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 - 2022.03.07 Regular Session
CITY v 0 ticow � � rPORATED Monday, March 7, 2022 City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda - Final City Council 7:00 PM Regular Meeting BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law AB 361 which allows a local agency to meet remotely when: The local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency 2. State or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing 3. Legislative bodies declare the need to meet remotely due to present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees On February 22, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 012-2022 stating that the City Council and Commissions will continue to meet remotely for at least thirty days for the following reasons: 1. There is still a declared state of emergency 2. County Health Orders require that all unvaccinated individuals in public spaces maintain social distancing and wear masks 3. The City can't maintain social distancing requirements for the public, staff, Councilmembers, and Commissioners, in their meeting spaces Pursuant to Resolution Number 012-2022, the City Council Chambers will not be open to the public for the March 7, 2022 Regular Meeting. Members of the public may view the meeting by logging into the Zoom Webinar 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. Note that your comment concerns an item that is not on the agenda. 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 March 7, 2022. The City will make every effort to read emails received after that time, but cannot guarantee such emails will be read into the record. Any 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. Online City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 31312022 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final March 7, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Online To access the meeting by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 812 5427 1442 Passcode:328280 To access the meeting by phone: Dial 1-669-900-6188 Meeting ID: 812 5427 1442 Passcode:328280 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION 5. UPCOMING EVENTS 6. PRESENTATIONS 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Council agenda may do so during this public comment period. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR Consent calendar items are usually approved in a single motion, unless pulled for separate discussion. Any member of the public wishing to comment on an item listed here may do so by submitting a speaker slip for that item in advance of the Council's consideration of the consent calendar. a. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for the February 7, 2022 Study Session Attachments: Meeting Minutes b. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for the February 7, 2022 Regular Meeting Attachments: Meeting Minutes C. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for the February 22, 2022 Study Session Attachments: Meeting Minutes City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 3/3/2022 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final March 7, 2022 d. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for the February 22, 2022 Regular Meeting Attachments: Meeting Minutes e. Adoption of Resolutions Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Project Specific Maintenance Agreement with Caltrans for the US 101/Broadway Interchange and Amendment No. 2 to the Cost Sharing Agreement for the State Highway Electrical Facilities Attachments: Staff Report Resolution ADDrovina Proiect Specific Maintenance Aareement (Broadwav I/C E Resolution Approving Amendment No. 2 to Sharing Cost of State Highway Elect Project Specific Maintenance Agreement for Broadway Interchange Amendment No. 2 to Sharing Cost of State Highway Electrical Facilities Agreerr Original Agreement + Amendment No. 1 for Sharing Cost of State Highway Elec Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Renew the Service Agreement with DocuSign for the Period of March 30, 2022 - March 29, 2023, for the Electronic Signing of Documents Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Agreement g. Adoption of Two Resolutions Approving the Installation of Two Public Art Projects Consisting of the Bufano Bronze Owl and the National Charity League Mural and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter Into Art Donation Acceptance Agreements Attachments: Staff Report Bufano Owl Donation Resolution Positive Change Mural Donation Resolution Bronze Owl Mural Mock Up SF Chronicle Bufano Profile December Trustee Meeting Minutes January Trustee Meeting Minutes h. Approval of Public Library Association Conference Out of State Travel Attachments: Staff Report 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment) 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 3/3/2022 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final March 7, 2022 a. Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR) and Housing Program Discussion Attachments: Staff Report Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR) Tables July 1, 2019 City Council Meeting Minutes 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking & Recreation Commission, and the Library Board of Notice: Any attendees who require assistance, a disability related modification, or language assistance in order to participate in the meeting should contact Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, March 7, 2022 at (650) 558-7203 or at mhasselshearer@burlingame.org. Any individual who wishes to request an alternate format for the agenda, meeting notice, or other writings that may be distributed at the meeting should contact Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, March 7, 2022 at (650) 558-7203 or at mhasselshearer@burlingame.org. NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mid -Year Budget Study Session Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 6:30 p.m. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 21, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE 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 City Clerk Meaghan Hassel -Shearer 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 4 Printed on 3/3/2022 Agenda Item: 8a Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 CITY 0 BURLINGAME q $Anreo �vu[ 6. e BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes City Council Study Session Meeting on February 7, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date via Zoom Webinar at 6:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O'Brien Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 3. STUDY SESSION a. PRESENTATION ON PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS (PLAS) ACA Spansail explained that the City Council requested that staff organize a study session regarding Project Labor Agreements. He stated that the purpose of the presentation is to analyze PLAs for large public contracts in the city, and to understand the legal and procedural impacts that may accompany their use. He noted that this is not an exhaustive study of all potential impacts of a PLA, nor is it an endorsement or repudiation of using these agreements in the future. ACA Spansail stated that the presentation would not go into any detail about private development agreements within the city. Instead it would focus on public contracts. ACA Spansail reviewed the definition of a PLA. He explained that a PLA is a project labor agreement that is also known as a community workforce agreement. This is a type of pre -hire collective bargaining agreement between a developer (or public agency), labor unions, and contractors. ACA Spansail stated that he thought the best way to discuss PLAs is to review the 5 Ws: • Who is a party to a PLA • What does a PLA control • Where are PLAs often used • When is a PLA entered into • Why are PLAs used (or not used) for public projects 1 Burlingame City Council February 7, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8a Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 ACA Spansail first reviewed the "Who". He explained that there can be many parties to a PLA, but nearly all public agency PLAs will include: public agency (as developer), labor unions, and contractors. He stated that these are the negotiating parties. He added that once PLAs are negotiated, any contractors bidding on a City project would also agree to be bound by the terms of the PLA for the duration of the project. ACA Spansail next reviewed the "What". He explained that at PLA is a negotiated contract. Therefore, no two PLAs will be the same. However, most PLAs will include terms covering the following: • Uniform wages • Hiring procedures • Worker benefits including fringe benefits like health insurance • Management rights • Overtime pay • Hours • Work stoppages (strikes) • Dispute resolution • Working conditions (including schedules) • PLA administration ACA Spansail stated that these are not the only terms that can be included in the PLAs, but they are the ones most often included. He explained that most PLAs also include the percentage of project workers that are local and a lot of agreements will include apprenticeship programs. ACA Spansail reviewed the "Where". He explained that government -mandated PLAs are most often used for very high dollar value projects, or for all projects over a certain monetary threshold. He stated that while exceptions exist, threshold -based PLAs are generally used by large entities (San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento), and project -based PLAs are generally favored by smaller jurisdictions. ACA Spansail explained that in California, there are typically two types of PLAs that are used by governments: • Project specific PLA — PLA is used on a specific and high dollar project. Once the project is over, the PLA ceases to exist. Examples of where these types of PLAs are used include new large buildings and major infrastructure upgrades • Threshold PLA — These PLAs apply to all projects over a specific dollar amount. These are most often seen in larger cities. ACA Spansail explained that San Francisco was one of the most recent cities to pass a threshold base for PLAs. He stated that in 2019, San Francisco passed the "Citywide Project Labor Agreement Ordinance," which requires contractors in "Covered Projects" to: • Use trade appropriate union hiring halls to hire workers and apprentices, and; • Pay fringe benefit contributions on behalf of workers directly to appropriate Union Trust Fund programs. 2 Burlingame City Council February 7, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8a Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 ACA Spansail stated that under the San Francisco Ordinance, a "Covered Project" is a San Francisco Public Works or Parks and Recreation project with an estimated project value exceeding $1 million. He noted that certified local business enterprises are eligible for an exemption on projects up to $5 million. ACA Spansail discussed smaller jurisdictions and PLAs. He explained that PLAs have not been used to the same extent in smaller jurisdictions around the Bay Area. However, threshold -based PLAs have been used in Berkeley, San Leandro, Hayward, Alameda, Martinez, and Concord. ACA Spansail reviewed examples of PLAs in San Mateo County: • Caltrain's Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (2015) • Half Moon Bay's City Library Project (2016) • South San Francisco's Civic Center Plaza Project (2019) • City of San Mateo's Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Expansion Project (2019) He noted that these are all high dollar value projects, and the PLAs only lasted the length of the project. ACA Spansail reviewed the "When". He stated that PLAs are undertaken in the pre -hire phase of a project. He explained that PLAs are negotiated before a project is bid. He noted that all bidders on a PLA project agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of the PLA through submission. He added that the PLA administration will continue throughout the life of the project or projects. ACA Spansail reviewed the last W, "Why". He stated that no two PLAs are the same, and therefore the reasons for and against their use is highly individualized to a specific project or series of projects. However, it is helpful to analyze the advantages and disadvantages that have been cited by those well -versed in their use. ACA Spansail reviewed the advantages and disadvantages that were cited for PLAs by Gerald Mayer in his 2010 U.S. Congressional Research Service. Advantages to PLAs • A PLA provides uniform wages, benefits, overtime pay, hours, working conditions, and work rules for work on major construction projects • A PLA provides contractors with a reliable and uninterrupted supply of workers at predictable costs for wages and benefits. PLAs prohibit strikes and lockouts. Because local unions are generally members of a national union, a union can recruit workers both locally and nationally. • A large project is easier to manage if there is a PLA. Instead of dealing with several unions that may have different wages and benefits and whose contracts may have different expiration dates, contractors must deal with a single collective bargaining agreement. • Because labor costs are predictable and because a PLA makes it easier to manage a large project, a PLA helps ensure that a project will be completed on time and on budget. Burlingame City Council February 7, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8a Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 • A PLA may help train workers by requiring contractors to participate in apprenticeship and training programs. • A PLA can improve worker safety by requiring contractors and workers to comply with project safety rules. Disadvantages to PLAs • PLAs can increase costs. Because a PLA sets standard labor costs and work rules, nonunion contractors cannot win bids based on lower costs. Nonunion contractors may choose not to bid on projects that are covered by a collective bargaining agreement. The result may be fewer bids and higher costs. • If a PLA requires contractors to hire workers through a union hiring hall, contractors may not be able to use their own workers. • If a contractor is able to use his own workers, the workers may have to join a union and pay union dues. If a contractor has to pay into a union pension plan, the employees may not be on the project long enough to vest in the plan. • Nonunion contracts may operate more efficient worker training programs. • Instead of apprenticeship programs for a fixed duration, nonunion contractors can train workers for specific tasks. • The Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) enforces federal wage, overtime, and other labor standards and either the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or states with their own plans enforce workplace health and safety standards. ACA Spansail explained that staff is requesting City Council direction on: • Whether further discussion should be scheduled regarding PLAs. • If so, what additional information should staff include in that presentation? Mayor Ortiz asked about single project PLAs and how cities decide which projects should utilize a PLA. ACA Spansail stated that it is usually only seen on the very high dollar projects. He gave examples of $30 million projects. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran stated that the City doesn't undertake too many large projects. She asked why a PLA wasn't utilized for the Community Center. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that by the time PLAs were discussed for the new Community Center, it was a little late in the game, and it would have delayed the project. DPW Murtuza stated that the Parks and Recreation Department undertook an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of entering into a PLA for the new Community Center. Griffin Structures Vice President John Hughes spoke about his company's work as the construction management firm on the new Community Center project. He explained that by the time the City considered utilizing a PLA, the project would have been delayed at least six months. Instead, he explained that in the 4 Burlingame City Council February 7, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8a Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 process of pre -qualifying the contractors to bid on the project, the City inserted language that a company would receive additional points for being a signatory to a union. Mr. Hughes stated that without a PLA, the City is already required to pay prevailing wages for all the work that is done on a project. He noted that this is almost identical to the wages that are established in a PLA. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked if the City moves forward with PLAs, will it limit the number of businesses that will bid on a project. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson asked when staff anticipates another $50 million City project. She noted that she wasn't including Broadway Grade Separation as that project wasn't wholly under the City's control. City Manager Goldman stated that she was unsure that the City has a $50 million project in the future. She discussed the need to upgrade City Hall but didn't think that would cost $50 million. She added that last year when the topic of PLAs had come up, it was in reference to the Town Square project, which is a much smaller project. Councilmember Colson stated that Burlingame School District has issued $100s of millions in bonds and is building all over the city. She asked if they are utilizing PLAs. City Manager Goldman stated that she didn't know. Councilmember Colson stated that she believed San Mateo Union High School District utilized PLAs. ACA Spansail replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach thanked staff for the presentation. She stated that she was glad that the City was having the conversation about PLAs. She noted that it was a missed opportunity to not have this conversation prior to the new Community Center being built. Councilmember Beach stated that prevailing wage on public land is required by law. However, she noted that retirement and health benefits are not required by law. She asked if she was correct that a PLA could require healthcare options for the workforce. ACA Spansail replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach asked if she was correct that PLAs don't require union labor. ACA Spansail replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach stated that the Council received information prior to the meeting from the Labor Council that discussed successful PLAs. She noted that ACA Spansail had mentioned several of them but added that Millbrae's Recreation Center also utilized a PLA. She asked how these projects were going. DPW Murtuza stated that he spoke with South San Francisco's Public Works Department. He discussed their issues with the PLA including the initial difficulty of setting up the PLA, the cost and time it took to administer the PLA, and delays to the project. 5 Burlingame City Council February 7, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8a Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 Councilmember Beach stated that in reading up on PLAs, she learned that they are utilized because they create a lot of predictability, prevent strikes, and make sure that the workforce is taken care of with good benefits. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that one of the potential benefits of a PLA is the ability to prevent wage theft. He noted that the Council worked to include language regarding wage theft in the Community Center project. He asked if the language proved successful on the Community Center project. Mr. Hughes replied in the affirmative. He noted that the contractor the City is using is a signatory to the union. As a result, the contractor is effectively bound by union requirements that would usually be established in a PLA. He added that a majority of the contractor's subcontractors are union based. Moreover, the State requires that every contractor submit certified payroll records every month. Mr. Hughes stated that prevailing wages doesn't just establish wages; it also establishes the equivalent of health insurance premiums, fringe benefits, and training, etc. DPW Murtuza stated that in cases where subcontractors and individuals have submitted claims to the City that they aren't being paid the prevailing wage, the City will withhold funds from the contractor until the matter is settled. Mayor Ortiz asked if he is correct that the City would negotiate a PLA with unions. ACA Spansail replied in the affirmative. Mayor Ortiz asked if he was correct that when staff discussed non -union personnel being included on PLA projects, it would be hard to get the unions to agree to that. ACA Spansail stated that it would be the City's responsibility to request this if the Council felt it was important. He added that the City could also ask for other groups to be used like the nonprofit Helmets to Hardhats. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the PLA doesn't require union labor; instead it requires that a non -union shop adhere to the requirements of the PLA. ACA Spansail replied in the affirmative. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. Mark expressed support for PLAs and asked the City to consider adopting a policy that would incorporate PLAs into City projects. (comment submitted via publiccommentkburlin ag me.org). Bart expressed support for PLAs and asked that the City utilize them for future projects. (comment submitted via publiccomment(kburlin am�e.org). David Mauro stated that the PLA negotiations with South San Francisco went well, and he disagreed with DPW Murtuza's characterization of that PLA. He asked that the City consider utilizing PLAs. Rich Koenig voiced support for PLAs. 6 Burlingame City Council February 7, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8a Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 Mayor Ortiz closed public comment. Councilmember Beach stated that a public works project on public land should have multiple benefits. She explained that one of the benefits should be making sure that the individuals working on the project have healthcare and retirement benefits. She added that she thought it was beneficial to the City to have local hiring requirements included in the PLA. She discussed creating opportunities for apprenticeships and hiring of women and people of color. Councilmember Beach thought the City should explore a PLA pilot program for the Town Square project. Vice Mayor Brownrigg discussed different pieces written about PLAs. He stated that there are benefits to having union workers on the job site. He expressed shock at the fact that in one year, union contractors invested $230 million in apprenticeship programs and generated 15,000 apprentices, while private contractors invested $28 million and generated 420 apprentices. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he wasn't sure a PLA was beneficial to the City but thought it was a good idea for the City to further explore this option. Councilmember Colson stated that the City doesn't have any high dollar projects on the books. She thought a further exploration of the topic should be reserved until such a project is on the horizon. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran discussed the great work that was being done on the Community Center. She stated that she believed that if the system was working and ensuring workers prevailing wages and union benefits, she didn't know if it should be messed with. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran concurred with Councilmember Colson that this conversation could be tabled until a large project was on the horizon. ACA Spansail asked if Council wanted an immediate follow up on this topic, or if the Council wanted to wait until a project of a certain dollar amount comes forward. Councilmember Beach thought a PLA should be explored for the Town Square project. Mayor Ortiz stated that he disagreed with Councilmember Beach because he believed that project was too small. Vice Mayor Brownrigg concurred that PLAs should be done on a project by project basis for larger dollar amount projects. He asked staff to circulate a sample PLA. Councilmember Colson stated that if the City doesn't have a $25 million project, she didn't think there was a need to utilize staff time on something that wouldn't come to fruition for several years. Mayor Ortiz suggested having the Council look at setting policy for very large projects above $20 million. 7 Burlingame City Council February 7, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8a Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that if the Council is setting a $15 to $20 million bar for utilizing PLAs then there was no need to study this item until a project at that level presents itself. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran concurred with Vice Mayor Brownrigg. Mayor Ortiz stated that this topic would be tabled until a larger project was on the horizon. He thanked staff for their work on this item. 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 7:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk 8 Burlingame City Council February 7, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8b Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 CITY G BURLINGAME BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular City Council Meeting on February 7, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date via Zoom Webinar at 7:09 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by City Clerk Hassel -Shearer. 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 Ortiz reviewed upcoming events in the city. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY FEASIBILITY STUDY UPDATE DPW Murtuza gave an update on the Old Bayshore Highway Feasibility Study. He introduced Brian Fletcher, President of Callander Associates, and Jason Mansfield from BKF Engineers, who helped with the study. DPW Murtuza noted that a few years ago, the Council provided money for a feasibility study to review the potential of improving and beautifying the surrounding area. 1 Burlingame City Council February 7, 2022 Unapproved Meeting Minutes Agenda Item: 8b Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 Mr. Fletcher outlined the purpose of the study: • The General Plan identified Bayshore Highway as an area primed for redevelopment • The Feasibility Study is a first step in transitioning the roadway into a more complete street that will support the type of development envisioned • To create a corridor that works well for bicycles, pedestrians, mass transit, and vehicles alike while also improving the corridor's sense of place • To recognize the Bay Trail as part of the corridor by providing analysis and conceptual designs Next, Mr. Fletcher identified the project goals: • Engage the community and project stakeholders along the corridor • Identify streetscape improvements that will create more convenient and comfortable vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian connections along the corridor • Explore opportunities to enhance the aesthetics of the corridor in order to be more inviting and pleasing to residents, employees, and visitors • Analyze and provide conceptual design solutions to close the existing gap in the Bay Trail immediately north of Airport Boulevard Mr. Fletcher stated that the goal for this meeting was to present the preferred draft corridor plan for Bayshore Highway and Bay Trail Improvements and receive feedback from Council. He explained that prior to this meeting, staff and the consultants conducted community and stakeholder surveys to create preliminary alternatives. They then undertook additional surveys and presented the findings to the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission. A preferred draft corridor plan was then created and presented to the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission for additional feedback. Mr. Fletcher explained that three alternative plans were reviewed for the Old Bayshore Highway. He noted that each plan examined how it would affect different modes of transportation. Old Bayshore High a Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Travel Lanes 3 2 4 Turn Lane Yes Yes No Sidewalk Width, Inclusive of Planting Strips and Tree Wells l 1 ft 14ft loft Class 2 Buffered Bike Lane Yes Yes Yes Bus Pull -Outs Yes Yes No In -Lane Bus Stop Yes No Yes Sidewalk Planting Strips Yes Yes No Trees in Tree Grates No No Yes 2 Burlingame City Council February 7, 2022 Unapproved Meeting Minutes Agenda Item: 8b Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 Planted Medians Yes Yes No Mr. Fletcher presented the Council with drawings of the different alternatives. He then reviewed the preferred plan, which is Alternative2. He stated that Alternative 2 includes: • One lane in both directions with a center turn lane • Center medians for additional landscaping where feasible • Green infrastructure in medians and planter strips • Bus pull outs • Vertical connections to the Bay Trail • Ways to address sea level rise Mr. Fletcher reviewed the entire corridor in more detail with identified lane configurations, locations of medians, gateway signs, and connection points. Mr. Fletcher reviewed the width of each lane of the preferred plan: Area Width in feet Side -walk 6 Shared Cycle Track Loading Platform 7 Bus Pull -Out 11 Travel Lane 12 Planted Median and Turn Lane 12 Travel Lane 12 Buffer Lane 3 Bike Lane 7 Planting Strip 5 Side -Walk 6 Mr. Fletcher stated that they focused on implementing bus pull-outs to help facilitate public transit. He noted there would be different levels of illumination to help both vehicles and pedestrians. He explained that the bike lane would be moved to the sidewalk at the bus pull-outs to avoid buses and bikes crossing paths. Mr. Fletcher discussed public access to the Bay Trail from the road. He noted that it is currently not well marked that the trail has public access. He reviewed the consultant's proposal to fix these concerns: • Designated Bay Trail parking with accessible path of travel connecting to the Bay Trail • Vertical access where possible, ADA compliant • Enhanced access point with Bay Trail standard directional signage. Enhanced pavement, planting and site furnishings are encouraged. 