repairs. Ms. Karish commented that on the alternate fee for rent, there was a petition to the Supreme Court for review of the Ninth Circuit ruling that upheld the current rent price, and that petition was denied. She noted that the rental rate could change through an order from the FCC, or legislation passed by Congress or the State Legislature. Mayor O'Brien Keighran opened the item for public comment. A Verizon Wireless representative stated additional revisions were necessary to the design and location standards in order to ensure that the code was compliant with federal regulations. 7 An AT&T representative stated that AT&T supports the design guidelines as written and appreciates the template agreement. She noted that AT&T sent a letter to the City outlining their concerns with the MFLA. Mayor O'Brien Keighran closed public comment. Councilmember Brownrigg asked the Council if anyone would support a ban of wireless facilities within 20 feet of a residential home. Councilmember Colson asked staff if the City adopted a prescriptive distance, could it be revised later if problems arise. ACA Spansail responded that it is staff s intention to revisit and revise in six to nine months with what is working and what isn't. He noted that currently there is a preference order for carriers to follow, and they have to provide a reason for why they picked the location. This will allow staff to keep the facilities in the places that Council wants them to be. Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if staff would be able to track how far away these facilities are from houses. ACA Spansail responded in the affirmative. He noted that carriers will have to submit site plans to the City. Councilmember Beach thanked staff for their hard work. She stated she is in favor of keeping staff s recommendation and agrees with the idea to revisit this topic in six to nine months. Councilmember Brownrigg noted that a neighboring city has a 20-foot setback requirement for wireless facilities and that most of the City's setbacks are 20 feet. He voiced concern that because the City prefers placement of the wireless facilities at the top of poles, it would be closer to second story bedrooms. He added that the 20-foot proposal would put the facilities far enough away to be aesthetically okay. He noted that he does not believe that carriers will adhere to the preference order. Councilmember Ortiz commented that he will go with staff s recommendation. He acknowledged Councilmember Brownrigg's points but believed that staffs recommendation was for the best. Mayor O'Brien Keighran commented that she agrees with staffs recommendation. She noted that second story setbacks are usually more than 20 feet from public rights -of way. She continued that she is in favor of tracking and gathering feedback and reevaluating as per ACA Spansail's recommendation. Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 090-202 1 (entitled: Establishing Design and Location Standards for Wireless Facilities); seconded by Vice -Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed by roll call vote, 4-1 (Councilmember Brownrigg voted against). Ms. Karish clarified that graffiti on wireless facilities would be a regular code enforcement issue. She noted that on City poles, it would be considered damage, and that if the carrier did not remove it, the City could remove it (after giving notice) and charge the carrier. Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 091-2021 (entitled: Approving the Form of a Municipal Facility License Agreement (MFLA) for Small Cell Wireless Facilities); seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote 5-0. 8 Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 092-2021 (entitled: Establishing a Deposit for Wireless Permit Applications under Chapter 12.11 and Establishing a Fee for Wireless Permit Appeals); seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote 5-0. c. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15.06 AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 15.07 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT WASTEFUL WATER USE PRACTICES (CEOA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEOA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15378 AND 15061(B)(3)) DPW Murtuza commented that Municipal Code Chapter 15.06 references the water contingency shortage plan, and that Chapter 15.07 will adopt standards to prohibit wasteful water use practices. Mayor O'Brien Keighran opened the item up to public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if a property is being rented and gets fined, does the landowner or tenant pay. DPW Murtuza responded that before there is a fine issued, staff conducts outreach to the tenant. However, if education doesn't work, then the fine would be issued to the tenant. Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Ordinance 1994; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. Councilmember Brownrigg commented that he believes the best way to get people to save water is to price it more expensively as that will signal to people to use less. He added that he believed this ordinance would force individuals to purchase new items to come into compliance with the law. Mayor O'Brien Keighran commented that she believes staff will conduct thorough outreach on this ordinance. The motion passed by roll call vote 4-1 (Councilmember Brownrigg voted no). d. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING AND REVISING THE GENERAL FUND RESERVE POLICY AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE ANNUAL REVIEW LANGUAGE IN THE POLICY Finance Director Augustine explained that at the May Budget Study Session, Council asked why the General Fund Reserve Policy is tied to General Fund revenues rather than expenditures. Finance Director Augustine explained that the policy was implemented in Fiscal Year 2014-15 to support the City's goal of sustaining long-term financial strength and to maintain a high level of General Fund services should potential emergencies and unforeseen events occur. She stated that the City contracted with the Research and Consulting Center of the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for assistance in conducting a risk -based analysis of its General Fund reserve levels. She explained that the GFOA recommended the City adopt a formal General Fund Reserve Policy and worked with City staff to develop a draft policy. 0 Finance Director Augustine stated that the analysis established an optimal range of reserves for the City of $14 million to $17.4 million. She stated that the target levels of reserves in the policy were subsequently converted to provide a percentage of budgeted revenues. Finance Director Augustine noted that the last change that was made to the General Fund Reserve Policy was based on an updated analysis of the probable impact of an earthquake or other infrequent but consequential events. This change allowed for a reduction in the target reserve level of the City's Catastrophic Reserve from $2 million to $500,000. Finance Director Augustine stated that staff suggests changing the General Fund Reserve Policy to reflect the same language regarding an annual review as provided in the Capital Investment Reserve Policy. If the reviews are carried out as part of the development of each fiscal year's budget, the discussion provided in the budget staff reports and the document itself are adequate to constitute the annual review. Finance Director Augustine explained that staff is asking for Council direction on the policy review. She noted that the General Fund Reserve Policy is not the type of policy that should undergo frequent modification as it is more of a strategy. Mayor O'Brien Keighran opened the item up to public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Colson commented that she is satisfied with Finance Director Augustine's proposal in documenting the practice that Council has had of looking at the Reserve Policy and making judgements when needed. She noted she is in favor of the policy as proposed. Vice Mayor Ortiz agreed with Councilmember Colson. He commented that the policy has served the City well so far and is something that needs to be maintained going forward. He noted he agrees with the proposed changes. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he appreciates Finance Director Augustine's long-term vision and believes that this is one of the reasons the City was in a strong standing throughout this downturn. He commented that he believes this policy doesn't need to be reviewed annually and that there might be a risk if it is reviewed annually. He stated that he is in favor of reviewing the policy deeply every three years or so. He voiced relief for the significant Unassigned Fund Balance to help get through the downturn but believes there is some risk to relying on that approach. Mayor O'Brien Keighran commented that she doesn't have an issue with the yearly reviews as it has served the City well so far. She noted she is in favor of Councilmember Brownrigg's suggestion of a yearly pass through evaluation and a deep dive every three years. Councilmember Colson concurred with Mayor O'Brien Keighran. Vice Mayor Ortiz made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 093-2021; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. 10 e. REVIEW OF PROPOSED WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY CHARGES FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS DPW Murtuza explained that water and sewer infrastructure capacity charges are one-time fees, paid up- front as a condition of development. He continued that these fees are designed to recover the cost of capacity in existing infrastructure that benefits new development and redevelopment projects. He explained that that these charges are paid by new developments to purchase their fair share of the City's water and sewer system infrastructure for which the existing rate payers have long been contributing. These charges are collected through water and sewer connection fees and provide a separate source of revenue that would offset the overall funding needs of water and sewer systems and corresponding rates. He noted that in the absence of the capacity charges, existing rate payers would assume the burden of providing the infrastructure capacity for new development. DPW Murtuza stated that Burlingame does not have the water infrastructure costs that a lot of agencies do. He continued that the City does levy sewer capacity charges but that they were developed a long time ago and are extremely low compared to other agencies. He explained that staff worked with Bartle Wells Associates to develop new water and sewer capacity charges. DPW Murtuza introduced Bartle Wells Associates representative Alex Handlers. Mr. Handlers explained that Bartle Wells Associates is a financial consulting firm specializing in utility rates and finance. The firm is an MSRB-registered municipal advisory firm, has consulted for over 500 public agencies throughout California, and assisted Burlingame with the last water rate study. Mr. Handlers explained that capacity charges are: • One-time charges paid by new connections to the City's water and sewer systems. • Levied to recover the cost of capacity in infrastructure benefiting new development • Can also be collected from redevelopment that increases water and sewer demand • Sometimes referred to as "connection fees" or "development impact fees" • Paid by developers, not by ratepayers • Provides a supplemental source of revenues to help fund capital improvements and reduces the funding requirements from ratepayers • Objective: Growth pays its own share for infrastructure Mr. Handlers explained the purpose of the study: • Burlingame does not currently levy any water capacity charges • The City currently levies a "sewer connection fee", but the fee was established years ago and is extremely low (less than $300 per new single family home). • New water & sewer capacity charges are recommended to enable the City to recover the costs of infrastructure benefitting growth from new development • Study objectives: o Recover costs of infrastructure benefitting growth o Comply with California government code 11 o Based