3 Burlingame City Council February 7, 2022 Unapproved Meeting Minutes Agenda Item: 8b Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 • Sidewalk enlargement at Old Bayshore Highway • Additional seating and signage at the Bay Trail Mr. Fletcher discussed the proposed improvements to the Bay Trail including: • Landscape buffer, • Pedestrian lighting • Asphalt multi -use trail with ten -feet of vertical clearance. Trail elevation to be modified if needed such that trail elevation is between 36 and 42 inches below top of guardrail/flood wall. • Modifications to existing guardrail/floodwall • Establishment of riprap — permanent layer of large, angular stone, cobbles, or boulders typically used to armor, stabilize, and protect the soil surface against erosion Mr. Fletcher added that there are two areas along the Bay Trail that would require pedestrian bridges to connect the Bay Trail. Mr. Fletcher reviewed the cost of each segment: Old Ba shore Highway Segment Name Estimated Cost Millbrae to Mitten Road $1,414,000 Mitton Road to Malcolm Road $1,777,000 Malcolm Road to Stanton Road $1,123,000 Stanton Road to Hinkle Road $1,751,000 Hinckley Road to Mahler Road $1,393,000 Mahler Road to Burlwa Road $1,467,000 Burlway Road to Airport Way $3,758,000 Total estimated cost including contingencies and design fees $12,683,000 Bay Trail Segment Name Estimated Cost El Porto Canal to Marriott $1,916,000 Marriott to Shorebird Sanctuary $2,544,000 Shorebird Sanctuary to Eaton Creek $2,884,000 Eaton Creek to Airport Boulevard $1,819,000 Total estimated cost including contingencies and design fees $9,163,000 4 Burlingame City Council February 7, 2022 Unapproved Meeting Minutes Agenda Item: 8b Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 Mr. Fletcher noted the high costs of the full design. However, he explained that the final plan is meant to provide the City and developers with directions on how to re -develop along the Bay Trail and Old Bayshore Highway. Councilmember Colson asked how this plan would integrate with OneShoreline's plan to protect against sea level rise. Mr. Fletcher responded that this plan establishes the City's vision for what the Bay Trail should look like and doesn't necessarily address the need for a seawall or required elevations of the trail. He added that the plan has a demarcation where everything on one side of the seawall would be under OneShoreline, and the other side would be governed by this plan. Councilmember Colson stated that she believed that OneShoreline's plan went all the way up to the BCDC (San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission) territory. She worried that there might be two sets of work going on that can't be integrated. DPW Murtuza mentioned that this document is conceptual work, and only a feasibility study. He continued that the Bay Trail work will be done in conjunction with the other agencies, and that the plan will have to adapt to the ongoing changes of the next 25 to 30 years. Additionally, he stated that there is currently no funding for this project but that staff will be looking into grant funding. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran voiced her concern about integrating this work with OneShoreline. She stated that she liked the improvements along the Bayfront because the hotels have been asking for improvements for years. She added that with the development on the Bayfront, it would be important to work on this space. She noted that she liked the wider sidewalks, and the new benches. She asked that staff ensure that the trail is age -friendly. Vice Mayor Brownrigg voiced his concern about spending additional time redesigning the Bay Trail. He explained that he didn't think it was the right time to spend money and time on the trail. Instead, he thought the City should focus on Old Bayshore Highway. He added that he thought that Old Bayshore Highway should be renamed Airport Boulevard in connection with the existing Airport Boulevard to avoid confusion. DPW Murtuza stated that the street name could be changed by requesting staff to agendize that item. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if the project could be streamlined with a focus on Old Bayshore Highway. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. He explained that currently, the design focuses more on the Old Bayshore Highway portion and less on the Bay Trail portion. He noted that the City would need to address the connectivity of the seawall in the short-term (10 to 15-year time frame), but this can be done as a separate project. Councilmember Beach thanked staff and the consultants for their work on the design. She stated that she liked the new vibrancy and beauty of the design, and appreciated that the slower speeds will make the road safer. 5 Burlingame City Council February 7, 2022 Unapproved Meeting Minutes Agenda Item: 8b Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 Mayor Ortiz voiced his support for aggressively pursuing the design for the roadway as the hotels have been begging for this area to be updated. He thanked Mr. Fletcher for the presentation. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up to public comment. TSPC Chair Mr. Martos stated that the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission were unanimous in their support for Alternative 2. TSPC Commissioner Athan Rebelos expressed his enthusiasm for the project and support for renaming Old Bayshore Highway. Mayor Ortiz closed public comments. Vice Mayor Brownrigg clarified that he is very supportive of upgrading the Bay Trail, but that it should be done at a later date. He asked what it would cost to undertake the recommended improvements on Old Bayshore Highway. DPW Murtuza responded that the estimated cost for just the roadway improvements would be $12,683,000. b. BROADWAY GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT UPDATE DPW Murtuza introduced Caltrain project manager Alex Acenas, Mark Thomas and Associates representative Rob Himes, and Caltrain Director of Capital Improvement Andy Robbins. He noted that staff and the City Council sub -committee have been working with Caltrain on this project. Mr. Acenas gave an overview of the project. He started by explaining that the project location starts on Broadway near Oxford Road and ends just north of Oak Grove Avenue. He noted that there is pedestrian and bike access along this corridor and that Broadway and Morrell Avenue will be grade separated. Mr. Acenas explained that currently, the Broadway crossing sees roughly 30,000 vehicles and 104 trains per day. He continued that this usage results in long delays, backups, and accidents at the intersection and the surrounding areas. He reviewed the goals of the project: • Eliminate train -vehicle collisions • Enhance pedestrian, bicyclist, and motorist safety • Enhance east -west connectivity • Reduce delays • Reduce automobile congestion and emissions • Improve customer experience with a new station • Improve efficiency of rail operations 0 Burlingame City Council February 7, 2022 Unapproved Meeting Minutes Agenda Item: 8b Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 Mr. Acenas reviewed the scope of the project: • Grade separate the railroad and Broadway • Build new station with center boarding platform, ramp, and stair access • Station parking on east side of tracks with access to and from Carolan Avenue • Two temporary shoofly tracks east of the existing mainline (for train operation during construction phase) • Pedestrian and bicycle crossings at Broadway, Carmelita, and Morrell Mr. Acenas gave a status update on the various phases and milestones: Phase/Milestone Completed Project Study Report January 2017 Prelim. Engineering/Environmental Clearance October 2020 RFP to complete Final Design September 2020 Contract award to Mark Thomas and Associates for November 2020 future phases of project Final Design phase kick-off January 2021 • Evaluated value-added modifications (VE Study) • Base -mapping • Utility mapping verification • Geotechnical exploration • Bus/bicycle and pedestrian coordination • Hydraulic modeling Value Engineering VE Options Resolved January 2022 Mr. Acenas noted that the project study report was done in 2017 and contained six alternatives. The selected alternative, Alternative A, was comprised of a partial raising of the railroad and partial depression of the roadway. He stated that environmental clearance was obtained: • CEQA Statutorily Exempt (safety project to eliminate at -grade crossing) — Filed April 2020 • NEPA Clearance (Documented Categorical Exclusion) — Federal Transit Administration — Completed Oct 2020. Mr. Acenas stated that they expect to obtain the following permits from the Army Corp of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Board, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife once they reach 65% design: • Section 404 Nationwide Permit #14 (Linear Facilities) — USACOE • Section 401 (c) Water Quality Certification — RWQB • Streambed Alteration Agreement — CDFW 7 Burlingame City Council February 7, 2022 Unapproved Meeting Minutes Agenda Item: 8b Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 • Estimated Permitting Phase Duration: Obtain permits six months after completion of 65% design Mr. Himes reviewed the project enhancements made through value engineering (VE). He stated that a VE study was undertaken to look at how to reduce traffic impacts, right of way acquisition, utility risks, construction duration and costs, and how to improve station connectivity. He explained that the study developed five VE alternatives that were vetted by Caltrain and staff. Four of the value engineering alternatives were selected. The first selected value engineering alternative was: • 35% Design — approaches to the intersection are lowered o Track elevation would be 18.5 feet from the existing ground o Broadway, California, and Carolan would all have to be lowered to meet the 16-feet of vertical clearance needed o Retaining walls needed in adjacent properties coupled with driveways to keep impact on properties minimal. o Would need a pump station to handle rainwater o Need special concrete to help with the high ground -water elevation of the area Mr. Himes stated that one of the bigger concerns with this design is the impact on utilities. He explained that various utilities in the area would need to be relocated. He noted that the relocation happens a year before the project actually starts. He added that utility relocation is usually at fault for most project change orders and construction delays. Mr. Himes explained that another of the big concerns is traffic impact. He stated that the original design had the intersection being closed for a year or more. He noted there are very few connections across the railroad; the two closest crossings are Oak Grove and Millbrae Avenue. He stated that one of the solutions to this problem was to thin the structure. He explained that if they could go from a large depth structure to a shallower structure, this would reduce the amount needed to lower the roadway. The VE approach to the shallower structure would involve putting steel structures just over the roadway and just under the tracks, with everything else being concrete. The result of this would be lowering the roadway by two feet instead of six feet. He noted that a pump station would still be needed. He stated that in this scenario, the roadway would be closed for roughly three months. He added that cars would still be able to go through, but clearance would not be 16 feet, thus the need for enhanced safety features. Mr. Himes explained that VE alternative two concerned raising the tracks at the station, and no roadway lowering. He stated there would be a 20.5-foot height to the rail versus the original plan for 18.5 feet. He added that this raise would be in the station platform. He noted that this option would require no pump station and occasional weekend closures. He stated this would be a positive for the project if it could be approved. 8 Burlingame City Council February 7, 2022 Unapproved Meeting Minutes Agenda Item: 8b Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 Mr. Himes touched on the improved connectivity of the intersection. He noted that the approved Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan would be continued on with this project. He explained that they designed a four -span structure, with the first and last spans being for pedestrians and bicycles. He stated that there would be a new undercrossing connection at Cadillac Way. Mr. Himes stated that VE alternative four is the relocation of the Carmelita entrance. He stated that VE alternative 5 is an undercrossing at Morrell, which ties into the Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan. Mr. Acenas gave an update of the project cost: Project Cost Phase TA Funds Local Match Estimate Project Study and Preliminary Engineering $5.05 million $500,000 $5.55 million Final Design/Environmental Permits $17.805 million $1.5 million $19.305 million Right of Wa /Utilities* - - $23.522 million Construction* - - $230.427 million VE 1: Shallower bridge structure - - $23.267 million VE 2: Raise rail profile 2 feet - - $3.324 million VE 4: Carmelita Ave entrance - - 0 VE 5: Morrell undercrossing - - 0 Subtotal $252,213,000 YOE Mid Construction** $64,189,000 Total $316,402,000 *Future Allocations * * Escalation for inflation Mr. Himes noted that the VE alternatives that were discussed would save the project roughly $26 million, and that the project was fully funded through the Final Design phase. He gave an update on the project schedule: Project Schedule Update Phase Start Finish Project Study Report January 2014 January 2017 Preliminary Engineering/Environmental Clearance March 2017 October 2020 Final Design/Environmental Permits January 2021 July 2024* Right of Way/Utilities July 2023 September 2024 Construction January 2025 May 2028 *Current Phase 0 Burlingame City Council February 7, 2022 Unapproved Meeting Minutes Agenda Item: 8b Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 Mr. Acenas anticipated that construction would start in early 2025, but that the utility work would start well before that. Mr. Acenas stated that Caltrain is considering using the construction manager/general contractor project delivery method. He explained that this is a method where the contractor is brought in early in the design phase in order to leverage the expertise of the contractor to guide and inform the design phase. He noted that this was allowed pursuant to California Public Contract Code 103394 eq. and has been used by Caltrans and others in California. Mr. Acenas stated that the goals of using a construction manager/general contractor project delivery method are: • Safely deliver high quality infrastructure • Effective scope, schedule, budget management ■ Early contractor involvement & early works — utility relocations ■ Constructability reviews and incorporation of lessons learned ■ Improved cost and schedule certainty • Minimize impacts to community and Caltrain operations • Provide meaningful opportunity for diversity contracting Mr. Acenas discussed the various avenues for funding this project: • City -led effort • Caltrain providing support • Upcoming opportunities: o Section 190 Grade Separation Program of the CPUC o Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (Raise) — Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) coming soon o INFRA/Mega Projects/Rural Roads — USDOT to issue NOFO in February 2022 Mr. Acenas noted that CPUC's Section 190 Grade Separation Program provides up to $15 million in annual funding per year. He stated that this project should receive something since it is the number one ranked grade separation project in the state. Councilmember Colson asked about paralleling station three. Mr. Acenas responded that paralleling station three is currently being built next to the Corporation Yard. Councilmember Colson asked if it would have to be relocated again. DPW Murtuza responded that paralleling station three encountered delays, but work is currently ongoing. He continued that the relocation 10 Burlingame City Council February 7, 2022 Unapproved Meeting Minutes Agenda Item: 8b Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 was not for the paralleling station, but for the overhead gantries. He explained that the overhead gantries would need to be relocated for the grade separation. Vice Mayor Brownrigg thanked everyone for all their hard work on the project. He hoped that the City would consider traditional brick cladding for the project. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked about the potential funding from the CPUC. Mr. Acenas stated that the City could receive up to $15 million. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran thanked everyone for their hard work and the informative presentation. Councilmember Beach echoed her colleagues' appreciation for the value engineering alternatives. She thanked the engineering team for finding a way to reduce costs while also keeping Broadway open for most of the construction. She mentioned that there might be some funding in the Governor's budget for grade separation. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. Manito Velasco commented on the improved connectivity of the project and its connection with the Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan. Planning Commissioner Jennifer Pfaff thanked staff and the consultants for the presentation. She voiced concern about the potential of the trees being removed along the route of the tracks. Sandra Lang appreciated the attention to detail in the plan. Mayor Ortiz closed public comment. Councilmember Beach echoed the sentiment that pedestrian and bike traffic must feel comfortable in the new intersection. She commented she would be okay with cutting additional costs to ensure an adequate level of tree coverage. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked what the timetable would be for full funding. DPW Murtuza responded that the project would need full funding before the project is awarded in 2024. He noted that there are different methods of construction that can go forward without the need for full project funding, but that it would be best to have full funding. He continued that there are many funding options coming up that the project stakeholders hope to use. 11 Burlingame City Council February 7, 2022 Unapproved Meeting Minutes Agenda Item: 8b Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked how much funding the City would have to contribute. DPW Murtuza responded that the City is looking at a $15 million program match with additional funding coming from various programs and grants. Councilmember Colson stated that this project is much needed with all of the new housing developments and the impact it has on the different communities. She reiterated the need to keep robust communication with the nearby neighborhoods as they have been impacted the most. Mayor Ortiz stated that this project will help with the flow of emergency vehicles as they won't have to wait at the crossing. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA There were no public comments. 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Ortiz asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. No item was removed. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran made a motion to adopt the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE JANUARY 18, 2022 CLOSED SESSION City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve the Meeting Minutes for the January 18, 2022 Closed Session. b. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE JANUARY 18, 2022 REGULAR MEETING City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve the Meeting Minutes for the January 18, 2022 Regular Meeting. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SAN MATEO COUNTY OPERATIONAL AREA BUILDING SAFETY INSPECTION PROGRAM MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Director Gardiner requested Council adopt Resolution Number 009-2022 12 Burlingame City Council February 7, 2022 Unapproved Meeting Minutes Agenda Item: 8b Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DELETION OF ONE VACANT FULL-TIME TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM MANAGER POSITION AND ADDITION OF ONE FULL-TIME SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER POSITION Human Resources Director Morrison requested Council adopt Resolution Number 010-2022 e. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL THREE IMPENDING VACANCIES ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION City Manager Goldman requested Council open the nomination period to fill three impending vacancies on the Planning Commission. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INSTALLATION OF A PUBLIC ART PROJECT CONSISTING OF SIX ROBERT BARRY WORDS ON THE BAYFRONT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE ART DONATION ACCEPTANCE AGREEMENT Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad explained that City staff worked with Fung Collaboratives to install the Anson Burlingame Public Art project in Washington Park. She stated that an opportunity to increase public art displays in Burlingame presented itself due to the City's relationship with Fung Collaboratives. She explained that Lance Fung and John Talley have offered to donate artwork by artist Robert Barry to the City. She stated that people traveling by foot, car, or plane would be able to see the artwork during the day, and the words would also be visible during evening hours due to the LED lights in the artwork. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that Mr. Fung would like to donate six Robert Barry words to the City. The six words will be installed along the Bayfront. She stated that the six words are: Becoming, Believe, Purpose, Possible, Together, and Another. She explained that the words are between 10.6 feet and 20 feet in length, and each individual letter is 2 feet tall. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad noted that the proposed hillside needs some vegetation management prior to the installation of the words. She explained that the vegetation removal is part of the Parks and Recreation fuel mitigation plan. She broke down the associated costs: 13 Burlingame City Council February 7, 2022 Unapproved Meeting Minutes Agenda Item: 8b Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 Task # of Staff # of Hours Rate Cost Transport Words from SJ to COB 2 4 $77.33 $618 Staff Time to Clear Site 2 32 $77.33 $4,949 CalFire Assistance to Clear Site - - $1,000 $1,000 Install Words 4 16 $77.33 $4,949 Total Cost - - - $11,516 Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that the Parks Division Operating Budget has adequate funds to absorb this cost. She noted that the illumination costs are unknown at this time, but the words can be installed and remain unilluminated until such time as funds are available. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad commented that John Talley would work with the City to oversee the transition of the words from their current storage area to Burlingame. She noted that the City would provide transportation and storage of the words. She explained that the location was chosen because the area is elevated, is harder to access (to discourage vandalism), and outside of the BCDC jurisdiction. Councilmember Colson asked how the six words were picked. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that they did not want any words that would evoke any sort of controversy. Vice Mayor Brownrigg thanked Mr. Fung for the donation. He asked Mr. Fung to give some background on Mr. Barry and his place in the art world. Mr. Fung explained that the artwork was commissioned for a temporary exhibition in Atlantic City. He continued that the installation included 27 words. Once the exhibition closed, different entities acquired the words. He explained that currently, there are only three words on display in California, in Scotts Valley. He stated that he wanted to find a public home for the words. He noted that funds were limited, and they applied for a Bloomberg Public Art Grant, but unfortunately did not receive it. He stated that the current chosen location is ideal for the words. Mr. Fung explained that Mr. Barry is in his 80s. He noted that Mr. Barry, with some other artists, founded the conceptual art movement. He added that Mr. Barry is more known for interior art work, so this installation would be one of his first public art installations. Councilmember Colson asked about the estimated cost to light. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad responded that they haven't been able to gather a definite number as they haven't been able to see the words yet. Councilmember Colson suggested that if the Council accepts the letters, there should also be a commitment to installing lights in the words. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran stated that this is a great opportunity for the City. 14 Burlingame City Council February 7, 2022 Unapproved Meeting Minutes Agenda Item: 8b Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. There were no comments. Councilmember Beach echoed everyone's excitement. She thanked Mr. Fung for the generous donation. Mayor Ortiz thanked Mr. Fung. Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to pass Resolution 011-2022; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no committee reports. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no 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.burlin ag me.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 9:03 p.m. in memory of Ryan Popple. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk 15 Burlingame City Council February 7, 2022 Unapproved Meeting Minutes CITY C� BURLINGAME h o e�0 4 . $AniEo JLl3E � BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Study Session on February 22, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER Agenda Item: 8c Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date via Zoom Webinar at 6:02 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O'Brien Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments. 