on industry -standard methodology o Fair and equitable to existing & future customers Mr. Handlers explained the legal framework: • Water and sewer capacity charges governed by California Government Code Section 66013 • Key provisions: o The charges "shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing service for which the fee or charge is imposed" o Can recover costs for "public facilities in existence at the time a charge is imposed or charges for new public facilities to be acquired or constructed in the future" • Code does not detail any specific methodology • Capacity charges must be segregated from other funds Mr. Handlers explained the general approach: • Proposed charges based on an "average buy -in' approach o City's water and sewer facilities were sized to accommodate growth o New connections buy in for their proportionate share of capacity needed in the City's water and sewer infrastructure. • Charges are calculated by dividing the cost of water and sewer system infrastructure by projected water and sewer usage of the City's customer base through buildout. • The resulting average cost per unit for water and sewer system infrastructure is then applied to the volume of estimated water and sewer use from different types of new connections. Mr. Handlers explained the water capacity charge calculation: • Water system cost recovery: $186.7 million (this is a conservative estimate) o Includes conservatively -low estimates of the replacement cost of water pipelines and water storage facilities o Accounts for a 75% cost recovery factor to be conservative and ensure the charge does not exceed the "estimated reasonable cost" of facilities o Excludes outstanding principal on debt used to fund water facilities • Projected water system demand: 1,956 million gallons per year, which equates to about 5.36 million gallons per day (MGD) o Based on 2015 Urban Water Management Plan projected water demand through buildout in 2040 • Unit cost = $34.8 per gallon per day (GPD) • Water demand for different customer classes based on analysis of water use data from FY 2017/18 and FY 2018/19 12 Mr. Handlers explained the proposed water capacity charges: Residential: Capacity charges per residential dwelling unit Single Family Residence $6,446 per dwelling unit Multifamily Dwelling unit a) 2 of more bedrooms $4,007 per dwelling unit b) Studio & 1 bedroom $2,613 per dwelling unit Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) a) Detached ADU or ADU with >150 sq ft $2.69 per square foot home expansion b) ADU within living area of existing home or No charge allowed with up to 150 sq ft expansion Mr. Handlers explained that there are some government regulations about how much cities can charge for accessory dwelling units. Non -Residential: Capacity charges based on water meter size Meter -Size Cost per connection 5/8-inch $6,446 3/4-inch $9,669 1-inch $16,116 1-1/2-inch $32,231 2-inch $51,570 3-inch $69,693 4-inch $161,155 Mr. Handlers explained the sewer capacity charge calculation: • Sewer system cost recovery: $226.6 million o Includes conservatively -low estimates of the replacement cost of sewer pipelines, pump stations, and the City's wastewater treatment facility o Accounts for a 75% cost recovery factor to be conservative and ensure the charge does not exceed the "estimated reasonable cost" of facilities o Only includes the City's allocated share of costs since a small share of system capacity serves Hillsborough & Burlingame Hills SMD o Excludes outstanding principal on debt used to fund sewer facilities • Projected City sewer system demand: 2.7 million gallons per day (MGD) o Based on FY 2020/21 Sewer System Master Plan sewer demand buildout projections • Unit cost = $84.1 per gallon per day (gpd) • Sewer demand per customer class based on FY 2020/21 Sewer Master Plan data and water use data from FY 2017/18 and FY 2018/19 13 Mr. Handlers explained the proposed sewer capacity charges: Residential: Capacity charges per residential dwelling unit Single Family Residence $9,834 per dwelling unit Multifamily Dwelling unit a) 2 of more bedrooms $6,808 per dwelling unit b) Studio & 1 bedroom $4,623 per dwelling unit Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) c) Detached ADU or ADU with >150 sq ft $4.10 per square foot home expansion d) ADU within living area of existing home or No charge allowed with up to 150 sq ft expansion Non -Residential: Capacity charges based on water meter size Meter -Size Cost per connection 5/8-inch $12,608 3/4-inch $18,912 1-inch $31,521 1-1/2-inch $63,041 2-inch $100,866 3-inch $189,124 4-inch $315,206 Mr. Handlers explained the application of charges: • Capacity charges apply to: o New development o Redevelopment that requires upsizing of a water meter would only pay charges for the incremental increase in demand (e.g. from 1" to 2" meter) o No capacity charges apply to residential remodeling projects or additions • Proposed charges apply to new connections with standard levels of water and sewer demand • The City should reserve the authority to determine capacity charges for non-standard connections on a case -by -case basis when warranted • Recommend adjusting capacity charges annually based on the change in the Engineering News - Record Construction Index Mr. Handlers explained that Bartle Wells Associates conducted a water and sewer capacity charge survey with surrounding agencies to compare the proposed charges. He stated that the next steps would be to obtain Council input and direction. He noted that pursuant to Government Code Section 66016, the City is required to mail a notice at least 14 days in advance of the public meeting to any interested party that has filed a written request with the City. 14 Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if there are instances where they would incorporate a different rate if the development has a certain percentage of affordable housing. Mr. Handlers noted that he has seen other cities reduce rates for certain customers. Councilmember Beach asked for clarification on single-family home renovations and what happens if they have to switch to a