4. STUDY SESSION a. STUDY SESSION ON POTENTIAL TAX MEASURES City Manager Goldman stated that this is the second discussion regarding potential tax measures. She noted that the staff report discussed the differences between a general tax and a special tax. She explained that: • General Tax — is a tax imposed for general governmental purposes, the proceeds of which are deposited into the General Fund. A majority vote of the electorate is required to impose, extend, or increase any general tax. • Special Tax — is a tax that is collected and earmarked for a specific purpose and deposited into a separate account of the General Fund. A two-thirds vote of the electorate is required to impose, extend, or increase any special tax. City Manager Goldman stated that the Council previously discussed potential tax measures in September 2021. She explained that the Council was considering putting a measure on the November 2022 ballot. She added that during that discussion, Council asked staff to explore a few of the options discussed at the study Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8c Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 session and return to the Council with additional information. The potential tax measures that staff was asked to explore include: • Business license tax • Cannabis tax • Tax measure similar to the City of East Palo Alto's Measure HH to address sea level rise, the Broadway Grade Separation project, or another large infrastructure project City Manager Goldman stated that in 2021, when the Council adopted an ordinance allowing for cannabis retail delivery businesses, the Council expressed an interest in levying a cannabis delivery tax. She added that a representative for one of the cannabis retail delivery businesses noted that such a tax could bring in approximately $1 million annually from his company alone. She noted that according to the City's consultant, HdL, one way to address the cannabis tax is to include it as a sub -section under the business license tax ordinance. This would avoid the need for a separate tax measure. City Manager Goldman discussed the City of East Palo Alto's Measure HH Parcel Tax. She explained that in November 2018, the residents of East Palo Alto voted in favor of enacting Measure HH, a parcel tax on commercial office space of 25,000 square feet or more at the rate of $2.50 per square foot. The measure was estimated at the time to raise $1.675 million annually for housing and career programs. As a parcel tax, the measure required a two-thirds vote of the electorate for passage, and the monies can only be spent on housing and career programs. City Manager Goldman explained that given the work of OneShoreline and the potential for a regional sea level rise measure, staff recommends against a parcel tax for sea level rise at this time. However, she noted that should the Council be interested in a parcel tax measure to help with the Broadway Grade Separation project or other large infrastructure projects, such a measure could be placed on the November 2022 ballot. Finance Director Yu -Scott stated that for the past few months she has worked with HdL to conduct a study on the City's current business license structure. She noted that the goal for this project was to create a simplified, equitable, and fair tax structure for all businesses. HdL representative Eric Myers explained that HdL conducted a business license tax study for the City. He stated that the purpose of the study was to provide a guided exploration of different tax structures while evaluating how closely each structure aligns with the City's goals and values. He noted that the objective of the study is to recommend a tax structure that modernizes the code, increases revenue, and transforms the City's business license structure to be equitable for all businesses in Burlingame. Mr. Myers stated that the recommended tax policy outcomes for the City were: 1. Increased fairness and equity in rates for local businesses 2. Simplification of the tax structure 3. Increased revenues to the City 4. Increased efficiency for City operations 2 Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8c Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 Mr. Myers reviewed the city's business tax revenue since 2017: • FY 2017 - $587,729 • FY 2018 - $590,692 • FY 2019 - $589,737 • FY 2020 - $579,251 • FY 2021 - $583,600 He noted that the City's business tax revenue is consistent because of the flat fee structure of the tax. He added that there are benefits to this because it is predictable and stable. However, the tradeoff is that it doesn't allow the City to capture economic growth. Mr. Myers next reviewed the business tax revenue of the City's neighboring jurisdictions: City Name Population Estimated Number of Businesses Tax Type Estimated Revenue Last Ordinance Revision Belmont 26,941 3,074 Employee and Flat Rate $880,000 1993 Burlingame 30,889 5,897 Flat Rate $589,737 2001 Foster City 33,693 3,714 Gross Receipts $1,764,875 2013 Menlo Park 34,138 5,491 Gross Receipts $2,295,367 1975 Millbrae 22,394 2,385 Employee and Gross Receipts $381,177 2004 Redwood City 85,319 16,175 Employee $2,697,658 2018 San Bruno 42,807 4,060 Gross Receipts $2,176,473 2019 San Carlos 30,185 4,245 Employee $1,020,000 2003 San Mateo 104,570 21,337 Gross Receipts $6,265,284 1984 South San Francisco 67,789 5,590 Employee and Flat Rate $1,805,595 2008 He noted that the City's neighbors are capturing significantly more revenue that is then used to provide services. Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8c Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 Mr. Myers reviewed the different types of businesses in the City and how much each group contributes to the City's business tax revenue: Grouping Total Business Count Total Taxes General Commerce/Retail 712 $71,200 Rental (Commercial and Residential 70 $7,000 Service 2,004 $200,400 Professional 1,596 $159,600 Administrative/Research and Develo ment 77 $7,700 Contractors $1,377 $137,700 TOTAL 5,836 $583,600 He noted that it is rare to have such a large set of outside contractors that contribute to a city's business tax revenue. Mr. Myers reviewed the different business tax revenue models that the City could utilize. Business Tax Option 1— Model 1 Mr. Myers explained that under this model, the City would retain its existing tax structure while modifying the tax amounts for each category. He noted that keeping the current structure in place would eliminate the need to create different categories and allow for a simpler implementation for the City and the business community. He added that it would not avoid the need for an election since it would entail an increased tax rate. Mr. Myers gave examples of increasing the tax rate: Number of Businesses Estimated FY 2021-22 Revenue 20% Increase 40% Increase 5,836 $583,600 $700,320 $817,040 Mr. Myers noted that this model doesn't help with equity. Instead, he stated that the increases tend to be felt more by the smaller businesses. Business Tax Option 2 — Model 2 Mr. Myers explained that this is a gross receipts tax model. He noted that this option has the benefit of spreading the burden of an increase across multiple business types. Additionally, the model includes basic 4 Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8c Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 rate increases for standard categories but can be further expanded or contracted to accommodate a different method of the City's choosing. He stated that this option is simple to administer because everyone is charged the same rate. Under this model there would be a base rate and a gross receipts tax. For example: Tax Basis Total Count Base Rate $25 flat rate on the first $25,000 gross receipts Gross Receipts Tax Additional one dollar per thousand dollars of gross receipts 0.001 x gross receipts) Mr. Myer's showed how this would affect the City's business tax revenue: Number of Taxable Gross Base Rate at $25 Tax Amount $1 Tax Amount $1.25 Businesses Receipts per Business per $1,000 gross per $1,000 gross receipts over receipts over $25,000 $25,000 5,836 $2.3 billion $145,900 $2,230,767 $2,788,458 TOTAL $2,376,667 $2,934,358 Business Tax Option 3 — Model 3 Mr. Myers explained that this is a gross receipts tax model that is classification based. He explained that this option creates different rates for different business classifications. He added that this model affords the most flexibility for increasing revenues while accommodating certain business categories. He noted that the revenue yield is higher than in any of the previous models. Mr. Myers explained how this option could work: Categories Base Rate Gross Receipts Tax Rate General Commerce/Retail $25 flat rate per business for the first $25,000 in gross receipts 0.001 x gross recei is Rental (Commercial and Residential 0.002 x gross receipts Service 0.002.x gross receipts Professional 0.003 x gross recei is Administration/Research and Development 0.003 x gross receipts Contractors 0.002 x gross receipts Mr. Myers noted that this is the model that HdL recommended in their study. Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8c Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 Mr. Myers reviewed how this model could look in Burlingame: Categories Number of Businesses Estimated Taxable Gross Receipts Base Rate of $25 per Business Total Estimated Annual Gross Recei is Tax General Commerce/Retail 712 $669,835,011 $17,800 $1,304,070 Rental (Commercial and Residential 70 $36,338,070 $1,750 $69,176 Service 2,004 $862,416,375 $50,100 $1,621,633 Professional 1,596 $594,920,527 $39,900 $1,665,062 Administration/Research and Development 77 $63,364,633 $1,925 $184,319 Contractors 1,377 $146,205,301 $34,425 $223,561 TOTAL $5,216,720 Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked about basing business license tax on the number of employees and gross receipts. Mr. Myers stated that utilizing number of employees for the business license tax structure used to be popular because it was a good proxy for business activity. However, since the 1970s, productivity per employee has increased. Therefore, there is more business activity per employee. Another reason HdL doesn't recommend that model is because it is difficult to apportion an employee. Mr. Myers next discussed the City's potential cannabis revenue. He explained that forecasting the potential size of the City's cannabis market is beyond the scope of the business license tax study. However, preliminary numbers indicate that if the City were to capture a significant market share, at a rate of 4%, the City could stand to gain between $300,000 to $500,000 per year. He noted that this opportunity for revenue generation can be done through the creation of a separate classification or class for cannabis businesses within the existing business license ordinance provisions. HdL representative Josh Davis stated that the cannabis revenue could be added to a business license tax measure so that there will only be one measure on the November 2022 ballot, not two. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if the cannabis revenue tax could be added without changing the current business license tax. Mr. Davis replied in the affirmative but stated that it would need to be placed on the ballot. Mr. Myers stated that HdL recommends that the City consider adopting a gross receipts tax structure similar to Model 3. He noted that Model 3 allows the City to charge different rates based on business activity while improving equitability and increasing business tax revenue. He explained that the basic structure of Model 3 6 Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8c Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 should be fine-tuned to fit the City's unique structure, particularly the large number of outside service firms providing personal services in the city. Councilmember Beach stated that HdL's study included a table of how the three different models would impact different businesses. She discussed the example in the table of a restaurant with eight employees and $350,000 in gross receipts where under Model 2 and 3, their business license tax would grow to $350 per year. She asked what type of business this would be in Burlingame. Mr. Myers stated that this small restaurant would be a limited -service restaurant in the city. He added that the table that Councilmember Beach was referring to showed that smaller businesses might pay less than the City's current business license tax under the recommended models. For instance, a small contractor with one employee and $75,000 in gross receipts would pay $75 under Model 2. Councilmember Beach discussed the potential impacts that increasing the business license tax would have on smaller merchants. She noted that the Council received an email from a merchant stating that under revisions to the City's tax structure they would go from paying $100 to $4,000. She asked if the cities ever phase in increases to business license tax rates. Mr. Myers noted that the example of a business paying less in business license tax makes the question of a phased -in approach difficult. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran stated that she thought the City needed to increase its business license tax. She explained that because Burlingame is towards the top of the list in terms of number of businesses, but second to last in revenue, it shows that an increase is warranted. She stated that her concern was that she didn't think the City should raise the business license tax to an extreme. She explained that she thought the City's rate should be in the middle of the pack. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked if all the revenue from the City's sales tax of 9.63% goes to Burlingame. Finance Director Yu -Scott replied in the negative. She explained that the City gets 95% of the Bradley -Burn rate which is 0.9. She added that the City also receives the 0.25 from the Measure I tax. She added that the remainder goes to the County and State. Councilmember Colson asked that prior to putting a new model on the ballot, that staff first conduct polling. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. Jon Kevranian stated that as a small business owner he only supported Model 1. He added that if the Council needed to raise additional funds for the City, he thought they should copy San Mateo and put a city transfer tax on the sale of commercial and residential real estate. (comment submitted via publiccommentgburlin am�e.org). City Manager Goldman noted that the real estate transfer tax is not an option for the City because it is only an option for charter cities like San Mateo. 7 Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8c Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 Alex Vaysberg stated that he owned a company in Burlingame and wanted to clarify that under the potential models, because his company does $17 million in revenue (not profit) they would pay $17,000 a year in new taxes. Mr. Myers replied in the affirmative. Mr. Vaysberg stated that he felt this was too high as it wasn't based on profitability and thought any tax should be based on equity. Mayor Ortiz closed public comment. Councilmember Colson asked if the City increased the tax from $100 to $200, would it need to go to the ballot. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson asked if the Council does decide to increase the tax, could it include a CPI adjustment. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson stated that pre-COVID there was a lot of revenue coming into the City from TOT. However, she noted that the City needs to diversify its revenue base and thought the City needed to figure out a way to replace lost revenue from TOT. She added that she was open to having the conversation to increase the business license tax but thought Model 3 was too high Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he had thought a lot about this and didn't think the City should raise the business license tax. He explained that he didn't think the City had an inequitable business tax. Instead, he thought the City had a de-minimus tax. He added that he thought the City took a lot of money out of the commercial sector. He noted that the addition of this tax would be unduly burdensome on businesses. However, he stated that he didn't feel this way about a cannabis tax. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he believed the TOT would come back and therefore didn't think this tax was necessary. Councilmember Beach stated that she appreciated the input and wished that the Council had more time to discuss the commercial office space tax like Measure HH in East Palo Alto. She explained that she thought the Council needed a more thorough discussion on this item. She concurred with Vice Mayor Brownrigg that she wasn't sure if the change was worth it. Councilmember Beach stated that she would want to hear from the small businesses to ensure that their tax isn't raised that much. Mayor Ortiz discussed how TOT hasn't done well in the past few years and noted that in talking with the hoteliers, it wasn't coming back in the next few years. He stated that he didn't think Option 3 was a good idea but did think it would be okay to do a small increase on the business license tax. He added that what he 8 Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8c Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 would like to see is an option with a tiered system of $300 for large companies and then it works down to $100 for small businesses. Councilmember Colson asked when Mayor Ortiz stated "large company," was he referring to number of employees or gross receipts. Mayor Ortiz stated that he was referring to gross receipts. Councilmember Colson stated that if the Council voted to put this on the ballot, she thought a lot of outreach and polling should be done. Vice Mayor Brownrigg suggested scheduling the next discussion on potential tax measures during a regular meeting so that there wasn't an hour deadline. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran stated that she concurred with Vice Mayor Brownrigg. She asked that when this item is brought back, staff note what State and County measures will also be on the ballot. Vice Mayor Brownrigg noted that the Council was in favor of putting a cannabis tax measure on the ballot. City Manager Goldman stated that putting more than one tax measure on the ballot is generally a guarantee that neither will pass. She added that the Council has expressed a strong interest previously in increasing the business license tax because it is a regressive tax. Mayor Ortiz thanked staff and his colleagues for the discussion. 10. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 7:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk 9 Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022 Unapproved Minutes CITY C� BURLINGAME h o e�0 4 . $AniEo JLl3E � BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting on February 22, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER Agenda Item: 8d Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date via Zoom Webinar at 7:05 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by City Attorney Guina. 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 Ortiz reviewed upcoming events in the city. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. PG&E UPDATE PG&E representative Bill Chiang began by explaining that PG&E is committed to providing safe, reliable, affordable service, and laying the foundation to meet customers' future energy needs. He noted that his presentation would cover: • How PG&E manages reliability • Electric circuits serving Burlingame 1 Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8d Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 • The city's outage history • Improving reliability Mr. Chiang reviewed what happens in Burlingame when the lights go out. He stated that when an outage occurs, PG&E dispatches a "troubleman" to identify and isolate the issue and restore as many customers as possible. A crew will then complete the emergency repairs, conduct any necessary upgrades, and restore the remaining customers. He added that after the incident, the team reviews the outage to identify near -term system improvement projects. He noted that PG&E also reviews trends on a weekly, monthly, and annual basis to identify near, medium, and long-term system improvement projects. Mr. Chiang next reviewed types of outages. He noted that when reviewing outage data, PG&E differentiates between the types of outages to help identify trends and focus efforts • Momentary outages — last less than five minutes. A patrol is not usually conducted, and the cause is often not identified. • Sustained outages —any interruption not classified as part of a momentary event; that is, any interruption that lasts more than five minutes. • Planned outages — allow for safe work on the circuit. Customers are notified in advance. Reasons might include system upgrades, maintenance, or work requested by a third party. • Unplanned outages — when an emergency condition needs to be addressed to restore customers and/or help ensure public safety. He added that to understand trends and inform future maintenance and construction work, PG&E's reviews largely focus on sustained and unplanned outages. Mr. Chiang reviewed a map showing the electric circuits that serve Burlingame. He noted that customers in Burlingame generally get their power from 17 circuits coming from five substations. He added that most customers in Burlingame are energized by circuits out of the Burlingame, San Mateo, or Millbrae substations. Mr. Chiang stated that Burlingame experienced an increase in the number and duration of sustained and unplanned outages in 2021 compared to the three-year average. He noted that one of the indicators that PG&E uses to examine customer experiences is the average interruption frequency index. This index shows the average number of outages per customer in a particular area. Mr. Chiang stated that customers in Burlingame experienced several long duration outages during the major storm events in October and December 2021. Mr. Chiang discussed the 2021 outage causes and mitigations. He explained that customers on the San Mateo 2102 circuit experienced a notable increase in equipment failure from electric flashovers last year. He stated that PG&E is mitigating this issue by including the circuit in an insulator washing program to reduce 2 Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8d Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 the risk of flashover. Additionally, PG&E is installing three new switches and reclosers in strategic locations to help minimize the number of customers impacted and duration of outages. Mr. Chiang noted that the average customer on the San Mateo 2102 circuit experienced 3.9 sustained and unplanned outages in 2021. He explained that this is a large increase from 2018, when the average was 1.2. Mr. Chiang next reviewed the 2021 outages connected with the Burlingame 2101 circuit. He explained that trends on the Burlingame 2101 were not as clear. He stated that about a third of the outages were due to unknown causes. He added that PG&E suspects that these outages were due to overgrown vegetation. Mr. Chiang reviewed the mitigation plans for the Burlingame 2101 circuit. He stated that PG&E completes annual routine vegetation management around distribution lines per California Public Utilities Commission rules and tariffs. He added that where possible, PG&E works with residents and the City to trim and remove vegetation from the lines. Councilmember Beach stated that a third of the outages for the San Mateo 2102 and the Burlingame 2101 circuits are the result of equipment failure. Mr. Chiang replied in the affirmative. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Mayor Ortiz closed public comment. Vice Mayor Brownrigg thanked PG&E for the information. He discussed how PG&E's responsiveness and reliability have improved over the past 15 years. He thanked Mr. Chiang for his assistance on the City's project to underground the utility lines on El Camino Real. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked why it took a couple days to restore the electricity after a recent outage. Additionally, she asked how communication can be improved to residents who are suffering from outages for several days. Mr. Chiang stated that PG&E is improving its communication capabilities by alerting customers that sign up for notifications via text message and email. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran stated that the residents she had heard from were signed up to receive PG&E notifications. However, she explained they wouldn't hear from PG&E for hours. Mayor Ortiz discussed the frustration of trying to run a business when there are long outages. He explained that PG&E's estimates of when power would be back on were wrong, and it created an issue for businesses. He asked that PG&E work on this issue. Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8d Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 Mr. Chiang noted that the storm in October 2021 was focused on San Mateo County. He explained that at its peak, there were 44,000 addresses out of service in the county. He added that PG&E had to bring in assistance from San Diego to reconnect all the addresses. Councilmember Colson thanked PG&E for the work they are doing to harden the grid on 10,000 miles of vulnerable lines in high -risk areas for wildfire. Councilmember Colson stated that she heard that businesses are experiencing a long lag time between requesting a hook up and obtaining it. She asked that PG&E work with the City to assist new businesses in getting connected quicker. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran discussed the City's wastewater treatment plant that needs to run 24/7. She voiced concern about how outages affect the plant's operations and asked PG&E to work directly with them. Mr. Chiang stated that he has given his number to the plant, and they call him directly when there are issues. Mayor Ortiz thanked PG&E for their presentation and for answering the Council's questions. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Sandra Lang thanked the Council for the presentation on the Broadway Grade Separation. She discussed the Vision Zero Policy and thought it was worth consideration. 8. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Ortiz asked if anyone on Council or members of the public would like to remove an item from the Consent Calendar. No items were removed. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was grateful to Councilmember O'Brien Keighran for her work making Burlingame an "Age Friendly City." He asked why the Council was voting on her travel to the conference. City Manager Goldman stated that the City's purchasing policy requires that all travel out-of-state be approved by Council (except for travel to Nevada). Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt items 8a, 8b, 8c, and 8d; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt item 8e; seconded by Vice Mayor Brownrigg. The motion passed by roll call vote, 4-0-1. (Councilmember O'Brien Keighran abstained as the item allowed her to travel for an out-of-state conference.) 4 Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8d Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE JANUARY 29, 2022 GOAL SETTING SESSION City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested approval of the City Council Meeting Minutes for the January 29, 2022 Goal Setting Session. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO CONTINUE CONDUCTING CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION MEETINGS REMOTELY DUE TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS FOR THE PUBLIC City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council adopt Resolution Number 012-2022. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT JAIL INTERIOR REMODEL BY SOUTHWEST CONSTRUCTION & PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, CITY PROJECT NO.85370/85470 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 013-2022. d. APPROVAL OF QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT, PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2021 Finance Director Yu -Scott requested Council approval of the quarterly investment report for the period ending December 31, 2021. e. APPROVAL OF COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN'S OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL TO ATTEND THE AMERICAN SOCIETY ON AGING ANNUAL CONFERENCE City Manager Goldman requested Council approve of Councilmember O'Brien's out-of-state travel to attend the American Society on Aging Annual Conference. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings. 10. STAFF REPORTS a. ADOPTION OF A REOSLUTION ESTABLISHING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME'S OUTDOOR FLAGPOLE DISPLAY POLICY 5 Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8d Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 ACA Spansail stated that the proposed policy governs the use of City owned outdoor flagpoles. He explained that the policy provides direction to staff for the care and maintenance of flags including Federal, State, and City flags. He added that the policy also incorporates Federal and State policy on flag care. ACA Spansail stated that the policy includes a mechanism for the Council to request commemorative or ceremonial flags be flown on City owned flagpoles. ACA Spansail stated that the Council asked for this policy to be created after a special meeting was held to allow for the City to fly the Progress Pride flag on the City Hall flagpole. ACA Spansail stated that the proposed policy explicitly states that the City's flagpoles are not a public forum for free speech and may only express the City Council's official sentiments and thus the City's own speech. He explained that under the Government Speech doctrine, a city may advance its own speech without requiring viewpoint neutrality when the city itself is the speaker. This is allowable as long as the speech does not communicate a religious preference or violate a separate constitutional provision. ACA Spansail explained that this protection exists so long as the City is exercising its own right of expression and is not relaying the message of a distinct third party. The proposed policy's guidelines and procedures ensure that the City flagpoles never become a public forum for third- party expressions and only convey the City Council's official government speech. ACA Spansail stated that for any ceremonial or commemorative flag to be flown, it must first be requested by a sitting Councilmember during a regularly scheduled Council meeting. He explained that a vote would then be taken at a later Council meeting. Mayor Ortiz asked if Councilmembers would need to request to fly a ceremonial or commemorative flag under future agenda items. ACA Spansail replied in the affirmative. He noted that the policy didn't require a Councilmember to second the request, but this could be added. Councilmember Colson discussed the flagpoles on Burlingame Avenue attached to the parking meters. She noted that on certain Federal holidays like President's Day, the Boy Scouts install American flags in these flagpoles. She asked if this policy covers those flagpoles. City Manager Goldman noted that DBID handles the parking meter flagpoles on Burlingame Avenue, and the Boy Scouts handle the flagpoles on Broadway. She added that she believed the proposed policy only covers the flagpoles in front of City Hall and the Library. Councilmember Colson discussed the potential for DBID to decide to fly ceremonial flags without first consulting with the City. She suggested that the City work with DBID each year to determine which flags should be flown and on what days. 6 Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8d Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 Councilmember Colson noted that it isn't always clear to residents which flagpoles the City has control over. She asked if she was correct that the proposed policy only covers City owned flagpoles. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson discussed the condition of the flag in front of the train station. She noted that this flag is not under the City's purview and instead she believed it to be within the Transportation Authority's control. She asked Councilmember Beach to work with the Transportation Authority to make sure that flag gets replaced when necessary. City Manager Goldman noted that she believed this flag was not under the Transportation Authority's control but rather Caltrain's authority. ACA Spansail stated that the proposed policy can be amended to state specifically which flagpoles the policy governs. City Manager Goldman stated that the DBID and Boy Scouts only fly American flags in the parking meter flag pole holders, and this is done four to five times a year. Vice Mayor Brownrigg thanked ACA Spansail for his work on this policy. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he thought it was a big deal for any government to initiate speech. He noted that he was proud that the City flew the Progress Pride flag. However, he explained that he thought that Council should have a high standard for flying ceremonial or commemorative flags. He asked if his colleagues would be okay with amending the policy to say that four positive votes are needed to fly a ceremonial or commemorative flag. Mayor Ortiz opened this item up to public comment. No one spoke. Mayor Ortiz stated that he was intrigued by Vice Mayor Brownrigg's suggestion. He added that he would want the initial request to fly a flag to require a second to move forward. Councilmember Colson stated that she would hope that for the Council to approve a ceremonial or commemorative flag, that it would be a unanimous decision. Therefore, she explained that she would not have a problem requiring four yes votes. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran stated that she agreed with her colleagues regarding four affirmative votes. She explained that she thought that the City should make it clear which holidays the American flag is to be installed on Broadway and Burlingame Avenue. She noted that there has been confusion from residents over what holidays the flags are put up and who is responsible for their installation. Councilmember Beach thanked ACA Spansail for his work on this policy. She added that she supported the 4/5ths majority and Mayor Ortiz's requirement for a second to the motion to agendize flying a specific commemorative or ceremonial flag. 7 Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8d Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 014-2022 with the following amendments: • Requiring a second on the initial request to agendize a discussion on flying a commemorative or ceremonial flag • Requiring four affirmative votes to approve flying a commemorative or ceremonial flag The motion was seconded by Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. b. AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READER (ALPR) DISCUSSION Police Chief Matteucci stated that this item was originally discussed at the January 18, 2022, City Council meeting. He explained that the discussion focused on the logistics of ALPRs and the pros and cons of utilizing this technology. He noted that some of the benefits of ALPRs are locating and apprehending wanted individuals, locating stolen vehicles, and assisting with criminal investigations. He added that some of the negatives were privacy issues and potential data breaches. Police Chief Matteucci stated that at the January 18 meeting, Council asked that staff gather additional information including input from other San Mateo County cities that utilize ALPRs. He noted that 14 cities in the county utilize ALPRs. He stated that the number of ALPRs in each of the 14 cities ranges from one to 52. He explained that three of the cities only utilize mobile ALPRs, which are installed on police vehicles. He added that the cities that use fixed ALPRs place them at major entrances to the city and in high traffic areas. Police Chief Matteucci reviewed how long the different cities retain the ALPR data. He stated that it is a pretty even split in San Mateo County between keeping the data for 30 days or keeping it for a year. He discussed the different data sharing policies of the 14 cities: • By request only • Only within San Mateo County • Northern California Regional Intelligence Center Police Chief Matteucci stated that his biggest takeaway is that the other police chiefs expressed overwhelming support for purchasing ALPRs. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked which cities don't use ALPRs. Police Chief Matteucci stated that he would get back to Council with this information off-line. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked if the neighboring cities have ALPRs. Police Chief Matteucci replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach thanked the Police Chief for the information about how other cities are utilizing ALPRs. However, she noted that she was interested in getting more information about privacy concerns. 8 Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8d Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 She stated that she wanted more information on best practices for vetting ALPR policies. She added that she also wanted to better understand if the City should have additional noticing requirements when a Council item involves privacy concerns. She listed other items she wanted more information about including retention policies and the pros and cons of keeping data for longer periods of time. City Attorney Guina stated that if the Council wants to have additional analysis brought back, the Council can direct staff on what type of data they would like collected on this matter. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. Jennifer Pfaff discussed the great work the Police are doing in her neighborhood to slow traffic down. She added that she thought ALPRs would be a good idea for Burlingame. She asked if the data is also used to identify speeders. Mayor Ortiz closed public comment. Police Chief Matteucci stated that primarily ALPRs aren't used for traffic violations. Mayor Ortiz stated that every law enforcement activity restricts private rights. He added that people have learned to accept it, and he believed ALPRs would be very helpful. He explained that he understood it would infringe on an individual's privacy and thought that Council should be strict about how the data is used. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked if the Police Chief received any negative feedback about ALPRs. Police Chief Matteucci replied in the negative. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked about the average length of time that cities kept their data. Police Chief Matteucci stated that most of the cities keep it for only 30 days. He noted that those that keep it a year are the cities who share it with the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran stated that she thought there were a lot more benefits to utilizing ALPRs than negatives. She added that she thought if the City goes forward with purchasing ALPRs, the Council should conduct an annual review of their effectiveness. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that if the City agrees to ALPRs, it is a step towards the creation of a surveillance state. He emphasized his appreciation for Police Chief Matteucci's hard work to train the officers on de-escalation and handling biases. He explained that while he doesn't believe the City's police would misuse the cameras, he still had concerns. He gave an example of a person of color borrowing a friend's car where the friend has a warrant out for his arrest. He explained that he was concerned about the potential for a bad situation if the driver is pulled over. 9 Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8d Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that if this item came back, he would like to hear from civil rights groups and other non -governmental organizations about the benefits and negatives of ALPRs. He added that he would also like to hear from them about how best to set up a policy to protect individual rights. He stated that he wants to minimize the number of interactions between armed police and people of color. He explained that this is because the country has a horrible record of those interactions. Councilmember Beach stated that she agreed with Vice Mayor Brownrigg. She explained that if this item came back for further discussion, she would like to hear from outside organizations about how best to set up a vetting process for reviewing ALPR policies and how to better notify the public that the Council is considering purchasing ALPRs. Councilmember Colson stated that if someone has a warrant out for their arrest, she does want the police to pull that person over and investigate why they are in the city. Councilmember Colson stated that she has heard from members of the community and businesses that they want the police to install ALPRs. She added that she agreed with Vice Mayor Brownrigg and Councilmember Beach that the City needs to thoroughly review an ALPR policy prior to agreeing to purchase this technology. Mayor Ortiz stated that it seemed like most of his colleagues would like to schedule further discussions on this topic. The Council agreed. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked that when the next discussion is scheduled, it be placed in the eNews to alert the community. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITY REPORTS There were no Council committee and activity reports. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no future agenda items. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 10 Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8d Meeting Date: March 7, 2022 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 Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk 11 Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022 Unapproved Minutes BURLINGAME AGENDA NO: 8e STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: March 7, 2022 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: March 7, 2022 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Andrew Wong, Senior Civil Engineer — (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of Resolutions Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Project Specific Maintenance Agreement with Caltrans for the US 101/13roadway Interchange; and Amendment No. 2 to the Cost Sharing Agreement for the State Highway Electrical Facilities RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following resolutions: 1. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Project Specific Maintenance Agreement for the US 101/Broadway Interchange with Caltrans; and 2. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 2 to the Cost Sharing Agreement for Electrical Facilities with Caltrans. BACKGROUND The US 101/Broadway Interchange Reconstruction Project was completed in October 2017. The project brought about many significant changes to the interchange including the complete reconfiguration of the interchange, relocation of the freeway on -and -off -ramps onto the new Broadway overpass bridge structure, new traffic signals, and aesthetic modifications such as landscaping. The Project Specific Maintenance Agreement identifies the respective maintenance responsibilities between the City and Caltrans as a result of the US 101/Broadway Interchange Reconstruction Project. Additionally, the City has an existing cost -sharing agreement with Caltrans for jointly shared traffic signals and electrical facilities, which was executed on March 12, 1987 (effective May 1, 1987). This agreement outlines maintenance and electrical costs between the City and Caltrans for traffic signals near or on state facilities. Amendment No. 1 to the cost -sharing agreement, which was executed on March 17, 1989, updated state -maintained facilities. The proposed Amendment No. 2 will update the cost -sharing agreement to reflect the changes made to traffic signals as a result of the US 101/Broadway Interchange Reconstruction Project. 1 City/Caltrans Maintenance Agreement + Electrical Facilities Cost Sharing Amendment March 7, 2022 DISCUSSION Project Specific Maintenance Agreement The maintenance responsibilities for the new interchange are identified in the attached Project Specific Maintenance Agreement. The limits and details of the responsibilities are shown in the Freeway Maintenance Location Map (Exhibit A to the Project Specific Maintenance Agreement). As detailed in the Project Specific Maintenance Agreement, the City's responsibilities associated with the new interchange include, among other things, surfacing, striping over the deck, drainage system, and all portions of the structure above the bridge deck, including lighting installations, as well as all traffic service facilities (sidewalks, signs, pavement markings, bridge rails, etc.) that may be required for the benefit or control of traffic using that overcrossing, as well as any non-standard architectural features. Additionally, landscaping desired by the City in certain locations within the state's right-of-way will be maintained by the City. Amendment No. 2 to the Sharing Cost of State Highway Electrical Facilities Agreement The electrical facilities within the Broadway Interchange were previously identified in the Agreement for Sharing Costs of State Highway Electrical Facilities with the City of Burlingame, executed on March 12, 1987. Amendment No. 2 to the agreement updates the agreement to reflect the changes to traffic signals and associated appurtenances as part of the new Broadway Interchange and associated costs and responsibilities. Specifically, Amendment No. 2 will update the locations for maintenance and electrical costs of traffic signals located on the northbound ramps at Bayshore Boulevard, southbound ramps at Broadway, and the intersection of Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard. FISCAL IMPACT There will be staff time and ongoing maintenance responsibilities associated with the Project Specific Maintenance Agreement for the Broadway Interchange, and Amendment No. 2 to the Sharing Cost of State Highway Electrical Facilities Agreement, which is part of current maintenance program costs, and is included in the budget. Exhibits: • Resolution Approving Project Specific Maintenance Agreement (Broadway I/C EA: 235841) • Resolution Approving Amendment No. 2 to Sharing Cost of State Highway Electrical Facilities • Project Specific Maintenance Agreement for Broadway Interchange • Amendment No. 2 to Sharing Cost of State Highway Electrical Facilities Agreement • Original Agreement + Amendment No. 1 for Sharing Cost of State Highway Electrical Facilities 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE PROJECT SPECIFIC MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH CALTRANS FOR THE US/101 BROADWAY INTERCHANGE WHEREAS, the Broadway Interchange Project, which was completed in October 2017, brought about many changes to the freeway interchange; and WHEREAS, changes to the Broadway Interchange included the complete reconfiguration of the interchange, relocation of the freeway on -and -off -ramps onto the new Broadway overpass bridge structure, new traffic signals, and aesthetic modifications such as landscaping; and WHEREAS, the City's responsibilities associated with the new freeway interchange include the surfacing, striping, drainage system, and all portions of the structure above the bridge deck, including lighting installations, as well as all traffic service facilities (sidewalks, signs, pavement markings, bridge rails, etc.) that may be required for the benefit or control of traffic using that overcrossing, as well as any non-standard architectural features; and WHEREAS, City desired landscaping in specific locations within the state's right-of-way will be maintained by the City. NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED, and ORDERED, the City Manager is authorized to execute the Project Specific Maintenance Agreement for the Broadway Interchange with Caltrans, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. Ricardo Ortiz, 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 Th day of March, 2022, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE SHARING COST OF STATE HIGHWAY ELECTRICAL FACILITIES AGREEMENT WITH CALTRANS WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame entered into an agreement with Caltrans on March 12, 1987 for cost sharing and maintenance responsibilities associated with traffic signals and electrical system near or on state facilities; and WHEREAS, an Amendment No. 1 was made on March 17, 1989 to update the state - maintained facilities; and WHEREAS, the Broadway Interchange Project reconstructed the roadway system, and traffic facilities in the affected area which resulted in removal, relocations, and modifications of certain traffic signals and associated appurtenances; and WHEREAS, Amendment No. 2 to the Sharing Cost of State Highway Electrical Facilities Agreement identifies the updated signals in the project area as outlined in Exhibit A of the Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED, and ORDERED, the City Manager is authorized to execute Amendment No. 2 to the Sharing Cost of State Highway Electrical Facilities Agreement with Caltrans, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. Ricardo Ortiz, 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 Th day of March, 2022, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk (tr-04-0-AD02) 04-SM-101 16.3/17.1 Broadway PC EA: 235841 PROJECT SPECIFIC MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF BURLINGAME THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in duplicate, effective this day of , 202_, by and between the State of California, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, herein after referred to as "STATE and the City of Burlingame, hereinafter referred to as "CITY; and collectively referred to as "PARTIES." SECTION I RECITALS 1. WHEREAS, on September 25, 2013 a Cooperative Agreement was executed between CITY and STATE, wherein the PARTIES consented to certain adjustments of the local street and road system required for the development of that portion of State Highway Route 101 within the jurisdictional limits of the CITY as a freeway; and 2. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 57 of the above referenced September 25, 2013 COOP Agreement, CITY accepted the condition requiring a new or amended Maintenance Agreement to cover those items in the newly configured intersection as shown in Exhibit A. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED: SECTION II AGREEMENT 1. CITY agrees to continue their control and maintenance of each of the affected relocated or reconstructed CITY streets and roads as shown on that plan map attached hereto, marked Exhibit A, and made a part hereof by this reference. 2. STATE agrees to continue control and maintenance of those portions adopted as a part of SR 101 Freeway proper as shown Exhibit A. 3. If there is mutual agreement on the change in the maintenance duties between PARTIES, the PARTIES can revise Exhibit A by a mutual written execution of Exhibit A. (tr-04-0-AD02) 04-SM-101 16.3/17.1 Broadway PC EA: 235841 4. When another planned future improvement has been constructed and/or a minor revision has been effected within the limits of the freeway herein described which will affect the PARTIES' division of maintenance responsibility as described herein, STATE will provide a new dated and revised Exhibit "A," which will be made a part here of by an amendment to this Agreement when executed by all PARTIES, which will thereafter supersede the attached original Exhibit A and become part of this Agreement. 5. CITY and STATE agree to accept their then respective operational and maintenance responsibilities and related associated costs thereof in the event jurisdictional boundaries of the PARTIES should change and Exhibit A is amended to reflect those changes. 6. CITY must obtain the necessary Encroachment Permits from STATE's District 04 Encroachment Permit Office prior to entering STATE right of way to perform CITY maintenance responsibilities. This permit will be issued at no cost to CITY. 7. VEHICULAR OVERCROSSING 7.1 STATE will maintain, at STATE expense, the entire structure of the STATE constructed Vehicle Overcrossing of SR 101, below the deck surface except as hereinafter provided. 7.2 CITY will maintain, at CITY expense, the deck and/or surfacing and structural drainage system (and shall perform such work as may be necessary to ensure an impervious and/or otherwise suitable surface) and all portions of the structure above the bridge deck, including, but without limitation, lighting installations, as well as all traffic service facilities (sidewalks, signs, pavement markings, bridge rails, etc.) that may be required for the benefit or control of traffic using that overcrossing; as well as any non-standard architectural features. 7.3 At such locations as shall be determined by STATE, screening shall be placed on STATE freeway overpasses on which pedestrians are allowed as directed by section 92.6 of the Streets and Highways Code. All screens installed under this program will be maintained by STATE, at STATE expense. 8. RETAINING /MSE WALLS Responsibility for debris removal, cleaning and painting; of any structures lying outside of the fenced right of way area reserved for exclusive freeway use, to keep them free of dirt and graffiti; shall lie with CITY. Responsibility for maintenance of any surfaces on structures that have non-standard architectural treatments of any kind are also the responsibility of the City. Those architectural treatments may include, among other things, paint or surface relief. 9. LANDSCAPED AREAS ADJACENT TO CROSSING STRUCTURES (tr-04-0-AD02) 04-SM-101 16.3/17.1 Broadway PC EA: 235841 Responsibility for the maintenance of any plantings or other types of roadside development lying outside of the fenced right of way area reserved for exclusive freeway use shall lie with CITY and not with STATE. 10. INTERCHANGE OPERATION It is the responsibility of the STATE to provide efficient operation of freeway interchanges including ramp connections to local streets and roads. Timing of traffic signals shall be the responsibility of STATE unless otherwise agreed to by CITY and STATE. 11. BICYCLE PATHS Except for bicycle paths constructed as permitted encroachments within STATE's right of way for which the permittee is solely responsible for all path improvements, STATE will maintain, at STATE expense, all fences, guard -railing, drainage facilities, slope and structural adequacy of any bicycle path located and constructed within STATE's right of way. CITY will maintain, at CITY expense, a safe facility for bicycle travel along the entire length of the path by providing sweeping and debris removal when necessary; and all signing, striping and pavement markings required for the direction and operation of that nonmotorized facility. 12. LEGAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES: 12.1 Nothing within the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties not parties to this Agreement or to affect the legal liability of a PARTY to the Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to the operation and maintenance of STATE highways and local facilities different from the standard of care imposed by law. 12.2 Neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE, under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction conferred upon STATE arising under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that STATE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless CITY and all of their officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth under, including, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation and other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under this Agreement. 12.3 Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction conferred upon CITY arising under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that CITY shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless STATE and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth under, including, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under this Agreement. 3 (tr-04-0-AD02) 04-SM-101 16.3/17.1 Broadway PC EA: 235841 13. PREVAILING WAGES: 13.1 Labor Code Compliance- If the work performed under this agreement is done under contract and falls within the Labor Code section 1720(a)(1) definition of "public works" in that it is construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair; or maintenance work under Labor Code section 1771, CITY must conform to the provisions of Labor Code sections 1720 through 1815, and all applicable provisions of California Code of Regulations found in Title 8, Chapter 8, Subchapter 3, Articles 1-7. CITY agrees to include prevailing wage requirements in its contracts for public works. Work performed by CITY'S own forces is exempt from the Labor Code's Prevailing Wage requirements. 13.2 Requirements in Subcontracts - CITY shall require its contractors to include prevailing wage requirements in all subcontracts funded by this Agreement when the work to be performed by the subcontractor is "public works" as defined in Labor Code Section 1720(a)(1) and Labor Code Section 1771. Subcontracts shall include all prevailing wage requirements set forth in CITY's contracts 14. INSURANCE 14.1. CITY and its contractors shall maintain in force, during the term of this agreement, a policy of general liability insurance, including coverage of bodily injury liability and property damage liability, naming the STATE, its officers, agents and employees as the additional insured in an amount of $1 million per occurrence and $2 million in aggregate and $5 million in excess. Coverage shall be evidenced by a certificate of insurance in a form satisfactory to the STATE that shall be delivered to the STATE with a signed copy of this Agreement.. 15. "TERMINATION - This Agreement may be terminated by mutual written consent of PARTIES, and by STATE for cause. CITY's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement may be grounds for a Notice of Termination by STATE." 16. TERM OF AGREEMENT - This Agreement shall become effective on the date first shown on its face sheet and shall remain in full force and effect until amended or terminated at any time upon mutual consent of the PARTIES or until terminated by STATE for cause. PARTIES are empowered by Streets and Highways Code Section 114 and 130 to enter into this Agreement and have delegated to the undersigned the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the respective agencies and covenants to have followed all the necessary legal requirements to validly execute this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. CITY OF BURLINGAME BY CITY MANAGER ATTEST: BY City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: BY City Attorney (tr-04-0-AD02) 04-SM-101 16.3/17.1 Broadway PC EA: 235841 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TOKS OMISHAKIN Director Im PARVIZ LASHAI Acting Deputy District Director Maintenance and Operations X x 0 w 0 w a 0 a x w � w X z Z w � U W J J x a o g z o GILBRETH Rd 0 To San w Francisco ROUTE 101 f 485 ADRIAN Rd 490 �1 ;1 0 a End Work Sto "US101" 483+50 i L STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FREEWAY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF BURLINGAME LIMIT OF AGREEMENT END CONSTRUCTION Sta "US101" 488+00 PM 17.1 Limit of Work Sto "BYSH" 30+50 BqY Sy r. T MARSTEN PG&E OH TRANSMISSION LINES Lv z z X N Q a 0 Limit of Work Sto "BWY" 29+91 SAN FRANCISCO BA Y HIto a ROCV�NS-� W7 SHORN wpY N v Limit of Work Sto "RLN" 22+29 Gp�TRA1N Railroad -4a BURLINGAME Limit of Work Sto "HTL" 54+05 PG&E OH TRANSMISSION LINE BROADWAY OC (REPLACE) Br No. 35-0351 BROADWAY Ave POC Br No. 35-0342 ON -RAMP Br No. 35-0352K pN Limit of Work Sto "BWY" 9+99 )ist COUNTY I ROUTE w TOTAL PROJECT 04 SM 101 16.3/17.1 DELM�I.000cMODOCLASSENHUPLUMASSIERRA TULARE MONTEREY NI NGS SAN LUIS xERN OBISPO SAN BERNARDINO SANTA BARBARA OS ANGELE ENTUR[ LOCATION MAP 0 ANGE RIVERSIDE P U SAN DIEGO IMPERIAL 0 BEGIN CONSTRUCTION Sta "US101" 528+02 PM 16�3 0 0J l S creeK _ a�enez _R0��1N5 R d Begin Work Sto "US101" 530+50 Limit of Work Sto "RLN" 35+04 oW EXHIBIT A FREEWAY MAINTENANCE a LOCATION MAP oN NO SCALE wti SHEET 1 OF 4 a N BORDER LAST REVISED 9/30/2012ICALTRANS WEB SITE IS: HTTP//WWW.DOT.CA.GOV/ RELATIVE BORDER SCALE 0 1 2 3 USERNAME => Shruti-Shah IS IN INCHES I I I I I I DGN FILE => FMA-Title.dE UNIT 0703 PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE 04000006841 Dist COUNTY ROUTE POST MILES TOTAL PROJECT LEGEND: 04 SM 101 16.3/17.1 NOTE: FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACT RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE. o CONCRETE BARRIER RETAINING WALL TYPICAL LANDSCAPING AREA x x CL FENCE AREA WITHIN THE STATE RIGHT OF WAY! CITY STREET LIGHT (TYPE AS NOTED) 35.05'Lt TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY CITY PEDESTRIAN LIGHT (TYPE AS NOTED) "B1" +17.69 END CL FENCE (TYPE CL-6, VINYL -CLAD) Beg CL FENCE 41.65'Lt "B1" +73.61 EN CB (TYPE 60C) p� o� STATTELANDSCAPING RIGHT OFHIN WAY TO o m (TYPE CL-4 VINYL -CLAD) : w/ W LDLIFE PASSAGEWAY �\ — \� \ ANDS APING WITHIN \ BE -MAINTAINED BY CITY \ o 'w (T S) END C FENCE x--� �� o ��V - SANDS coNC RIGHT OF WAY TO xx —_ --j'1 g g \ `N, \\ BE M Y CITY \ I I I \ \\ �- w < (TYPE L NYL-CLADS ��� Beg CL CN E ° O _YYL-CLAb-) % A\ PH- / k�► LIGHTING TO BE o (TYPE 6�, I" o G �� �� - �\ 30 �n� \ , 1 1� -� - n MAINTAINED BY CITY 8., 8 6 z B4" +12.32 X 17.6 VA" 1N 35 s END CB (TYPE 60C) �E EWAY �� �� 'A / w� 4 Beg CB (TYPE 60C) 33.47' Lt TYPE TYPE �� �i `� 3 - - w/ WILDLIFE "- r PASSAGEWAY B1' +50.34 w /\ _ _ - CITY -- ALT NS _ _ - - -i - \ _ - /" �, (TYPE S) Beg CB (TYPE 60C) (TYYPE , I \ Q D) \ R/W - -->• R/ _ i a Lt w/ WILDLIFE PASSAGEWAY (TYPE S) Beg L FENCE ,/\ � Z � i 59.49' B4" +01.20 1'Lt "US101" +07.16 /� ,TYP CL-6, VINYL-CL ) : \ Q' s�s + END CL FENCE pENDDCBFE(TYPE (TYPE CL-6 6 E WAY \ \ 3 \ / I I I F 5 VINYL -CLAD) (TYPE S) Beg CB (TYPE 60C) - -I_ x x <o ( -6, c ^ a� o u ----- ASPH % \ eg CL F E V_ AD) + OIYv 41 .65' Lt ' t\ 4.8' Rt "B4" �� w R/W X_II YPE CL-6 ! 