larger meter size. Mr. Handlers responded that it is a single charge per single-family home. He continued that sometimes a house remodel might have to respond to increased fire flow standards and have to increase from'/4-inch to 1-inch, but the price would stay the same as the charge is per dwelling unit. Councilmember Brownrigg commented he would be in favor of setting up a preference for affordable housing units. He thanked Councilmember Beach for her question on single-family home remodels as he noted often times single-family home remodels have to increase their meter size. He asked staff if they could study these proposed fees in conjunction with all the other fees so Council can see the total cost of the fees in relation to new developments and redevelopments. Vice Mayor Ortiz voiced his support for the affordable housing preference. He also concurred with Councilmember Brownrigg's suggestion for a review of the overall fees associated with new developments and redevelopments. Mayor O'Brien Keighran opened the item up to public comment. No one spoke. DPW Murtuza stated that what he was hearing was that Council wants to move forward with the proposed water and sewer capacity charges and look into the viability of concessions or discount for affordable housing. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the City could either give a waiver or discount on charges on a unit that is affordable. He added that alternatively, as housing developments have a minimum number of units that have to be affordable per regulation, the City could give a discount on any units that exceed this minimum. Mayor O'Brien Keighran agreed with Councilmember Brownrigg's point on giving a discount on units over the minimum. Councilmember Colson suggested looking at other cities to see what they are doing in regards to affordable housing. She commented that her concern about the fees would be that they may force developers who are building affordable units to push those units out of the very affordable range. She mentioned she wants to understand the economics of it and hear from CDD Gardiner and a developer on the impacts. C CONSIDERATION OF A MARKET AND ECONOMIC STUDY FOR DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME CDD Gardiner stated that staff recommends that the City Council consider having a market and economic study prepared for Downtown Burlingame. He explained that at the Economic Development Subcommittee 15 meeting, the members discussed the preparation of the economic studies for Downtown Burlingame and Broadway. He noted that an economic study for the Broadway commercial district has already been budgeted through a Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)/Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) grant for the Broadway Specific Plan. CDD Gardiner stated that the intent of preparing economic studies for Downtown and Broadway would be to gauge market direction and preferences at a finer scale and with more current data than the previous citywide market analysis. He commented that the study could be in the range of $50,000 - $75,000 depending on the economic analysis and economic impacts. Mayor O'Brien Keighran voiced her concern about the timing of the study and how accurate the study would be as the City recovers from the pandemic. She asked how many vacancies are in the Downtown and Broadway areas. Councilmember Beach asked about a long-term downtown parking study and how it might be done in conjunction with the proposed study. CDD Gardiner responded that part of it depends on the objective of both studies. He noted that if the City conducted a parking study, it would review how well parking is currently working. However, an economic study looks at future developments, such as if there is a market for additional office space or more housing. These increases would create a new parking demand. Councilmember Beach commented that she thinks the City should be thoughtful about the two studies and see if there are any opportunities to do the two studies in tandem. Mayor O'Brien Keighran opened the item up to public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Brownrigg commented that he would leave it up to staff s judgement on when to plan the timing of the study. He commented that the Post Office Redevelopment Project has exhausted all of the approved office space that Council approved in the downtown plan. He noted that the study would be good to survey if there is need for more office space. He mentioned that the Town Square is another factor that could drive an economic review, and that having expert advice on its impact will be useful. Vice Mayor Ortiz agreed with Councilmember Brownrigg's statement. He commented that it feels like Council is flying blind in regards to downtown issues as they don't have the expert advice on the issues. He believes that a study would help remedy this. He mentioned that he would be in favor of waiting on the study for a few reasons: 1. the City had some expenses that were not foreseen; 2. it will give time for the recovery to take hold and get better numbers; and 3. it will allow opportunities to find more funding streams. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council reviewed their committee appointments. 16 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Brownrigg asked if it Council could agendize a discussion on if the Beautification Commission should formally be expanded to include art in public spaces. He commented that he thinks there are more and more opportunities for public art. Vice Mayor Ortiz seconded this request. Council agreed to agendize the item. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the topic of cooling centers needs to be agendized. City Manager Goldman responded that City Librarian McCulley has put together plans for the Library to be a Cooling Center, and that the new Community Center will be a Cooling Center in the future. 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. a�g. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor O'Brien Keighran adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk 17