1 68.91 Rt i C) +4 +1 2.32 1 Beg CB (TYPE 60C) aw = u — --- -- �� _ „«</// F END C FENCE LCLE6CE coo F F _ x x x i I - - - - - - - - - - - - O (TYPE VINYL -CLAD) - G F F o cl� — — "B4", N 8 0 ,r w G 0.75' Lt a - - - - - - "US101" +86.79 -_ -_ ROUTE 101 w _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — — — — — — — _ - _ _ Beg CB (TYPE 60C) ~ U N — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — U S101LINECONNECT 10 Exist CB w 8 9 500 1 2- 3 4 am F- w - - - Z - - - - - - - - - - - V z— a — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — LU J = z a 4- - B2 LINE r - 245 „ c J F _ _ _ _ 6 - - 7 8- - - - _ 0 2- - - - 210- z- o v F - - - a Rt - R/iWi yy, / ! E D CB 1(TsY1FRAVO .89 3B1" 6 33' Rt "B2" B g CB (TYPE 60P� .51 sTORA G EN (TYPE 60C +70.01 Beg CL FENCE ' 3.48Rt R/W 1 ' Lt 3'Rt Be (TYPE 60P od) (TYPE CL-4 B2" +1D 6.00 „ o / /U-i 61" +93 8 Beg CB (T PE END CBAtTY E 60C) Rt 60P M d) 61 " +78.51 VINYL CLAD CB N(TYPE 60C) 9 Ret W 5 x 4 60 B TYPE C). I� TYPE 60C I\ z / XBe 6 C) o w/ w/ IQLIFE PASS7if WAS=_- ) /Y CK - E D CB (TYP 6 P Mod) STORAGE ,h x x NERLI Ln wASPH \� / ST RAGE B2,+ (y 9 END CB(TY IIIC° I Beg R No. 209 p�X� a Beg CB (TYPE 60D Mod) EXHIBIT A U FREEWAY M A I N TEN A N C E FOR NOTES, ABBREVIATIONS AND SCALE 1 = 50' a LEGEND, SEE SHEET-1 SHEET 2 OF 4 N V USERNAME=>Shruti-Shah RELATIVE BORDER SCALE 0 2 3 DCN FILE => FMA_oo2.dgn IS IN INCHES I I UNIT 0703 PROJECT NUMBER &PHASE 04000006841 x x TO BE MAINTAINED BY CITY Dts+ COUNTY ROUTEI TOTAL PROJECT (LIGHTING AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES) NOTE: LIGHTING TO BE 04 SM 101 16.3/17.1 FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACT RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE. MAINTAINED MAINTAINED BY CITY (Ty p) BY CITY LEGEND } • • • • CONCRETE BARRIER RETAINING WALL o 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 FG Approx OG ALONG BWY" LINE —x x CL FENCE AREA WITHIN THE STATE RIGHT OF WAY MAINTAINED BY -I CALTRANST 3- Abut 1 ---- Approx OG=FG F-�_U--F-IT-u BENT 2 Abut 3 J----r 1' Lt 'US101" +92.62 END CB (TYPE 60C) m o o TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY ELEVATION Beg CB (TYPE 6OR Mod) vwi 50.47'Rt MATCH N(SHEET 2) o I I r X� u _ END CIL NC[ -R W TYPICAL LANDSCAPING AREA %/� I �� I I (TYPE CL 4, , IN CLA ) Beg C F NCE I r - (TYPE CL 6, VIN)LL -CLAD = Llj I o I �� 5.48' Lt EE 1 64.42'Lt C STREET HT TYPE AS NOTED CITY S REE LIGHT ( ) 1 1 I L J / E� R t�LL N 9 + _ "BWY" +14.63 0 A 5.83'Rt _ _�-_ — _ = X I Beg CL FENCE (TYPE CL-6, VINYL -CLAD) n CITY PEDESTRIAN LIGHT (TYPE AS NOTED) Z �B" ?�k r - " I^ om W QLU Jz �U U aw UO m o W Y V) U vU w U U x o w In a 0 U W z J V) z Z O z 0 x Q 0 Ln Ln Z a 0 z w C= a W 0 a z 0 J x a U o FOR NOTES, ABBREVIATIONS AND LEGEND, SEE SHEET-1 a BORDER LAST REVISED 7/2/2010 USERNAME=>Shruti Shah DGN FILE => FMA_003.dgn 4L , ' Z" 7' Lt END RW7No1 316 "TR5" +34.68 END CL FENCE Beg CL FENCE (TYPE CL-4, VINYL -CLAD) (TYPE CL-6, VINYL -CLAD) RELATIVE BORDER SCALE 0 2 3 IS IN INCHES I I i 84 61 ' Rt "US101" +08.31 END CB (TYPE 60) 5.48' Lt "B3" +90.51 END CB (TYPE 60C) UNIT 0703 "BWY" +86.46 Beg CL FENCE (TYPE CL-6, VINYL -CLAD) 0' Lt, "B4" +10.00 END CB (TYPE 60C) W/ WILDLI PASSAGEWAY (TYPE S) Beg CB (TYPE 60C) 1 .60' Lt "US101" +27.27 END CB (TYPE 6OR Mod) Beg CB (TYPE 60C) 5.48' Lt "B3" +07.29 END Ret WALL No. 314 "BY +1 7.29 Beg Ret WALL No. 315 69.63' Lt "US101" +15.68 Beg CB (TYPE 60GE) END CB (TYPE 60C) 89.24' Rt "US101" +14.94 Beg CB (TYPE 60) UJ I U I +14 J.36 n i — — END CB (TYPE 60C) CONNECT TO Exist CB o R 69.93' Lt M US101 +03.40U^ ^ I LINE (SHEET 5) END CB (TYPE 60GE) Beg CB (TYPE 60C) w w 00 EXHIBIT A FREEWAY MAINTENANCE o.=M SCALE 1" = 50' w� SHEET 3 OF 4 �o PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE 04000006841 list COUNTY ROUTE POST MILES TOTAL PROJECT 04 SM 101 16.3/17.1 NOTE: FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACT RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE. x LANDSCAPING WITHIN STATE RIGHT OF WAY TO BE MAINTAINED BY CITY LEGEND: ® ® CONCRETE BARRIER - ' RETAINING WALL —x x CL FENCE "BYSH" +20.98 BSH �24.49 Beg Ret WALLCL FENCE No. 39 AREA WITHIN THE STATE RIGHT OF WAY p F Beg\Ret WA \BTgPELCF- Y +CLAD 9�°y 1 (TYPE CL \44�lYNYL-CLAD) TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY Lu > w a R/W V n vA o \ TYPICAL LANDSCAPING AREA x R/W v v y 12.6�+84.36 - � � CITY STREET LIGHT (TYPE AS NOTED) V 'el END CB (TY HOC) v �v 12.64' L\ a� 61%C CITY PEDESTRIAN LIGHT (TYPE AS NOTED) "TR6" +49 5 C �qBeg��(TYPE 60C)� Beg �� Y 1 60C) �: �� \ \ \ "TR6" LINE \ 33.11 ' Lt 9A v ��� "BWY" +20.31 \ D CB (TYPE 60C) 45.08' Lt � 9 \ BYSH" +20.98 END Ret WALL \ \\ \ "TR4" LIN m No. o r w m C END CL FENCE � � - az (TYPE CL-6, B:�)" � VINYL -CLAD) \ � aw "BYSH" LINE 40,� BwY' �1 \\� x 0 45.60'N \ \ �, +1 o BYSH" +13.43 • END Ret WALL No. 39 END CL FENCE (TYPE CL-4 •`;.:`® �` \ A \ \\ a VINYL -CLAD) — C) LIGHTING TO BE�— MAINTAINED BY CITY / �Ql\ z �s� Teti f i �x X� ➢I�� V) < �y R o tiF •. • \ I e x \ } .vLLJ < z M d \ \\\\\\ O\\ \\\ ® \ O V W O N M F Z \\ 0 � O io�� `�� ®® EXHIBIT A ww 38.58'Rt �HT� Rpm^ FREEWAY MAINTENANCE 00 �M FOR NOTES, ABBREVIATIONS AND "HTL" +89.1 9a EfjID�C E 1&OC) SCALE 1 " = 50 0 N� LEGEND, SEE SHEET-1 Beg CB (TYPE 60C) .� \• SHEET 4 OF 4 a 0 BORDER LAST REVISED 7/2/2010 USERNAME=>Shruti-Shah RELATIVE BORDER SCALE 0 1 2 3 UNIT 0703 PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE 04000006841 DGN FILE => FMA_004.dgn IS IN INCHES I I I I I I I Amendment No. 2 to CITY of Burlingame EFA (tr-04-0-AD03) AMENDMENT NO.2 TO AGREEMENT FOR SHARING COST OF STATE HIGHWAY ELECTRICAL FACILITIES WITH THE CITY OF BURLINGAME This Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement for Sharing Cost of State Highway Electrical Facilities with the City of Burlingame is made and entered into by and between STATE of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "STATE", and City of Burlingame, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and collectively referred to as "PARTIES". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, an "AGREEMENT FOR SHARING COST OF STATE HIGHWAY ELECTRICAL FACILITIES WITH THE CITY OF BURLINGAME", hereinafter referred to as "AGREEMENT", as provided for in Section 130 of the Streets and Highways Code, was executed by CITY on March 12th, 1987, and WHEREAS, AGREEMENT by its terms provides that it may be amended or terminated at any time upon mutual consent of PARTIES; and WHEREAS, PARTIES hereto now desire that AGREEMENT be amended. NOW, THEREFORE, PARTIES agree to amend AGREEMENT as follows: The attached Page 5 ("Amendment #2"). shall be substituted for the existing Page 5. "ELECTRICAL FACILITIES OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST DISTRIBUTION" and shall be considered part of the AGREEMENT henceforth and for all purposes. 2. STATE costs and expenses assumed under the terms of this Agreement Amendment are conditioned upon the passage of the annual State of California Budget by the Legislature, the allocation of funding by the California Transportation Commission as appropriate, and the encumbrance of funding to the District Office of STATE. TERMINATION - This Agreement Amendment may be terminated by timely mutual written consent by PARTIES, and CITY's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement may be grounds for a Notice of Termination by STATE. TERM OF AGREEMENT AMENDMENT - This Amendment shall become effective on the date as shown below and shall remain in full force and effect until amended or terminated at any time upon mutual consent of PARTIES or until terminated by STATE for cause. PARTIES are empowered by Streets and Highways Code section 114 and 130 to enter into this Agreement and have delegated to the undersigned the authority to execute this Amendment No. 2 to CITY of Burlingame EFA (tr-04-0-AD03) Agreement on behalf of the respective agencies and covenants to have followed all the necessary legal requirements to validly execute this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, PARTIES hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. CITY OF BURLINGAME STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TOKS OMISHAKIN Director of Transportation City Manager IRE Leah Budu Date Deputy District Director Maintenance Attachments: Exhibit A — Page 5. Amendment #2 (tr-04-0-AD03) Effective 12-30221 Exhibit "A" ELECTRICAL FACILITIES OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST DISTRIBUTION CITY OF BURLINGAME Route Location Type of Facility Cost Distribution State Citv Maintenance Cost Electrical Cost 101 NB Ramps/Bayshore Blvd Signals Lights 100% 100% 101 SB OnRamp/Broadway Signals Lights 100% 100% 101 Bayshore Blvd/Airport Signals Lights 100% 100% a AGREEMENT FOR SHARING COST OF STATE HIGHWAY ELECTRICAL FACILITIES WITH THE CITY OF 13URLINMME THIS AGREEMENT, made and executed in duplicate this twe 1 f th day of March ,19 87 , by and between the Sate of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "STATE" and the City of Burlingame hereinafter referred to as "CITY". W I T N E S S E T H: n; KINkA This Agreement shall supersede any previous AGREEMENT and/or AMENDMENTS thereto for. sharing State incurred costs in the CITY with the CITY. E L.R`.C"T'R TCAL Electrical facilities include flashing beacons, traffic signals, traffic -signal systems, safety lighting and sign lighting on the STATE Highway System. The cost of maintaining flashing beacons, traffic signals, traffic - signal systems, safety lighting, and sign lighting now in place at the intersect ion of any State highway route and any City street/road shall be the responsibility of the STATE as shown in Exhibit A. 71 �i4: 3i1i3iC!!1 The cost of electrical energy to operate flashing beacons, traffic signals, traffic -signal systems, safety lighting, and sign lighting, now in place at the intersection of any State highway route and any City street/road shall be the responsibility of the CITY as shown in Exhibit A. All energy to operate the facilities as shown on Exhibit A are to be billed directly from the utility company to the CITY. It is agreed that monthly billings for ut it ity-owned and maintained 1 ight ing will be the responsibility of the CITY. Exhibit A will be amended as necessary by written concurrence of both parties to reflect changes to the system. This agreement shall become effective May 1, 1987 and shall remain in full force and effect until amended or terrz:,aYec. The agreement as above may be amended or terminated at any time upon mu~ual consent....of the ..parties. _ thereto. Tn ,s...Agr.eernent . may also. te,rminateu by......... . either party upon thirty ( 30) days notice to the other party. 7/85 D33 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. CITY OF BURLINCAME By Mayor STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LEO TROMBATORE Director of Transportation Dep�y Dist r act D�rectnr Date March 12, 1987 2 EXHIBIT "A" Effective May 1, 1987 Revised ELECTRICAL FACILITIES OPERATION AND MAINTII ICE Route Locat ion 82 Cambridge/Oxford (14.991) Adeline CITY OF 13URLINGAME Maim aired bV„the SPATE rm.. Type of E Number Facility Units SIGNALS "P" E35K2 LZGh"IS 1-SV 3-20OW SIGNALS Cost Dist r ibut ion State City Maintenance En_ ergy Cost Cost 100% 100% 100% 100% 82 Ray Drive "Q" E35K3 100% 100% (15.201) Rosedale Avenue LIGHTS 82 Dufferin Avenue 1-SV 2--20OW 100% 100% (15.291) LIGHTS 82 Trousdale Drive 1-SV 5-20OW 100% 100% (15.401) LIGHTS 82 In Median E. 1-SV 7-20OW 100% 100% (15.511) Trousdale Drive SIGNALS 82 Trousdale Drive �`'P11 E35K4 100% 100% {.1.5.. 592.)......... .................................................................................................................................................................. LIGHTS 82 Murchinson Drive i-SV 5-20OW 100% 100% (15.792) S IGI�TALS E35K5 100% 100% 4 EXHIBIT "A" Effective May 1, 1987 Revised ELECTRICAL, FACILITIES OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST DISTRIBUTION CITY OF BURLINGAME Maintained, by the .,STATE Route Type of E Number Cost Distribution Location Facility Units State City Maintenance Energy Cost Cost SIGNALS 101 Broadway/Rollins "P" E35X4 100% 100% (16.581) Avenue LIGHT'S: 7 2-40,OW 100% 100% MV OOW 100% 100% SIGNATIS rr IF 101 Airport/Bayshore --'P-r— E35S4 100% 100% (16.600) Boulevard LIGHTS 1-SV 4-20OW 100% 100% LIGHTS 101 (16.652Y Bayshore Blvd/ 1-SV 1-25OW 100% 100% Airport �,� -4GOW . . SIG? rs 101 Bayshore/Broadway ^1'7"1 E35X5 100% 100% (16.746) Boulevard LIGHTS t-I+�V 2-40 100% 100% 5 w O CL l=3 CL (D , � O tr. .G fi f (D F. . ^ v 0 LEA RESOLUTION No, 26-87 AGREEMENT FOR SNARING COST OF STATE HIGHWAY ELECTRICAL FACILITIES WITH THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California and this Council does hereby FIND, ORDER and DETERMINE as follows: 1. The public interest and convenience require execution of the agreement cited in the title above. 2. The City Manager be, and he is hereby, authorized to sign said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame 3. The City Clerk is hereby ordered.nind-instrboffedato attest such signature. I, JUDITH A. MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of March ,1987 , and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: AMSTRUP, BARTON, LEMBI, MANGINI, PAGLIARO NOES: COUNCILMEN: NONE ABSENT- COUNCILMEN: NONE Cle�, ...............:..'d .. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT FOR SHARING COST OF STATE HIGHWAY FACILITIES WITH THE CITY OF BURLINGAME This Agreement for convenience dated March 17, 1989 is entered into by and between the City of Burlingame hereinafter referred to as "CITY," and the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "STATE." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, an Agreement for sharing cost of State Highways, Electrical Facilities with the City of Burlingame, was executed by the CITY and by the STATE March 12, 1987; and WHEREAS, said Agreement by its terms provides that it may be modified or amended at any time upon mutual consent of the parties; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto now desire that said Agreement be amended, NOW, THEREFORE, it is understood and agreed that said Agreement be and the same is hereby amended in accordance with the attached page4dated March 17, 1989 and title Exhibit A, which attached page shall be substituted for like title page in said Agreement, and shall cancel and supersede such like title page, becoming a part of said Agreement for all purposes. In all other respects, said Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. -1- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. Approved as to form: CITY OF BURLINGAME i Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION ROBERT K. BEST Director of Transportation By ! t ROBERT 01. JACOBS Deputy District Director Highway Maintenance Date )—f -4 A I --2- EXHIBIT "A" march 17, 1989 Effective May 1, 1987 Revised ELECTRICAL FACILITIES OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE CITY OF BURLINGAME Maintained by the STATE 'Ripe of E Number Cost Distribution Route Location Facility Units State City Maintenance Energy Cost Cost SIGNALS 82 Peninsula Avenue/ rrQ'r E35I0 100% 100`k (12.952) Park Road 82 Cypress -Bayswater/ UQ" E35J1 100% 100% (13.101) Primrose 82 Howard Avenue OT E35J2 100% 100% (13.231) 82 Burlingame Avenue "Qr' E35J3 100% 100% (13.361) 82 Chapin Avenue PIT E35J4 100% 100% (13.431) 82 Floribunda Avenue rrQ" E35J5 100% 100% (13.681) 82 Oak Grove Avenue FIT E35J6 100% 100% (13.741) 82 Sanchez Avenue UQrr E350 100% 100% (14.101) 82 Carmelita Avenue rrQ" E35J8 100% 100% (.14.. 24.1..).......... ... ... ... ....... .... ................ ........ .... ......... ...... . ................................................................ 82 Broadway PIT E35J9 100% 100% (14.391) 82 Lincoln Avenue rrQrr E35J0 100% 100% (14.591) 82 Hillside Avenue "Q'r E35K1 100% 100% (14.801) -3- urports or'�,.z_r; of is oil RIO 1111 r L2�'SU 8i ION NO 55-89 AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT ##1 TO AGREEMENT FOR SHARING COST OF STATE HIGHWAY FACILITIES IN THE CITY OF BURLIN AME RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Burlingame, California, and this Council does hereby FIND, ORDER and DETERMINE as follows: 1. The public interest and convenience require execution of the agreement cited in the title above. Mayor 2. The-C-i-ti—Maer be, and he is hereby, authorized to sign said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 3. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and instructed to attest such signature. MAYOR I, JUDITH A. MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the I s t day of May , 198 9 , and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: ....... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: AMSTRUP, BARTON, LEMBI , PAGLIARO NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: MANGINI CITY CLERK STAFF REPORT Honorable Mayor and City Council March 7, 2022 AGENDA NO: 8f MEETING DATE: March 7, 2022 Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk — (650) 558-7203 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Renew the Service Agreement with DocuSign for the Period March 30, 2022 — March 29, 2023, for the Electronic Signing of Documents RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to renew the service agreement with DocuSign for electronic signing of documents. BACKGROUND On March 16, 2020, San Mateo County issued a stay-at-home order that required City staff to work remotely. While government work went remote, it was important to ensure that contracts, resolutions, applications, and other documents still moved forward. Accordingly, staff contacted DocuSign to purchase licenses for their electronic signature platform. To use the DocuSign platform, staff uploads a document for signature and places markers on the document indicating the different spots that individuals need to sign, fill in information, and date. Once the document is signed by all individuals, the finalized version of the document is sent to all parties. For the past two years, the City has utilized DocuSign to move forward a plethora of documents, from City resolutions to the onboarding packets for new employees. The DocuSign platform is utilized by all departments and has allowed for the quick and efficient signing of documents. Moreover, through the use of DocuSign, the City Clerk's Office is able to easily capture and ensure that documents are stored properly in the City's electronic records management system, Laserfiche. Last year, the City sent out 1,544 documents to be signed through DocuSign with an average signature completion rate of less than a day. DISCUSSION The recommended renewal of the DocuSign service agreement for the period March 30, 2022 — March 29, 2023 will allow staff to continue processing contracts, resolutions, personnel packets, and other documents quickly and efficiently. 1 DocuSign Service Agreement March 7, 2022 Additionally, the continued use of DocuSign assists the City in meeting its sustainability goals. Over the past two years, by utilizing DocuSign, the City's environmental savings have been the following: • 3,137 pounds of wood • 9,236 gallons of water • 7,363 pounds of carbon • 510 pounds of waste These savings are based on assuming that each recipient of a document prints it once and that the paper used would contain 10% recycled content. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the City's environmental savings are greater than DocuSign's estimates as most of the documents are never printed by the City and instead are deposited directly into Laserfiche for storage. Staff recommends continuing to process documents for signature through DocuSign in order to speed up the process and because of the environmental savings. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact of the service agreement with DocuSign is $10,760.03 per year. Funds for the cost of the service agreement are included in the annual budget for Information Technology. Exhibits: • Resolution • Agreement 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO RENEW THE SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH DOCUSIGN FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 30, 2022 — MARCH 29, 2023, FOR THE ELECTRONIC SIGNING OF DOCUMENTS WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, San Mateo County issued a stay-at-home order that required City staff to work remotely; and WHEREAS, in order to ensure that contracts, resolutions, and other documents were able to move forward, the City entered into an agreement with DocuSign; and WHEREAS, the DocuSign platform allows staff to obtain electronic signatures on City contracts, resolutions, and other documents; and WHEREAS, over the past year, the City utilized DocuSign to sign 1,544 documents; and WHEREAS, utilizing DocuSign allows the City to more easily sign documents and ensure that City records are properly retained; and WHEREAS, the annual cost of DocuSign's platform is $10,760.03. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a service agreement with DocuSign for the period March 30, 2022 — March 29, 2023, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, for $10,760.03 to allow for the electronic signing of documents. Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 7th day of March, 2022, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk DocuSign, Inc. Offer Valid Through: Mar 25, DocuSign, 221 Main Street, Suite 1550 2022 San Francisco, CA 94105 Prepared By: Olivia Weiss Quote Number: Q-00726773 SUBJECT TO APPROVAL ORDER FORM Address Information Bill To: City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Rd, Burlingame, CA, 94011-0191 United States Ship To: City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Rd, Burlingame, CA, 94011-0191 United States Billing Contact Name: ,Shipping Contact Name: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer ,Meaghan Hassel -Shearer Billing Email Address: 'Shipping Email Address: mhasselshearer@burlingame.org _ mhasselshearer@burlingame.org Billing Phone: Shipping Phone: +1 650-558-7203 +1 650-558-7203 Order Details Order Start Date: Mar 30, 2022 Order End Date: Mar 29, 2023 Billing Frequency: Annual Products Payment Method: Check Payment Terms: Net 30 Currency: USD Product Name Start Date End.. eSignature Business Pro for Gov - Seats Mar 30, 2022 Mar 29, 2023 19 $9,356.55 Premier Support Mar 30, 2022 Mar 29, 2023 1 $1,403.48 Grand Total: $10,760.03 Product Details eSignature Seat Allowance: 19 eSignature Envelope Allowance: 1,900 Order Special Terms Terms & Conditions This Order Form is governed by the terms Master Services Agreement available online at: https://www.docusign.com/company/terms-and-conditions/msa and the applicable Service Schedule(s) and Attachments for the DocuSign Services described herein available online at https://www.docusign.com/company/terms-and-conditions/msa-service-schedules. Billing Information Prices shown above do not include any state and local taxes that may apply. Any such taxes are the responsibility of the Customer and will appear on the final Invoice. Is the contracting entity exempt from sales tax? Please select Yes or No: If yes, please send the required tax exemption documents immediately to taxexempt(a)-docusign.com. Invoices for this order will be emailed automatically from invoicinq(aD-docusign.com. Please make sure this email is on an approved setting or safe senders list so notifications do not go to a junk folder or caught in a spam filter. Purchase Order Information Is a Purchase Order (PO) required for the purchase or payment of the products on this Order Form? Please select Yes or No: If yes, please complete the following: PO Number: PO Amount: $ Page 2 of 2 BURLINGAME To: Date: From: STAFF REPORT Honorable Mayor and City Council March 7, 2022 AGENDA NO: 8g MEETING DATE: March 7. 2022 Bradley McCulley, City Librarian — (650) 558-7401 Subject: Adoption of Two Resolutions Approving the Installation of Two Public Art Projects Consisting of the Bufano Bronze Owl and the National Charity League Mural and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into Art Donation Acceptance Aareements RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt resolutions approving the installation of two public art projects: the bronze "Owl" by artist Benny Bufano, donated by Peninsula Museum of Art, and the Positive Change Mural, donated by the local chapter of the National Charity League. The resolutions also authorize the City Manager to execute Art Donation Acceptance Agreements for both art projects. BACKGROUND The Library has been approached by the Peninsula Museum of Art and the Skyline Chapter of the National Charity League, both of whom wish to donate public art to the Library. DISCUSSION Bufano Owl: The Peninsula Museum of Art approached the Library in December 2021 regarding donation of the bronze Bufano "Owl" motivated by changes in their venue circumstances and the eventual demolition of the Tanforan Mall, their current location. The Museum President's request noted: "We would like to donate the Owl to a deserving place where it would be displayed indoors and where children can engage with it indefinitely, and the Burlingame Public Library came to mind. The owl as a symbol of learning seems very much apropos for a library." The Museum requested that Library staff maintain and preserve the statue as it ages. The Owl, which measures 37" H x 32" W x 27" D, was created by Beniamino (Benny) Bufano (1898 — 1970). Bufano was an Italian American sculptor best known for large-scale monuments representing peace; his modernist work often featured smoothly rounded animals and relatively simple shapes. Bufano's works are located all over the Bay Area, including SF MOMA, but some locals will likely remember the popular Bufano sculptures located at SFO and Hillsdale Mall in the '50s and '60s.Bronze Owl measurements: Art Donations March 7, 2022 Should the City Council approve the donation, the Owl will be placed inside the Main Library just outside the Children's Room main entrance. A plinth will need to be fabricated, and staff has been in discussion with Facilities regarding securing the statue to its location for seismic safety. Positive Change Mural: In August 2021 the local Skyline chapter of the National Charity League contacted the Teen Librarian to determine if the Library would be interested in a mural created by volunteers with art experience. Having spent a good amount of time providing Curbside Service in the parking garage area staff felt a small mural might lighten the area up while sending a positive message. The Positive Change Mural, which measures 9' H x 18' W, will be located in the staff -parking area on the south -facing wall to the left of the new Book Donation Drop. This mural will not be visible to any surrounding neighbors or offices, but it will be visible to pedestrians and drivers heading north through the garage toward the Bellevue exit. The Mural will be a group effort by young chapter members and will led by a local BHS senior student with experience painting murals at Burlingame High School. The student has been recognized at the SMUHSD Art Show, won second place at the Clear the Air Film Festival, and won the Black Student Union's Black History Month art competition. FISCAL IMPACT The costs to the City to accept these donations is minimal. As stated above, a new plinth for the Owl will need to be fabricated either of wood to match the surroundings or possibly stone. There will also be a small yearly premium to have the statue insured. Both costs will be funded by the Library Board of Trustees and will not impact the City's General Fund budget. The estimated costs are: • Plinth fabrication — one-time cost estimate $800 to $1,500. • Appraisal — one-time cost estimate $300. • Art Insurance — estimated yearly premium $250 to $300 • Maintenance -- minimal custodial staff time The National Charity League has graciously agreed to pay for all costs associated with painting the Positive Change Mural, including supplies. Exhibits: • Resolutions • Bronze "Owl" photograph • Positive Change Mural mockup • San Francisco Chronicle article on Benny Bufano • December Trustee Meeting Minutes • January Trustee Meeting Minutes 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A DONATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND THE PENINSULA MUSEUM OF ART FOR THE DONATION AND DISPLAY OF THE BUFANO BRONZE OWL WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Burlingame has determined that art in City -owned public places provide an aesthetic enhancement to the quality of the public space to the beneficial enjoyment of the community; and WHEREAS, the Peninsula Museum of Art has graciously offered to donate the Bronze Owl sculpture from the late artist Benny Bufano; and WHEREAS, Benny Bufano was a popular and prolific artist, and his works are located in many places in the Bay Area; and WHEREAS, on December 21, 2021, the Library Board of Trustees approved the donor's art work; and WHEREAS, the City Librarian now recommends that the City Council accept this donation. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City Council hereby accepts the donation of the Bufano Bronze Owl from the Peninsula Museum of Art. 2. The City Council approves and authorizes the City Manager to enter into a Donation Agreement between the City of Burlingame and the Peninsula Museum of Art for said donation. Ricardo Ortiz, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 71" day of March, 2022, and was adopted thereafter 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 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A DONATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND THE SKYLINE CHAPTER OF THE NATIONAL CHARITY LEAGUE FOR THE DONATION AND DISPLAY OF THE POSITIVE CHANGE MURAL WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Burlingame has determined that art in City -owned public places provides an aesthetic enhancement to the quality of the public space to the beneficial enjoyment of the community; and WHEREAS, the Skyline Chapter of the National Charity League has graciously offered to donate time and materials to create the Positive Change Mural; and WHEREAS, the area intended for the mural will be enhanced and provide a positive message for passersby; and WHEREAS, on January 18, 2022, the Library Board of Trustees approved the donor's art work; and WHEREAS, the City Librarian now recommends that the City Council accept this donation. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City Council hereby accepts the donation of the Positive Change Mural from the Skyline Chapter of the National Charity League. 2. The City Council approves and authorizes the City Manager to enter into a Donation Agreement between the City of Burlingame and the National Charity League — Skyline Chapter for said art work. Ricardo Ortiz, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 71" day of March, 2022, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk What positive change will YOU make? An ode to Benny Bufano, a San Francisco sculptor who broke the mold Bill Van Niekerken April 18, 2017 SF Chronicle https://www.sfchronicle.com/thetake/amp/An-ode-to-Benny-Bufano-a-San-Francisco- sculptor-11080951.php Benny Bufano, Billy McGee and Governor Edmund G. Brown (r) and children at the Pittsburg Heights Elementary School admire the Benny Bufano statue Photo ran November 4, 1960-, p. 5Paul Quen, The Chronicle Chances are you've seen Benny Bufano's art, but you've never heard much about the artist. I certainly hadn't heard of Bufano when I was a kid whose favorite part about visiting the Hillsdale mall in San Mateo was seeing his animal sculptures spread across the shopping center. The memory of these visits sent me to The Chronicle's archive in search of old photos and stories about Bufano's sculptures, and I was amazed at the abundance of images we had of the classic San Franciscan and his work. Bufano was an interesting man who relished his art being free for all to see. As he became better known, a portrait of a complicated artist arose. Chronicle art critic Alfred Frankenstein wrote: "Bufano never could decide if he wanted to be an artist or a town character.... He was very good at both roles, but his performance in the second of these assignments would get in the way of the performance of the first." 41 1of41 Benny Bufano and pieces of his mosaic art in his studio. Photo ran June 24, 1956, p. 18 Gordon Peters, The Chronicle Bufano was born in Italy and raised in New York City, and came to San Francisco in 1913 to work on the Panama -Pacific International Exposition of 1915. He traveled around the world after the fair, and returned to San Francisco in 1923 for a short-lived term as an art teacher. According to a Chronicle article from May 23, 1923, Bufano's dismissal was a skirmish in the battle between modernism and "old -school methods." Following the teaching dustup, Bufano went to France for several years, working on a statue titled "Peace," which he planned to present to San Francisco as a gift. The statue would languish in a French warehouse for nearly 20 years, as he attempted to raise funds to bring his gift back to San Francisco. In 1955 it would be placed in front of what was then the St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church. Parishioners quickly started a parade of complaints about the placement, and it was moved a few times before landing at a park near Fisherman's Wharf. Bufano returned to San Francisco for good in the 1930s to work for the Federal Arts Project. This job gave him the space to create the first of his highly popular animal figures, some of which still reside at Aquatic Park, with others scattered around the city and the Bay Area. During this period, Bufano proposed a 180-foot statue of St. Francis to be placed on Twin Peaks to welcome visitors to the city. It never got past the planning stages. BUFAN021_089_kk.jpg The Beniamino Bufano sculptures that were at the recently demolished Valencia Gardens housing projects have been placed at the Randall Museum. They're a big hit with the kiddos. Chronicle photo by Kim Komenich in San Francisco.Kim Komenich, SFC St. Francis of the Guns, which many consider Bufano's most famous statue, did become a reality. He created it from firearms that had been turned in after the assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968, and at the base of the 9-foot-tall statue was a mosaic that included the likeness of Robert Kennedy, President John F. Kennedy, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and President Abraham Lincoln. The statue stands in front of the entrance to the City College of San Francisco's science building. Bufano died in 1970, and the one -and -only Herb Caen dedicated his column from Aug. 21, 1970, to stories about the artist, who had become a friend. Particularly illuminating was an item on Bufano's relationship with Trader Vic Bergeron. The restauranteur paid the rent on Bufano's studio for 10 years, and told the artist that he could eat at his Trader Vic's spot any time. "Meat and potatoes were OK, but when he started going for nothing but caviar, pate and Champagne, that was too much.... Still, he was a magnificent artist, a giant, the finest sculptor of the age, and the biggest pain in the neck I ever met." Bufano was often at odds with the the city of San Francisco, but former Mayor George Christopher and then -Mayor Joe Alioto attended his funeral. Alioto said: "San Francisco was enriched by Benny's talent, his spirit, his character.... We need a thousand Benny Bufanos.... Ciao, Benny. Ciao.... You are a part of our lives from here on in. Burlingame Library Board of Trustees December 21, 2021 Minutes Roll Call Trustees Present: Kris Cannon, Danielle Garcia, Mike Nagler, Elisabeth Ostrow Staff Present: Brad McCulley, City Librarian Sidney Poland, Recorder Guest: Bill Schlotter (Possible Candidate for Trustee Position) II. Library Board of Trustees Minutes The Trustees unanimously approved the minutes of the November 16, 2021 Trustee Meeting. M/S/C (Nagler/Ostrow) III. November Statistics • Children's programs which include Story Times, Class Visits and special programs totaled 33 with an attendance of 891. Children's staff hope tc hold more outdoor story times weather permitting. Inside story times have been put on hold. • There were 15 programs for teens with an attendance of 103. • There were 15 adult programs with an attendance of 100. IV. Reports A. City Librarian's Report • Adult Services - Jason Yap has been hired for the 40 hours Librarian position vacated by Elaine Tai. Recruitment has begun for the 30 hour Librarian position. • HVAC Upgrade - Public Works is working on contract details. B. Citizen Request for Reconsideration of Library Materials • Brad gave a review of the procedure for considering a citizen's request to remove a particular book or any other library material from the Library's collection. • The Request for Reconsideration form has to be filled out completely and the most important factor is that the citizen must have read the book, listened to CD or watched the video etc. • The form then goes to the Library Trustees to review and make a final decision. • Trustee Cannon inquired as to where in the process does the City Librarian provide input to determine the final decision? Trustee Cannon felt that a professional librarian from the Burlingame Library should be involved, along with the Library Trustees. • Brad will contact other libraries to find out what process is used in their library to implement the possible removal of library materials that a citizen has found offensive. V. Old Business A. Staff Appreciation Event Brad advised the Trustees that the managers were not comfortable with having an in person event in the Lane Room at this time. The Trustees suggested a gift card as an alternative. The Trustees passed a motion to give each staff member a $25.00 gift card with a note expressing their appreciation for service to the Library during 2021. M/S/C (Cannon/Nagler). Trustees Cannon, Garcia and Ostrow will make the necessary arrangements. B. Public Art 1. Robert Barry Donation Brad advised the Trustees that the illuminated words available to the Library were "Becoming, Believe, and Passion". The Trustees passed a motion stating that their choice was the word "Becoming" and requested that it be placed on the exterior ledge of the public patio. M/S/C (Cannon/Nagler) 2. Peninsula Museum of Art The Peninsula Museum has offered the Library a sculpture of an owl from the collection of Benny Bufano with the stipulations that the owl be displayed indoors and visible to children indefinitely so they can touch it. The museum will have the art form appraised so that it can be insured by the City of Burlingame. Brad will contact the City attorney to find out if the City insures public art. The Trustees passed a motion to accept the offer from the Peninsula Museum of Art of the owl sculpture along with the stipulations that the sculpture be placed near the Children's Department where it is easily accessible for children to touch. M/S/C (Cannon/Nagler) VII. New Business A. Staff Report Resuming Library Hours Brad advised the Trustees of new library hours beginning February 5, 2022 and July 1, 2022 recommended by staff. • February 5, 2022 Monday Friday loam -ham Saturday loam - 5pm Sunday 1pm-5pm • July 1, 2022 Monday -Thursday 10am-8:00pm Friday and Saturday 10am-5pm Sunday 1pm-5pm The Trustees passed a motion to accept the new Library hours beginning February 5, 2022 and July 1, 2022 as recommended in the Library Staff Report. M/S/C (Ostrow/Nagler) B. 2022 Holiday Closures The Trustees passed a motion to approve the 2022 Holiday Closures. M/S/C (Garcia/Nagler) C. Monthly Topic - Teens - Jenny Miner The Trustees were very excited and supportive of the Youth Poet Laureate Program that Jenny Miner would like to bring to Burlingame in the future. • The program has been started in Daly City. South San Francisco is looking into the program. • Cost of program is a one time fee of $2,500. • After a poetry competition where teens have submitted their poetry the Youth Poet Laureate is selected. • The Youth Poet Laureate then attends workshops across the country. The poetry of all the Youth Poet Laureates is published in an anthology. The culmination of the program is the selection of the National Youth Poet Laureate for the year. • The Trustees suggested that the Library Foundation and the City of Burlingame might be interested in supporting this effort. • Trustee Nagler inquired into the possibility of the Trustees funding the project. Brad acknowledged that this would be a project that the Trustees could financially support. • The Trustees would like to have documentation of the total cost of the program along with a detailed proposal for the next meeting. VII. Action Items • Brad will discuss with Kathy the possibility of the Trustees funding the Youth Poet Laureate program. • Brad will contact Lance Fung to advise him that the Trustees selected the word "Becoming" to place on the ledge of the staff terrace. • Brad will contact other libraries to find out what process they have to deal with Citizens Request for Reconsideration. VIII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:OOPM The next Zoom meeting of the Library Board of Trustees will be January 18, 2022 at 5:30pm Respectfully Submitted Brad McCulley City Librarian Burlingame Public Library Burlingame Library Board of Trustees January 18, 2022 Roll Call Trustees Present: Kris Cannon, Danielle Garcia, Mike Nagler, Elisabeth Ostrow Staff Present: Brad McCulley, City Librarian Sidney Poland, Recorder Guest: Kay Coskey (Possible Candidate for Trustee Position) II. Library Board of Trustees Minutes The Trustees unanimously approved the minutes of the December 21, 2021 Trustee Meeting. M/S/C (Nagler/Cannon) III. December Statistics • Children's programs which include Story Times, Class Visits and special programs totaled 24 with an attendance of 1039. Winter reading ended with a total of 451 finishers from both Main and Easton. The categories were Adult - 53, Teens - 24 and and kids - 374. • There were 5 programs for teens with an attendance of 117. • There were 12 adult programs with an attendance of 61. IV. Reports A. City Librarian's Report • Recruitment - The 2nd recruitment panel for the 30 hour Permanent Part -Time Librarian in Adult Services has been completed. • Hourly Budget - Brad noted that the hourly budget for the next fiscal year was more promising due to the fact that 2 vacant full time positions were not filled immediately. • Easton Staffing - Kathy Von Mayrhauser, Children's Dept. Manger, is still having difficulties staffing the Easton Branch. • Covid Update - Library staff is 100% vaccinated. Unfortunately, the recent surge in the Omicron strain has led to a delay in the library's plan to increase weekend hours to pre -pandemic times. The new date to return to before pandemic weekend hours is March 6th. • Internet Policy - The Trustees reviewed the current Internet Policy. Current library policies will be included in future board packets for the Trustees to review. • New Library Trustee - At the City Council meeting tonight the new Library Trustee will be appointed. B. Foundation Report Brad gave his yearly request for items he would like the Foundation to Fund in the amount of $123,000. He noted that one of his goals is to engage a lighting contractor to provide a plan to upgrade the lighting in the Reading Room where the large type books are located. The lighting is inadequate and there have been complaints from those patrons who use this collection. The son of Rhoda Laks made a $10,000 donation specifically for the Reading Room in honor of his mother who was an avid user of the large type collection. It might be possible to use these funds for a lighting upgrade. C. Citizen Request for Reconsideration of Library Materials • Brad contacted some of the county libraries and San Mateo Public to find out what procedures were used to determine whether to remove a particular library book or other materials from the library collection. • Some of the county libraries form a committee of library staff and sometimes include staff from other libraries. The City Librarian from San Mateo Public makes the final decision. • The current procedure for the Citizen Request for Reconsideration of Library Materials is that Brad, as the City Librarian, will request input from his staff and make a recommendation to the Trustees. The Trustees were in agreement with this procedure. V. Old Business A. Staff Appreciation Event The Trustees are sending gift cards to each current library employee in the amount of $25.00 with a special note of appreciation. B. Public Art 1. Robert Barry Donation The possibility of the library receiving a specific "illuminated word" from the Robert Barry collection has been put on hold. Currently the artist is keeping all the "illuminated words". 2. Peninsula Museum of Art Brad is planning to initiate the procedures for the library to receive the sculpture of the owl from the collection of Benny Bufano that is being donated by the Peninsula Museum of Arts. C. Teen Poet Laureate The Trustees reviewed the Staff Report which provided them with specific details regarding this project. Highlights of the discussion follow. • Project is managed by Urban World which requires a start up fee of $2,500.00 • There is an annual fee which is based on the partner's yearly operating budget. The Trustees have expressed a strong interest in financing the project. Brad advised the Trustees that Trustee funds are considered City money and would be part of the Library's budget. • An alternative suggestion would be to ask the Foundation to support the project as their operating budget is lower than the Library's operating budget. • Brad has discussed the this project with the Foundation. The Foundation Board felt that they could not provide support for the project this coming year. • Both Kathy Von Mayrhauser and Jenny Miner have determined that starting the project this year is not feasible partially due to the fact that Jenny already has her Teen activities planned. • The City of Burlingame has also been mentioned as possible partner to the Teen Laureate Project. Perhaps the City Council would consider a City Poet Laureate. • In conclusion, the Trustees want to strongly confirm that they are supportive of the Teen Laureate program and want to make certain that it happens when the timing is expedient for the Teen Librarian. VII. New Business A. Parking Area Mural A group from The Skyline Chapter of the National Charity reached out to Jennnie Miner regarding the possibility of doing a project for the library. • The group suggested a mural, held a contest, and selected two of the drawings for library staff and the Trustees to review. • The site Brad suggested for the mural is the north wall of the parking lot just outside the staff entrance of the library. • The Trustees reviewed the two drawings and unanimously passed a motion to approve the drawing entitled "What change will You make?" M/S/C/ (Nagler/Garcia) B. Monthly Topic - Circulation - Manuel Caneri One of Manuel's new responsibilities is to select and order items for our DVD/Blue Ray collection. Trustee Nagler acknowledged Manuel's expertise in the movie world and noted how helpful he is in assisting patrons with their movie selections. The Trustees also commented on the success of CPU and how much the patrons appreciated that they were able to have access to library materials during the pandemic even though they could not come into the library. VIII. Action Items • Trustee Nagler inquired as to whether there is a possibility that the Christmas lights could remain on the building year round. Brad will contact the lighting company that puts up the lights and discuss options. • Brad will begin the required process for the library to be able to accept the owl sculpture from the Benny Bufano collection and the parking area mural donated by the National Charity League Skyline Chapter. Part of this process includes posting a Public Art notice in the local newspaper for the purpose of allowing the public to comment on the art object/mural. The City Council makes the final decision. • Brad will meet with the artist of the National Charity League to review the site for the mural and determine if the power box on the wall would interfere with one of the faces in drawing the mural. VIII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:OOPM The next Zoom meeting of the Library Board of Trustees will be February 15, 2022 at 5:30pm Respectfully Submitted Brad McCulley City Librarian Burlingame Public Library STAFF REPORT Honorable Mayor and City Council March 7, 2022 /_Ce3A►1DYGV16�:3i MEETING DATE: March7, 2022 Bradley McCulley, City Librarian — (650) 558-7404 Subject: Approval of Public Library Association Conference Out of State Travel RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the out-of-state travel request for Circulation Aide Supervisor Ray DeLara to attend the Public Library Association's annual conference. BACKGROUND The Public Library Association's annual conference will be held in Portland, OR March 23 — 25, 2022. Ray DeLara is a full-time employee and Public Library Association member and has requested permission to attend this conference for professional development. As part of the Library's Strategic Plan, employees are encouraged to take advantage of the opportunities these conferences provide for staff professional growth and overall job satisfaction. n1-lqrr11c_cz1nn1 Staff have been unable to travel due to COVID restrictions, and most conferences have been virtual -only since 2020. The Public Library Association offers a great variety of programs, speakers, and events for all levels of public librarianship to attend and learn in person this year. All Burlingame Library conference attendees present reports to fellow staff members upon their return. Section X.C. of the City's Purchasing and Contracting Procedures policy requires City Council approval for out-of-state travel (with the exception of travel to Nevada). Pursuant to the policy, staff is requesting Council's approval of Ray DeLara's travel to Oregon. FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funds have been budgeted in the Library's travel, conference, and meetings account for attendance at this conference. 1 BURL`E AGENDA ITEM NO: 10a STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: March 7, 2022 To Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: March 7, 2022 From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director Joseph Sanfilippo, Economic Development and Housing Specialist Subject: Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR) and Housing Program Discussion RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. By motion, accept the 2021 Housing Element Annual Progress Report and authorize its transmittal to the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD); 2. Provide preliminary direction on potential housing policies and programs to be considered in the upcoming Housing Element Update; and 3. Provide preliminary direction on potential uses of housing funds collected from commercial linkage fees. BACKGROUND California requires each jurisdiction to prepare a Housing Element as part of its General Plan in order to ensure that all jurisdictions are planning for the projected housing demand throughout California. Unlike other elements of a General Plan, the Housing Element must be updated by deadlines set by the State. The process begins with the State advising a region of its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which is the estimated number of housing units that will be needed over the planning period (usually eight years). This allocation is further subdivided among four household income categories: very -low, low, moderate, and above moderate. Affordable housing income limits are determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and are adjusted for family size, as detailed in Table 1 below (effective June 28, 2021). Continued next page 1 Housing Element Annual Progress Report March 7, 2022 TABLE 1: 2021 SAN MATEO COUNTY INCOME LIMITS (BASED ON FEDERAL INCOME LIMITS FOR SMC) County Income Category Number of Persons in Household 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 San Mateo County 4-Person Area Median Income (AMI): $149,600 Extremely Low (30% AMI) 38,400 43,850 49,350 54,800 59,200 63,600 68,000 72,350 Very Low (50% AMI) 63,950 73,100 82,250 91,350 98,700 106,000 113,300 120,600 Low (80%AM1) 102,450 117,100 131,750 146,350 158,100 169,800 181,500 193,200 Median (100% AMI) 104,700 119,700 134,650 149,600 161,550 173,550 185,500 197,450 Moderate (120% AMI) 1125,6501 143,6001 161,550 179,500 1193,850 1 208,2001 222,6001 236,950 The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for the public process by which this regional allocation is apportioned to each jurisdiction within its boundaries. In addition to demonstrating how the allocated number of units can be produced, policies in a Housing Element must also: 1. Address the removal of governmental barriers to housing production; 2. Ensure the jurisdiction's housing stock is maintained; and 3. Ensure that housing is available to all types of persons on an equitable basis. Currently, the Housing Element is updated every eight years. The current cycle is the fifth cycle in which housing elements have been updated and is referred to as "RHNA 5." 2022 is the final year in the RHNA 5 cycle. DISCUSSION The City of Burlingame's Housing Element update was adopted in January 2015. The City is starting the sixth year of the 2015-2023 planning period. Burlingame's RHNA allocation for this cycle is 863 units. The City is currently undertaking the outreach efforts for the update of the Housing Element for the next housing cycle, which will cover 2023 - 2031 and is due by January 2023. Annual Report California Government Code Section 65400 requires that an Annual Progress Report ("APR") be prepared on the status and progress of implementation of the Housing Element and submitted to the City Council, the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR), and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) by April 1 st of each year. There is no similar requirement for the other Elements of the General Plan. Additionally, the APR has to be prepared in accordance with the provisions set forth by HCD and on the forms provided by HCD (attached). The APR includes reporting of the number of building permits issued for net new housing units during a calendar year.' In addition, the reporting includes housing development applications submitted, building permit activity for new construction, completed units and entitlements, as well as the building permits issued for net new housing units. The APR requires the reporting for the number of building ' This does not include projects where an existing single -unit dwelling is replaced with a new single -unit dwelling because there would not be a net increase in units on the property. However, it includes new Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) if they represent a net increase in numbers of units on a property. 2 Housing Element Annual Progress Report March 7, 2022 permits issued for net new units to include the site addresses, project names, and assessor parcel numbers (APN). The Housing Element APR includes information about housing production since the start of the planning period in 2015, including: • Information on the types of housing units that were issued building permits; • Information on the City's progress in meeting its regional housing needs allocation; and • Progress report on implementation of Housing Element programs. Tables A and A2 provide a summary of all planning and building permit activity on net new housing. In summary, 346 units were entitled (planning approvals), and building permits for 474 net new units were issued in (calendar year) 2021. The fulfillment of the RHNA allocation is based on building permit issuance. The added 474 units from building permits issued in 2021 brings the total count to 1,222 units for this cycle of the RHNA allocation. The RHNA allocation for Burlingame in the current cycle is 863 units, so this total exceeds the allocation by 359 units (141.6% of the RHNA 5 allocation). In addition, as indicated on Table A, in 2021 the Planning Commission and City Council approved several projects totaling 346 units; these projects have been entitled, but building permits have not yet been issued. These units will be added to the RHNA progress report for permit issuance and count toward meeting the RHNA allocation once the building permits for construction are issued. As also noted in Table A, there are multiple projects that have been submitted for entitlements and are still currently under review, but have not yet been acted on by the Planning Commission. These "in progress" applications include 807 new units, in addition to the 346 units that have already been entitled. Table B provides a summary of building permit activity sorted by affordability levels. Of the 474 building permits issued in 2021, 53 were for Below Market Rate (BMR) units affordable to Moderate or Low Income households. Of the 1,222 building permits issued so far for this cycle of the RHNA allocation, 227 (18.5%) were for Below Market Rate (BMR) units affordable to Moderate, Low, or Very Low Income households. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are counted towards RHNA allocations as net new housing units. In 2019, the State Legislature passed several bills intended to encourage the construction of ADUs. The legislation became effective in January 2020. In 2021, the City received 73 ADU applications. Building permits for 52 ADUs were issued; this number includes both ADU applications submitted in 2021, as well as previous years. Burlingame's progress in meeting its RHNA targets for this housing cycle (2015-2023) is summarized as follows: Continued next page 3 Housing Element Annual Progress Report March 7, 2022 TABLE 2: BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED 2015-2021 RHNA 5 HOUSING ELEMENT CYCLE Income Level RHNA Units Constructed % of RHNA Goal Extremely Low 138 0 0 Very Low 138 82 59.4% Low 144 73 50.6% Moderate 155 72 46.4% Above Moderate 288 995 345.5% Total: 863 1,222 141.6% These reports are informational only and do not change adopted policies or authorize any action or expenditure of funds. These reports are being prepared in compliance with California Government Code Section 65400; once the Council has acknowledged that the Housing Element Annual Progress Reports have been provided for review, staff will forward the reports to HCD and OPR. Housing Element Update As mentioned, the City is currently undertaking outreach efforts for the update of the Housing Element for the next housing cycle ("RHNA 6"), which will cover the 2023 — 2031 timeframe. In the fall of 2021, there was a countywide outreach program administered by the 21 Elements collaborative. 21 Elements includes all 20 San Mateo County municipalities, as well as unincorporated San Mateo County. The outreach was referred to as "Let's Talk Housing San Mateo County" with the intention of increasing awareness of and participation in the Housing Element Update process. A dedicated Let's Talk Housing website includes information on the Housing Element Update process, as well as a "Housing 101" primer. Four meetings were held virtually and can be viewed at www.letstalkhousing.org/past-events. There are also two general videos, "What's a Housing Element" and "San Mateo County Housing Trends." Videos are available in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Arabic. The City of Burlingame will be conducting city -specific outreach this March and April. The schedule of outreach events includes: • Sunday, March 201" — "Pop-up" outreach booth at the Fresh Market, Downtown Burlingame • Wednesday, March 23rd 6:00-8:00 pm — Community Meeting #1 (via Zoom) • Saturday, March 26th — "Pop-up" outreach table on Broadway • April 61" 6:00-8:00 pm — Community Meeting #2 (via Zoom) • April 23rd 9:00 am-12 noon — Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting Table D in the Annual Progress Report (attached) outlines all of the programs contained in the current Housing Element, including progress of each program to date. In advance of community outreach on the Housing Element, Councilmembers may review Table D and provide suggestions for adding new programs to the Housing Element and/or revising existing programs. Housing Fund/Commercial Linkage Fees Affordable housing impact fees are used to support and build new homes for lower -income residents who are working in the community. The fees can be charged to developers of new residential projects Housing Element Annual Progress Report March 7, 2022 and used for land purchase, construction costs, or site rehabilitation related to providing workforce housing. On June 19, 2017, the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing commercial linkage fees for new commercial development in Burlingame, and on April 1, 2019, it adopted residential impact fees for new residential development in Burlingame. Over time, these fees will provide a dedicated source of funding for programs supporting workforce housing in Burlingame. Local funding may be used in a variety of ways to support affordable housing. Funds from commercial linkage and residential impact fees are required to be spent on affordable workforce housing (not housing for generally non -working populations, such as seniors). As the commercial linkage and residential impact fees have been established, the City Council has discussed a number of options for use of the fees to support workforce housing. The most recent discussion was on July 1, 2019 (meeting minutes attached). However, until recently, there were not significant amounts in the housing fund. The housing fund currently has a balance of $3,886,724, resulting from commercial linkage fees collected from the 250 California Drive and 220 Park Road (former Post Office) development projects. An additional $5,188,950 is anticipated to be collected in the near future from the Topgolf ($355,370) and 567 Airport Boulevard ($4,833,580) development projects. Two proposed 100% affordable housing projects have inquired as to whether housing funds would be available to support project financing. Affordable housing developments obtain financing from a range of sources, and local housing funds are sometimes used to close "gaps" in the financing. Other programs that have been proposed by Councilmembers in the past have included supporting local apartment property owners in making improvements that have a community benefit (such as seismic retrofits or energy efficiency upgrades), retaining existing "naturally affordable" units in which the current market rent is affordable to below -median income households, and providing emergency rent support. The Housing Element Update can evaluate programs that utilize housing funds collected from affordable housing impact fees. However, the discussion and development of an expenditure program does not need to wait for the Housing Element Update to be completed. Councilmembers are invited to discuss potential uses and prioritization of existing and incoming commercial linkage fees. FISCAL IMPACT There is no impact to the General Fund from the preparation of the Housing Element Annual Progress Report. The Housing Element Update is being funded through a California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) grant and through the General Fund. The FY 2020-21 Operating and Capital Budgets included a CIP project for an update to the Housing Element and Housing related activities in the amount of $259,500, of which $150,000 is reimbursable through the LEAP Grant. 5 Housing Element Annual Progress Report March 7, 2022 Funds from commercial linkage and residential impact fees are required to be spent on affordable workforce housing. These funds are maintained in a separate account dedicated to affordable workforce housing and cannot be used for other purposes. Exhibits: • Housing Element Annual Progress Report — calendar year 2021 - Table A: Housing Development Applications Submitted - Table A2: Annual Building Activity Report Summary — New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units - Table B: Permitted Units Issued by Affordability - Table C: Sites Identified or Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need And No Net - Loss Law - Table D: Project Implementation Status pursuant to GC Section 65583 - Table E: Commercial Development Bonus Approved pursuant to GC Section 65915.7 - 2021 Summary Table The following tables were not included because they are optional or not applicable: - Table F: Units Rehabilitated, Preserved and Acquired for Alternative Adequate Sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.1(c) (Optional Table — Not Included) - Table G: Locally Owned Lands Included in the Housing Element Sites Inventory that have been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of (None in 2021 — Not Applicable) - Table H: Locally Owned Surplus Sites (None in 2021- Not Applicable) • City Council Meeting Minutes (Excerpt) — July 1, 2019 rel Jurisdiction Burlingame ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+^ indicates an optional field Reporting Year 2021 (Jan.1-Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto -calculation formulas Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015-01/31/2023 (CCR Title 25 §6202) Table A Housing Development Applications Submitted Project Identifier j Unit Types yp Date Application Submitted Proposed Units -Affordability by Household Incomes Total Approved Units by Project Total Disapproved Units by Project Streamlining Density Bonus Applications Application Status Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Prior APN` Current APN I Street Address — Project Name` Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID` Unit Category (SFA,SFD,2 to 4,5+,ADU,MH) Tenure R=Renter O=Owner I Date Application Submitted+ (see instructions) I Very Low- Income Deed Restricted I Very Low- Income Non Deed Restricted I Low- Income Deed Restricted I Low -Income Non Deed Restricted I Moderate- Income Deed Restricted I Moderate- Income Non Deed Restricted I Above Moderate- Income I Total PROPOSED Units by Project I Total APPROVED Total DISAPPROVED Was APPLICATION SUBMITTED Was a Density Bonus requested for this housing development? I Was a Density Bonus approved for this housing development? I Please indicate the status of the application. -A a Pursuant to GC 65913.4(b)? (SB 35 Streamlining) I Units by project I Units by Project I Summary Row: Start — Data Ent Belo 22 0 35 0 0 0 750 807 62 0 026-182-250 026-182-270 & 026-182-280 1110 & 1112 Bernal Avenue SFD O 1/12/2021 2 2 2 No No N/A Approved Project includes demolishing 1 existing house (1110 Bernal Ave) and building 2 new houses; 1110 Bernal Ave (026-182-270) and 1112 Bernal Ave 026-182-280 - 1 new new unit 026-096-270 1244 El Camino Real 5+ R 2/5/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved Project includes adding 1 unit to existing 4-unit building 026-161-110 1766 El Camino Real 5+ R 11/15/2021 22 289 311 No Yes N/A Pending Under review, no action taken yet 025-166-230 & 025-166-240 1855-1881 Rollins Road 5+ R 11/19/2021 35 385 420 No Yes N/A Pending Under review, no action taken yet 029-262-090 217 Charring Rd ADU R 1/7/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 029-061-220 916Oak Grove Ave ADU R 1/19/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 029-045-220 720 Farringdon Ln ADU R 1/20/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 028-132-120 822 Walnut Ave ADU R 1/26/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 026-022-090 1325 Balboa Ave ADU R 1/28/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 026-051-190 1428 Cabrillo Ave ADU R 2/2/2021 1 1 11 No No N/A Approved 029-045-050 737 Crossway Rd ADU R 2/2/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 028-282-130 405 Chapin Ln ADU RI 2/3/2021 1 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 026-082-090 1120 Summer Ave ADU R 2/19/2021 1 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 026-173-300 2013 Easton Dr ADU R 2/23/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 027-195-210 2411 Easton Dr ADU R 3/2/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 026-166-030 1037 Cortez Ave ADU R 3/9/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 028-142-260 708 Newhall Rd ADU R 3/9/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 029-253-160 608 Howard Ave ADU R 3/9/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 026-171-130 1209 Cabrillo Ave ADU R 3/11/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 029-283-180 108 Charming Rd ADU R 3/18/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 026-152-060 1600 Sherman Ave ADU R 3/23/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 025-252-110 1136 Cambridge Rd ADU R 3/23/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 029-273-160 616 Bayswater Ave ADU R 3/26/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 026-092-140 1244 Laguna Ave ADU R 3/29/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 029-082-040 531 Francisco Or ADU R 3/30/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 028-313-070 225 Chapin Ln ADU R 3/30/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 026-095-060 1235 Paloma Ave ADU R 3/31/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 025-192-030 2217 Davis Dr ADU R 4/2/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 026-085-210 1328 Capuchino Ave ADU R 4/5/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 029-284-240 132 Bancroft Rd ADU R 4/5/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 027-151-060 1365 Vancouver Ave ADU R 4/14/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 025-133-210 2957 Mariposa Dr ADU R 4/26/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 026-151-160 1509 Easton Dr ADU RI 4/30/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 029-033-060 833 Maple Ave ADU R 4/28/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 025-291-030 3072 Rivera Dr ADU R 5/3/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 028-286-070 1529 Ralson Ave ADU R 5/5/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 026-053-030 1425 Drake Ave ADU R 5/12/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 027-162-050 2116 Hale Dr ADU R 5/25/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 029-026-190 810 Alpine Ave ADU R 5/26/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 028-131-200 1605 Sanchez Ave ADU R 5/28/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 026-162-190 1120 Cortez Ave ADU R 6/4/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 026-044-060 1457 Bernal Ave ADU R 6/7/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 027-152-210 2216 Easton Dr ADU R 6/17/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 027-141-250 1528 Columbus Ave ADU R 6/18/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 026-172-020 1261 Drake Ave ADU R 7/27/2021 1 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 029-181-200 434 Bloomfield Rd ADU R 7/27/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 025-228-050 1548 Albemarle Way ADU R 7/29/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 028-291-110 1544 Howard Ave ADU R1 8/9/2021 1 1 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 027-166-120 2312 Hillside Or ADU R 8/11/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 027-193-190 2609 Hillside Or ADU R 8/11/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 027-224-060 2651 Summit Dr ADU R 8/23/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 029-012-030 1435 Edgehill Dr ADU R 8/25/2021 1 1 1 11 No No N/A Approved 026-166-090 1700 Sanchez Ave ADU R 8/25/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 026-057-060 1355 Drake Ave ADU R 8/31/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 029-074-320 754 Winchester Dr ADU R 9/20/2021 1 1 1 No No N/Al Approved 029-053-360 780 Willborough PI ADU R 11/1/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 026-084-060 1333 Laguna Ave ADU R 9/28/2021 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 No No N/Al Approved 027-152-010 2201 Hillside Dr ADU R 9/29/2021 1 1 No No N/A Pending 027-141-270 1536 Columbus Ave ADU R 9/29/2021 1 1 No No N/A Pending 026-221-240 1315 Sanchez Ave ADU R 10/2/2021 1 1 No No N/A Pending 028-314-020 1617 Ralston Ave ADU R 10/12/2021 1 1 No No N/A Pending 026-164-160 1012 Balboa Ave ADU R 10/21/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 028-285-160 1549 Burlingame Ave ADU R 10/21/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 028-274-180 128 Elm Ave ADU RI 10/29/2021 1 1 No No N/A Pending 029-261-120 209 Stanley Rd ADU R 11/2/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 027-195-050 2505 Easton Dr ADU R 11/4/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 029-016-020 839 Crossway Rd ADU R 11/4/2021 1 1 No No N/A Pending 027-151-260 1314 De Soto Ave ADU R 11/15/2021 1 1 No No N/A Pending 026-071-190 1412 Mills Ave ADU R 11/13/2021 1 1 No No N/A Pending 026-152-030 1273 Balboa Ave ADU R 11/15/2021 1 1 No No N/A Pending 026-072-110 1423 California Dr ADU R 11/24/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 029-184-010 320 Bloomfield Rd ADU R 11/24/2021 1 1 No No N/A Pending 028-311-060 309 Chapin Ln ADU R 12/14/2021 1 1 No No N/A Pending 027-022-560 1530 La Mesa Dr ADU R 12/13/2021 1 1 1 No No N/A Approved 026-091-280 1123 Lincoln Ave ADU R 12/14/2021 1 1 No No N/A Pending 029-294-060 501 Bayswater Ave ADU R 12/20/2021 1 1 No No N/A Pending 029-273-090 127 Calendon Rd ADU R 12/29/2021 1 1 No No N/A Pending Jurisdiction Burlingame ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note:"+" indicates an optional field Reporting Year 2021 (Jan.i-Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto -calculation formulas Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/3112015 - 01/3112023 (CCR Title 25 §6202) Table A2 Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units Project Identifier Unit Types Affordability by Household Incomes - Completed Entitlement Affordability by Household Incomes - Building Permits 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Prior APN� Current APN Street Address Project Name Local Jurisdiction Tracking IDS Unit Category 4,5A,A FD,2 to q S+,ADU,MH) Tenure R=Renter O=Owner Very Low- Income Deed Restricted Very Low- Income Non Deed Restricted Low -Income Deed Restricted Low -Income Non Deed Restricted Moderate- Income Deed Restricted Moderate- Income Non Deed Restricted Above Moderate- Income Entitlement Date Approved # of Units issued Entitlements Very Low- Income Deed Restricted Very Low- Income Non Deed Restricted Low -Income Deed Restricted Low -Income Non Deed Restricted Moderate- Income Deed Restricted Moderate- Income Non Deed Restricted Above Moderate - Income Building Permits Date Issued # of Units Issued Building Permits Summa Row: Start Data Entry Below 0 0 11 0 2 0 333 346 0 0 38 0 15 0 421 474 029-032-250 812 Linden Ave SFD O 1 1/11/2021 1 1 9/15/2021 1 025-121-190 1868-1870 Ogden Or 5+ O 6 114 3/15/2021 120 0 026-096-270 1R2 a4 El Camino 5+ R 1 5/10/2021 1 0 026-182-270 & 026- 182-280 1110 & 1112 Bernal Ave SFD O 2 5/10/2021 2 2 10/18/2021 2 029-131-140, 029- 131-150, & 029-131 160 619-625 California Or 5+ O 44 6/28/2021 44 0 029-112-350 1418 Bellevue Ave 5+ O 2 13 8/9/2021 15 0 025-121-110 & 025- 121-120 1814-1820 Ogden Or 5+ O 5 85 9/27/2021 90 0 026-182-180 1128 Bernal Ave ADU R 1 12/14/2021 1 0 028-293-200 Ave Costa Rica ADU R 1 1/12/2021 1 1 11/10/2021 1 026-251-270 912 Linden Ave ADU R 1 1/12/2021 1 0 026-194-170 11012 Chula Vista ADU R 1 2/23/2021 1Dr 1 9/22/2021 1 027-173-170 1420 Castillo Ave ADU R 1 3/31/2021 1 0 026-071-150 1320 Mills Ave ADU R 1 5/3/2021 1 1 11/29/2021 1 029-032-120 912 Park Ave ADU R 1 2/9/2021 1 1 5/7/2021 1 025-171-020 2508 Valdivia Way ADU R 1 2/18/2021 1 0 027-012-020 1555 Los Altos Dr ADU R 1 4/26/2021 1 0 029-291-230 818 Peninsula Ave ADU R 1 2/23/2021 1 1 9/13/2021 1 026-083-020 1309 California Dr ADU R 1 6/11/2021 1 0 026-163-010 1701 Broadway ADU R 1 3/30/2021 1 0 026-051-050 1417 Cortez Ave ADU R 1 3/18/2021 1 1 5/17/2021 1 029-061-190 904 Oak Grove Ave ADU R 1 2/4/2021 1 0 029-164-260 4R7d8 Cumberland ADU R 1 3/25/2021 1 0 029-253-260 232 Bloomfield Rd ADU R 1 4/26/2021 1 1 8/5/2021 1 026-252-060 917 Linden Ave ADU R 1 2/4/2021 1 0 028-301-070 1532 Carol Ave ADU R 1 2/8/2021 1 1 9/10/2021 1 025-251-050 1112 Oxford Rd ADU R 1 2/2/2021 1 1 11/2/2021 1 029-033-100 817 Maple Ave ADU R 1 4/12/2021 1 1 9/1/2021 1 029-262-090 217 Charring Rd ADU R 1 2/4/2021 1 1 5/12/2021 1 029-061-220 916 Oak Grove Ave ADU R 1 2/12/2021 1 1 5/11/2021 1 029-045-220 720 Farringdon Ln ADU R 1 10/12/2021 1 0 028-132-120 822 Walnut Ave ADU R 1 2/22/2021 1 0 026-022-090 1325 Balboa Ave ADU R 1 2/26/2021 1 0 026-051-190 1428 Cabrillo Ave ADU R 1 4/12/2021 1 1 9/27/2021 1 029-045-050 737 Crossway Rd ADU R 1 3/16/2021 1 1 7/7/2021 1 028-282-130 405 Chapin Ln ADU R 1 3/5/2021 1 1 8/26/2021 1 026-082-090 1120 Summer Ave ADU R 1 11/5/2021 1 0 026-173-300 2013 Easton Dr ADU R 1 6/7/2021 1 0 027-195-210 2411 Easton Dr ADU R 1 5/10/2021 1 0 026-166-030 1037 Cortez Ave ADU R 1 4/12/2021 1 1 7/16/2021 1 028-142-260 708 Newhall Rd ADU R 1 4/16/2021 1 1 9/9/2021 1 029-253-160 608 Howard Ave ADU R 1 1 7/12/2021 1 1 0 026-171-130 1209 Cabrillo Ave ADU R 1 7/12/2001 1 0 029-283-180 108 Charring Rd ADU R 1 5/11/2021 1 0 026-152-060 1600 Sherman Ave ADU R 1 6/14/2021 1 1 10/12/2021 1 025-252-110 1R1136 Cambridge ADU R 1 6/21/2021 1 0 029-273-160 616 Bayswater Ave ADU R 1 5/3/2021 1 1 10/27/2021 1 026-092-140 1244 Laguna Ave ADU R 1 5/3/2021 1 1 8/9/2021 1 029-082-040 531 Francisco Dr ADU R 1 6/8/2021 1 0 028-313-070 225 Chapin Ln ADU R 1 5/3/2021 1 1 8/17/2021 1 026-095-060 1235 Paloma Ave ADU R 1 12/13/2021 1 1 10/22/2021 1 025-192-030 2217 Davis Dr ADU R 1 5/25/2021 1 1 9/15/2021 1 026-085-210 11328 Capuchino Ave ADU R 1 5/27/2021 1 1 11/2/2021 1 029-284-240 132 Bancroft Rd ADU R 1 8/26/2021 1 0 027-151-060 11365 Vancouver Ave ADU R 1 7/12/2021 1 0 025-133-210 12957 Mariposa Dr I ADU I R 1 1 6/3/2021 1 0 Jurisdiction Burlingame ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note:"+" indicates an optional field Reporting Year 2021 (Jan.i-Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto -calculation formulas Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/3112023 (CCR Title 25 §6202) 026-151-160 1509 Easton Dr ADU R 1 6/11/2021 1 1 11/1/2021 1 029-033-060 833 Maple Ave ADU R 1 8/9/2021 1 0 025-291-030 3072 Rivera Or ADU R 1 9/22/2021 1 0 028-286-070 1529 Ralson Ave ADU R 1 7/20/2021 1 0 027-162-050 2116 Hale Dr ADU R 1 7/12/2021 1 0 029-026-190 810 Alpine Ave ADU R 1 7/12/2021 1 0 028-131-200 1605 Sanchez Ave ADU R 1 7/12/2021 1 0 026-162-190 1120 Cortez Ave ADU R 1 7/16/2021 1 1 9/8/2021 1 026-044-060 1457 Bernal Ave ADU R I 1 1 7/12/20211 1 1 9/13/2021 1 027-152-210 2216 Easton Dr ADU R 1 8/12/2021 1 0 027-141-250 15228 Columbus Ave ADU R 1 8/30/2021 1 0 029-181-200 434 Bloomfield Rd ADU R 1 8/3/2021 1 0 025-228-050 11548 Albemarle Way ADU R 1 8/16/2021 1 1 12/20/2021 1 028-291-110 1544 Howard Ave ADU R 1 8/16/2021 1 1 11/1/2021 1 027-166-120 2312 Hillside Dr ADU R 1 10/25/2021 1 0 027-193-190 2609 Hillside Dr ADU R 1 9/16/2021 1 0 029-012-030 1435 Edgehill Dr ADU R 1 10/1/2021 1 0 026-166-090 1700 Sanchez Ave ADU R 1 12/1/2021 1 0 029-074-320 754 Winchester Or ADU R 1 10/12/2021 1 0 026-084-060 1333 Laguna Ave ADU R 1 11/3/2021 1 0 026-164-160 1012 Balboa Ave ADU R 1 12/14/2021 1 0 028-285-160 11 eBurlingame ADU R 1 12/29/2021 19 0 029-261-120 209 Stanley Rd ADU R 1 12/13/2021 1 0 027-195-050 2505 Easton Dr ADU R 11 12/10/2021 1 1 1 1 0 026-072-110 1423 California Or ADU R 1 12/28/2021 1 0 027-022-560 1530 La Mesa Dr ADU R 1 12/22/2021 1 0 029-055-050 77333-735 Linden Ave 2 to 4 R 0 2 6/24/2021 2 029-055-050 773377-739 Linden Ave 2 to 4 R 0 2 6/24/2021 2 S.B.202200 61-1 & 025-169-380 1 Adrian Ct 5+ R 0 38 227 12/27/2021 265 026-231-290 1095 Rollins Rd 5+ R 0 15 135 5/21/2021 150 029-301-170 12 DvAght Rd ADU R 0 1 3/10/2021 1 026-204-010 925 Chula Vista Dr ADU R 0 1 1/15/2021 1 025-082-250 4 Karen Ct ADU R 0 1 5/3/2021 1 029-055-130 1051 Park Rd ADU R 0 1 1/27/2021 1 029-051-320 748 Crossv✓ay Rd ADU R 0 1 2/9/2021 1 027-192-050 1317 Castillo Ave ADU R 0 1 1/14/2021 1 029-281-230 128 Dwight Rd ADU R 0 1 2/2/2021 1 026-082-050 1319 California Or ADU R 1 0 1 3/30/2021 1 028-316-190 118 Occidental Ave ADU R 0 1 4/16/2021 1 028-316-200 120 Occidental Ave ADU R 0 1 9/16/2021 1 029-292-200 16 Arundel Rd ADU R 0 1 3/10/2021 1 026-014-350 1452 Cortez Ave ADU R 0 1 9/21/2021 1 026-063-180 1320 Bernal Ave ADU R 0 1 3/2/2021 1 029-044-020 765 Farringdon Ln ADU R 0 1 2/9/2021 1 026-082-100 1124 Summer Ave ADU R 0 1 3/11/2021 1 027-142-240 1534 Hoover Ave ADU R 0 1 5/24/2021 1 029-253-040 6609 Burlingame Ave ADU R 0 1 4/19/2021 1 027-195-110 2615 Easton Dr ADU R 0 1 5/17/2021 1 029-013-140 1813 Paloma Ave I I ADU R 0 1 1 1 7/30/2021 1 028-141-200 772 Walnut Ave ADU R 0 1 9/23/2021 1 029-303-210 22 Charm Rd ADU R 0 1 11/12/2021 1 028-291-090 11536 Howard Ave ADU R 0 1 1/22/2021 1 028-283-130 11523 Chapin Ave ADU R 0 1 3/24/2021 1 dariadwtion Batlingama ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Housing Element Implementation (CCR Title 25 §6202) Reporting year 2021 (Jan.1-oar. 31) Planning Period 5th Cycle Table A2 Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units Project Identifier Unit Types Affordability by Household Incomes - Certificates of Occupancy 1 2 3 10 11 12 Certificates of Sof Units Una Category Tenure Very Low- Very Low- Low -Income Low -Income Motlerate- Motlerate- Above Cccupancyorother issued Prior APN' Current APN Street Address Project Name' Local Jurisdiction (SFA,SF02to Income Deetl Income Non Deed Non Deed Income Oeetl Income Non Motlerate- forms of readiness Ceddicates of Tracking ID' q S+ADU MH) R=Renter Restricted Deed Restrictetl Restrictetl Restricted Deed Restrictetl Income (see instructions) Occupancy or O=Owner Restricted Date Issued other forms of readmese Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below D 0 0 D 0 0 22 22 029-055-160 118-05"10 & 118- 050-020 715-]1] Lintlen Ave 2 to 4 O 2 4MM21 2 029-055-170 118-061F010 & 118 060-020 ]19-]21 U,,Oen Ave 2 to 4 O 2 40W021 2 026-022 NO 021-271d40 2208 Summit Or SFD O 1 82]2021 1 027-IM-100 2319 Easton Or ADU R 1 32 021 1 029-273-220 120 Blaanfidd Rd ADU R 1 1011MO21 1 027 051-120 14] Lama Vista Dr ADU R 1 5/ 021 1 029-293-080 27 Clamr,tlan Rd ADU R 1 fi/82021 1 029-282-200 118 Stanley Rd ADU R 1 911MO21 1 028-295-130 1576 Cypress Ave I ADU R 1 10OW021 1 025016-220 830 Acacia Dr ADU R 1 11/1fi2021 1 025-253-150 1153 Cambrilge Rd ADU R 1 4/12021 1 029-IM-140 208 Butlingame Ave ADU R 1 4=021 1 026-086-020 1351 Capuchins Ae ADU R 1 ]/302021 1 029-0]4-3]0 fi W inctxster PI ADU R 1 4/142021 1 026-183-110 1115 B—M Ave ADU R 1 11/1M021 1 Jurisdiction Burlingame Reporting Year 2021 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Planning Period 5th Cycle 0113112015 - 0113112023 This table is auto -populated once you enter your jurisdiction name and current year data. Past ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT year information comes from previous APRs. Housing Element Implementation Please contact HCD if your data is different than the material supplied here (CCR Title 25 §6202) Table B Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress Permitted Units Issued by Affordability 1 2 3 4 RHNA Allocation by Income Level 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 20 2023 Total Units to Date (all years) Total Remaining RHNA by Income Level Deed Restricted Very Low Non -Deed Restricted 276 - - - - 82 - - - 82 194 Deed Restricted Low Non -Deed Restricted 144 - - - - 35 38 - - 73 71 Deed Restricted Moderate Non -Deed Restricted 155 29 28 15 72 e3 Above Moderate 288 5 133 13 271 1 101 1421 421 - 995 Total RHNA 863 Total Units 51 1331 13 1 3001 10 1 1 1,2221 348 Note: units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income permitted units totals and must be reported as very low-income units. Please note: For the last year of the 5th cycle, Table B will only include units that were permitted during the portion of the year that was in the 5th cycle. For the first year of the 6th cycle, Table B will include units that were permitted since the start of the planning period. Please note: The APR form can only display data for one planning period. To view progress for a different planning period, you may login to HCD's online APR system, or contact HCD staff at apr@hcd.ca.gov. ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS •.- Housing Element Implementation Cell. n gM o—in f—ul. Table C Sites Identified or Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Ho-Ing N..d and No Not -Loss La� . .. .. ,. © o©oo 00 a— -d.... Local J ri.dii.n D...fR_.. R ... n.1p. 111.7 = nmini u. M-i— R..,-i- ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Housing Element Implementation (CCR Title 25 §6202) Jurisdiction Burlingame Reporting Year 2021 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Table D Program Implementation Status pursuant to GC Section 65583 Housing Programs Progress Report Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. 1 2 3 4 Name of Program Objective Timeframe in H.E Status of Program Implementation Program H(A-1) - Maintenance of public facilities projects includes maintenance and improvements to Maintenance of Public city parks, street maintenance, street cleaning, new Community Center, etc. Facilities. In residential neighborhoods continue the maintenance and enhancement of public facilities such as streets, Continue maintenance programs for public Ongoing water supply and drainage facilities. by allocations from the general fund, gas tax revenue and, where appropriate, conditions of development. Program H(A-2) - Housing Rehabilitation. Through the City's Code Enforcement Program, continue the program of contacting Code enforcement staff is aware of this program and refers property owners as owners of structures that needed. Referrals have included enforcement of non -permitted Accessory Dwelling appear to be overcrowded, Units (ADUs) thorugh amnesty approval. declining or in need of repair. Refer property owners to the Rehabilitation Rehabilitate 20 housing units. Ongoing Peninusla Clean Energy offers home upgrade programs that can be helpful in rehabilitation projects. Its low-income home upgrade and Loan Program administered electrification program offers up to $8,000 for home repairs, energy efficiency, and by San Mateo County to electrification measures. assist qualified homeowners in making necessary repairs City Council may be considering rehabilitation funding that could be tied to property to structures in need of improvements such as soft -story retrofits and/or energy efficiency upgrades, to be rehabilitation. considered in 2022. Within 1 year of adoption of The City is still working on implementing this program, however, building permit fees Housing Element are significantly reduced for non-profit rehabilitation programs such as Christmas in April and Rebuilding Together. Fees have also been reduced or waived for city - initiated projects, including an affordable housing development currently under construction. Program H(A-3) - Allow fee waivers for affordable The City Council is considering fee waivers for rehabilitation for earthquake retrofits rehabilitation. and/or energy upgrades, to be considered by the end of 2022. Consider amendment to the Master Fee Schedule to allow for waiver of permit fees for rehabilitation of affordable housing achieved through San Mateo County programs, through non- profit agencies or through other means, including Federal Programs and to provide incentives for Rehabilitate 75 affordable units. property owners to maintain their properties. The City continues to preserve rental housing stock with the implementation of Chapter 26.32 of the subdivision ordinance. Program H(A-4) - Discourage condominium conversions. Maintain the existing zoning controls which prohibit conversion of residential rental projects with fewer than 21 units to condominiums, and which contain strict regulations prohibiting conversion of less than 21 units to condominiums. No conversion of existing rental stock to condominiums. Completed Program H(A-5) - Prevent conversion of residential units to non-residential use. Amend zoning code to require a conditional use permit for any project where residential units are proposed to be replaced by non-residential use. Retain existing housing stock. Within 1 year of adoption of Housing Element The City is compliant with SB-330, disallowing residential units to be removed without replacement. Utilize funds to assist 20 units to achieve Ongoing The City will encourage use of available programs administered by San Mateo County long term affordability. to ensure affordability of existing units. The City has been investigating Joint Powers and Housting Trust models for acquiring residential units to preserve affordability. Program H(A-6) - Ensure affordability of existing units. Continue the relationship with the County of San Mateo Department of Housing for administration of Block Grant funds for housing programs; encourage use of available programs (such as HOME) to assist non-profit housing corporations in acquiring, rehabilitating and managing apartment units for long-term affordability. Program H(A-7) - Determine Continue assistance to potential home Ongoing Planning and Building Division staff regularly assists potential buyers and realtors in code compliance, structural buyers. locating records to determine the permit history of a property prior to purchase. deficiencies of existing residences upon sale. Continue program that assists in research of residential records upon the request of realtors or potential home buyers Program H(A-8) - Residential design review. Continue implementation of residential design review and zoning regulations including setbacks, floor area ratio, declining height; continue implementation of single family design review guidelines adopted in 1998. Process 250 applications for residential design review. Ongoing Proposals for new single family dwellings, multifamily dwellings, and some duplexes are subject to the Design Review process before Planning Commission approval. We anticipate to reach the goal by the end of 2022. Program H(B-1) - Public Continue referral activities through Code Ongoing Information is provided and referrals are made to assist the public with issues awareness of anti- Enforcement Program. regarding fair housing laws. In addition the City, in conjunction with the County of San discrimination laws and Mateo Home for All initiative, held two community engagement activities to publicize policies. housing resources and get public input on housing needs in Burlingame. Significant Continue to fund the Code outreach efforts have been made for this workshop to include all sectors of the Enforcement Officer Burlingame community. Further outreach is being coordinated with the 21 Elements position and coordination consortium for countywide housing policy community engagement. Furthermore, the with Community city's affordable housing administrator Housekeys hosts workshops for those Development Department interested in below -market rate units in Burlingame. code enforcement activities; provide information handouts; inform the public and local realtors about equal housing laws and recourse available in case of violations; refer complaints to California Department of Fair Employment and Housing; refer complaints regarding discrimination to La Raza Central Legal, a nonprofit community law center which works with local tenants to resolve landlord/tenant issues. Information will be posted and available at public locations, such as City Hall, the library and the recreation center. Program H(B-2) - Provide information regarding housing to Information regarding housing services available for person with disabilities is provided Implement an outreach families of persons with developmental by the City during Building workshops and by staff on specific projects where this program for persons with disabilities. situation applies. The City, in conjunction with the County of San Mateo Home for All disabilities. initiative, has held two community engagement meetings plus several outreach Work with agencies such as activities to publicize housing resources and get public input on housing needs in the Golden Gate Regional Burlingame. There has been significant outreach to multiple organizations, including Center, a state -funded organizations representing persons with disabilities. The city maintains referral nonprofit organization information on the website. serving individuals with developmental disabilities in Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties, InnVision Shelter Network, CALL Primrose, and Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities to implement an outreach program that informs families in Burlingame about housing and services available for persons with disabilities. The program could include the development of an informational brochure, providing information on services on the City's website, and providing housing- related training for Develop outreach material individuals/families through within 2 years of HE workshops. adoptions Program H(B-3) - Promote attractive rental opportunities. Ongoing When reviewing multifamily projects, staff and the Planning Commission request that Community amenities for the developer provide additional amenities for the residents; this is an ongoing request rentals. Encourage the from both the Planning Commission and City Council as well. Planning staff has seen inclusion of communal an increase in submittals that include outdoor living rooms with water features, firepits, amenities in new rental barbeque areas, bocce ball courts, community rooms and gyms. developments (i.e. community rooms, play structures, laundry facilities) where feasible and provision of which does not impair achievement of maximum densities or the financial feasibility of developing housing affordable to lower -income Program H(C-1) - Refer Provide information and housing Ongoing The City has a Housing page to provide referrals and housing applications within the eligible employees to assistance with eligible employees County. The City promotes the first time home buyer workshops presented by HEART housing assistance of San Mateo County and includes information in the City newsletter. Staff posts home - programs. sharing flyers offered through HIP Housing in breakrooms for employees. Train staff about current opportunities; make available brochures and contact information to eligible residents who inquire about availability of programs. Refer eligible residents to CDBG programs administered by the County Office of Housing and Community Development. Program H(C-2) - Provide Within 1 year of HE incentives for developers to Provide 75 new affordable units adoption The Density Bonus Ordinance was amended and adopted in January 2015, and include affordable units in Provide 50 percent of affordable units at further updated in 2021, and includes items new residential projects. Low- income levels. #14 . Action #5 is addressed through residential impact fees adopted in 2019, 1. Amend the Inclusionary allowing in -lieu fees if affordable units are not provided. The City updated its zoning Housing Ordinance to code in the North Burlingame Mixed Use and North Rollins Road Mixed Use areas that comply with local and state offer density bonuses and greater height allowance for projects incorporating legislative requirements. affordable units. In 2020, the City of Burlingame issued building permits for 12 above- 2. Amend the Inclusionary moderate income units. The Density Bonus Ordinance was revised as part of the Housing Ordinance or adopt Zoning Ordinance Update adopted in December 2021. a Density Bonus Ordinance to accommodate a Low- 1418 Bellevue, 1868-1870 Ogden, and the Village at Burlingame have all used the Income component of State density bonus to incorporate various levels of affordability into their projects. required affordable housing. 3. Amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance or adopt a Density Bonus Ordinance to encourage smaller unit sizes (i.e. studio, SROs, one- and two -bedroom units). 4. Amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance or adopt a Density Bonus Ordinance to extend the affordability time restrictions on subsidized housing. 5. Amend the zoning code to provide incentives to developers who provide additional affordable units Provide 50 new housing units in the Ongoing Commercial (linkage) impact fees were adopted by the City Council on July 3, 2017 as vicinity of public agency workplaces and follows: commercial centers. $7 SF — retail $12 SF — hotel $18 SF — office < 50,000 SF Program H(C-3) - Consider $25 SF — office > 50,000 SF adoption of a commercial Discounts apply for projects utilizing prevailing wages. impact in -lieu fee. Consider adopting a These commercial impact fees are planned to be updated in 2022. commercial in -lieu fee that would require developers of The Village at Burlingame project on Lots F and N in dowtown contains 132 units. employment -generating commercial and industrial developments to contribute to the supply of low- and moderate -income housing through the provision of commercial in -lieu fees as prescribed in a nexus impact fee study. Program H(C-5) - Provide 50 new housing units in the The City approved workforce housing on City Parking Lots F & N (downtown) on Encourage public agency vicinity of public agency workplaces and December 11, 2018 for a total of 132 units. Construction is underway. Anticipated partnerships to provide commercial centers. completion date: 2023 housing, reduce commute time, and facilitate retention of groups like teachers, public employees, hospital and service sector workers. Contact public agencies to encourage them to include a provision for housing in any facility expansion plans; disseminate information about available CDBG funded programs. Ongoing Program H(D-1)-Increase affordability for elderly households. a. Continue to implement the second unit amnesty program to allow creation of accessible secondary units for the elderly; b. Continue to allow upon request curbside disabled accessible parking spaces in single family neighborhoods. c. Coordinate with San Mateo County Housing Authority to increase the number of Section 8 units Burlingame's elderly population. d. Continue updating and distributing widely to local residents the Senior Resources Handbook: An Informational Guide for Burlingame Senior Citizens, Their Families and Caregivers. e. Continue to provide incentives for new senior housing by maintaining the Ongoing The City is currently coordinating with the Peninsula Health Care District on planning Provide 30 affordable units for the elderly. for the Peninsula Wellness Community Master Plan which will include a variety of Increase number of Section 8 units for senior housing options, including hospice care, assisted and independent living elderly by facilities. 5 units. Continue public education efforts. The City revised the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulations in 2020 to comply with State requirements intended to facilitate the construction of affordable accessory dwelling units, including units suitable for the elderly. City staff has created a user friendly ADU handout to help residents understand the regulations to further streamline the ADU standards, in compliance with newly updated State requirements. The City issued entitlements or building permits for 75 ADUs in 2021. The City contributes funding to HIP Housing to support homesharing for seniors. 54 affordable senior units are currently under construction as part of the city -initiated Village at Burlingame project. Code Section 25.33.010 (a)(1) of the zoning code complies with Government Code Sections 65915 through 65918 for the purposes of granting residential density bonuses and the submission, review, and granting of incentives and consessions consistent with State law. Program H(D-2) - Improve Facilitate use of County assistance and Planning and Building Division staff is versed in the reasonable accommodations livability of housing units for staff work with residents to modify 10 Ongoing ordinance (Code Section 25.76) and works with applicants to utilize this section of the disabled population. existing housing units to accommodate code. In addition, Public Works staff assists residents requesting disabled curb a. Implement the adopted disabled. parking in residential areas as necessary. Reasonable Accommodations Ordinance, which provides individuals with disabilities reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices and procedures that may be necessary to ensure equal access to housing by providing a process for individuals with disabilities to make requests for reasonable accommodation in regard to relief from the various land use, zoning, or building laws, rules, policies, practices and/or procedures of the City. This policy offers a process to modify certain development standards, such as lot coverage and setback requirements for ramps and landings added to residences and group homes in order to provide access for the disabled. Program H(D-3) - Add affordable housing units for single -parent households. Continue to assign staff to carry out the following actions: a. Work with the County Housing Authority to increase the number of Section 8 certificates for single -parent families. b. Work with the Human Investment Project for Housing (HIP), a non-profit housing corporation which administers a home -sharing program which is available for Burlingame residents. Develop literature regarding availability of housing programs; distribute to Burlingame residents. Continue City funding Increase by 5 the number of Section 8 units for single parent households. Train staff and refer single parent households to shared housing program, IHN or other local providers Ongoing Staff is aware of HIP Housing programs and refers interested parties to HIP. In addition, the City's newsletter also provides information on HIP's home share program, and information is listed on a web page dedicated to housing resources on the City's website as well as to City employees with advertisements in the break room. Program H(D-4) - Provide affordable studio or one - bedroom units for single occupants. a. Amend the zoning code to create zoning incentives that encourage the development of smaller, more affordable housing units for seniors and other single occupants, such as reduced parking requirements for units less than 900 square feet and other flexible development b. Continue to allow secondary units per the Government Code. Continue to implement the Secondary Dwelling Unit Ordinance (adopted in 2011), which allows new secondary dwelling units subject to certain standards, including minimum lot size, maximum unit size and one of the units to be owner occupied. Continue to allow waiver of on -site parking for accessory dwelling units Provide affordable efficiency housing units Completed on appropriate opportunity sites. Rezone properties with residential overlay Amend code to provide incentives for smaller units. The City revised the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulations in 2020 to comply with State requirements which are intended to facilitate the construction of affordable accessory dwelling units including units suitable for the elderly. As part of the ADU code changes for compliance with newly updated State requirements, City staff also recommended code changes to the Planning Commission beyond those required by State Law which would relax regulations to make it easier to create ADUs, such as removing prohibitions on basement units and external basement entries. Program H(D-5) - Provide Continue financial support of County -wide Ongoing Each year the City Council evaluates Community Group Funding at the first Council local share of support for programs. meeting in June. The list of recipients includes HIP Housing, Inn Vision Shelter county -wide homeless Staff to continue to facilitate process Network and Samaritan House, CALL Primrose Center and HIP Housing. In addition, programs necessary to provide such services in the the Council budget includes funding sufficient for membership in HEART and a County a. Continue financial city. Homeless Outreach Team contribution. contributions to agencies which provide service to the homeless population in San Mateo County; continue to allow group facilities for the homeless in conjunction with church facilities as a conditional use; continue to support financially and work with local and non-profit providers in San Mateo b. Maintain the zoning code provisions that allow emergency shelters by right in the northern part of the RR (Rollins Road) zoning district. c. Implement the zoning code provisions that allow transitional and supportive housing by right in all zone districts which allow residential uses only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the Program H(E-1) - Energy Add energy conservation features to 250 Ongoing Title 24 energy conservation requirements are applied to all plan checks for new conservation for major residences. residential construction. residential construction In all plan checking for new The City is also considering an energy efficiency/electrification program for existing residential construction and units using commercial linkage fee funds. major additions, apply Title 24 energy conservation requirements; where possible in planning developments, require structural and landscaping design to make use of natural heating and cooling. Program H(E-2) - Community awareness of conservation benefits Distribute brochure on available energy conservation programs and measures at the Planning counter to all residents planning to expand or build new residences. Provide energy conservation information to public. Ongoing There are brochures available at City Hall and on-line information provided regarding energy conservation for both residents and businesses. In addition the Sustainability Coordinator provides tips and offers other resources for energy conservation on the City's weekly newsletter. Utilize CalGreen standards. Continuous The City currently complies with the CalGreen standards and employs a full-time Program H(E-3) - Green Building Specialist to ensure compliance of all projects with the CalGreen Sustainable Development standards. The City adopted all -electric Reach Codes in 2020 so that new Stringent California Green development can be powered by renewable, Greenhouse Gas -reducing sources. Building Standards (CalGreen) have been adopted. At the minimum, new construction will follow the requirements set by the mandatory portion of the CalGreen Code. Program H(F-1) - Promote development on smaller Within 1 year of HE City staff supports applications involving the consolidation of parcels for development Encourage development of opportunity sites by promoting lot adoption projects to resolve technical matters such as multiple zoning designations, and housing on selected sites to consolidation for creation of affordable generally identifying opportunities to simplify and streamline the application process. serve all income levels housing The Zoning Code currently provides lower parking requirements for smaller units, and Amend the zoning code to allows further reductions within the Downtown Specific Plan area. create zoning incentives that encourage the The City adopted residential impact fees adopted in 2019, allowing in -lieu fees if consolidation of smaller lots affordable units are not provided. The City updated its zoning code in the North identified as Housing Burlingame Mixed Use and North Rollins Road Mixed Use areas that offer density Inventory Sites, such as bonuses and greater height allowance for projects incorporating affordable units. development review streamlining, reduction in Impact fees are anticipated to be updated by the end of 2022. required parking for smaller units, setback The City adopted a new zoning code in December 2021 which allowed for fewer modifications, or increases parking spaces in a development. in building height. 1814-1820 Ogden Dr is a 2 parcel consolidation approved in September 2021 for a 90- unit condo development with 5 units for low-income families. Program H(F-2) - Promote development of potential housing sites Maintain and update the area -by -area land use surveys, note changes in vacant and underutilized sites; share information with potential residential developers. Provide assistance and incentives to encourage development of the opportunity sites identified in the Housing Element Ongoing The City's opportunity sites as designated in the Housing Element are provided to developers that express interest in developing in Burlingame. This list of opportunity sites is provided on the development opportunity website Oppsites, and in the Housing Element. Program H(F-3) - Create Provide flexibility and incentives in the Within 1 year of HE The Downtown Specific Plan, which is within the boundaries of the PDA, provides Priority Development Area application of development standards adoption incentives such as higher residential densities, development standard incentives, (PDA) Housing Overlay within the Priority Development Area. reduced parking requirements, increased building heights, and provisions to provide Zone. Provide flexibility and incentives in the compatibility with adjacent lower -scale neighborhoods. Amend the zoning code to application of development standards create a "Priority within the Priority Development Area. The General Plan Update identified additional areas are suitable for high density Development Area Housing residential and/or mixed use development that are adjacent to transit corridors and Overlay Zone" to establish transit centers, and implementing zoning was adopted in 2021. In addition, a former standards and incentives for industrial area at the north end of town has been rezoned to allow residential uses housing in the portions of given the close projecting to the Millbrae Multi -Model Station. the community zoned for high density residential The City adopted residential impact fees in 2019, allowing in -lieu fees if affordable and/or mixed use units are not provided. development that are adjacent to transit corridors The City updated its zoning code in the North Burlingame Mixed Use and North Rollins and transit centers. Specific Road Mixed Use (RRMU) areas that offer density bonuses and greater height standards to be considered allowance for projects incorporating affordable units.The City expanded the PDA to are densities, development include the RRMU district. standard incentives, reduced parking The City has been preparing a specifc plan for the RRMU area; the draft plan is requirements, building underway with anticipated adoption in Summer of 2022. heights and compatibility with adjacent lower -scale A specific plan for the Broadway commercial area and surrounding residential neighborhoods. The Priority neighborhoods will be initiated in 2022. These areas are within the PDA. Development Area covers the North Burlingame area, the El Camino Real and The residetal impact fees are anticipated to be updated by the end of 2022. California Drive corridors and the Downtown Specific Plan area. Program H(F-4) - Identify Encourage development of 150 units on Completed 450 units have been approved (entitled) within the Downtown Specific Plan area during sites for affordable, mixed selected Housing Opportunity Sites within this cycle. All of the projects have utilized reduced parking requirements available to use residential, live -work the Downtown Specific Plan area. projects within the Downtown Specific Plan area, and/or the use of mechanical parking and small one -bedroom or lifts. studio apartments. a. Encourage development of sites in C-R zone and where there is commercial zoning with a residential overlay or residential mixed use zoning; b. Promote development within the new mixed use zoning districts within the Downtown Specific Plan area, which allow for mixed uses and high density residential uses, and includes incentives to keep units affordable such as reduced parking requirements, increased heights and modified setbacks. Program H(F-5) - Second- Process 125 applications for second unit Ongoing The City revised the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulations in 2020 to comply with unit Amnesty amnesty; Provide opportunities for State requirements intended to facilitate the construction of affordable accessory Continue the second unit rehabilitation of these units dwelling units, including units suitable for the elderly. As part of the ADU code amnesty program and changes for compliance with newly updated State requirements, City staff also provide second unit recommended code changes to the Planning Commission beyond those required by applicants with information State Law which would relax regulations to make it easier to create ADUs; these on participation in the San recommendations were approved and are now part of the zoning ordinance. The City Mateo County Rental has approved a total of 75 ADUs in 2021. Rehabilitation program which provides rehabilitation loans for units which are available to tenants with low or very low incomes; consider expansion of the program by changing the eligibility date to qualify for second -unit amnesty. Program H(F-6) - To expand Encourage development of affordable Ongoing In 2018, the City approved the redevelopment of City -owned parking lots for an the stock of affordable units on opportunity sites. Issue RFP for affordable housing development to build 132 workforce and senior housing units on housing redevelopment of parking lots. City Parking Lots F & N in Downtown Burlingame's downtown, which is within walking Contact known non-profit distance to the Burlingame Train Station. Construction is ongoing, with an estimated housing corporations and completion date in 2023. religious institutions to make them aware of City interest, familiarize them with the opportunities available in Burlingame, and assist in processing where applications are required; encourage use of private foundation grants to fund affordable units. The City will issue an RFP for redevelopment of City - owned parking lots with affordable housing within one year of Housing Element adoption. Program H(F-7) - Section 8 Current number of Section 8 units is 100. Ongoing The City will work with San Mateo County Community Services and Housing Authority Program Attempt to increase by additional 20 units to provide a proportionate number of Section 8 units located in Burlingame. Work with San Mateo (total of 120 units). County Community Services and Housing Authority to provide Burlingame a proportionate share of Section 8 funds; distribute information about program to potential property owner and renter participants. Program H(F-8) - First-time Obtain assistance for 15 Burlingame Ongoing The City promotes first-time homebuyer program workshops presented by HEART of Homebuyer Program residents. San Mateo County to educate both City employees and Burlingame residents about Continue to participate in the first-time homebuyer program; this information is provided on the City's website cooperative CDBG and in the City's weekly newsletter. agreement with San Mateo County to provide Burlingame residents with the opportunity to participate in the first-time homebuyer program (Mortgage Credit Certificate) funded by CDBG. Make first time home buyer information available on City's website and hold public workshops to identify opportunities for Program H(F-9) - Zero -Net- No loss of housing stock. Within 1 year of HE The City is compliant with SB-330, disallowing residential units to be removed without Loss of Housing Units adoption replacement. Amend the zoning code to require that when there is a loss of multifamily rental housing due to subdivision or condominium approvals, the project shall be required to provide 20 percent affordable housing units and/or provide displaced tenants with the first right to return to replacement housing units and to affordable housing units, subject to compliance with Measure T, the Burlingame Fair Property Rights Ordinance. Program H(F-10) —Housing Explore the effectiveness and Annual for Very Low Income appropriateness of new strategies and Review The City adopted new Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations to facilitate the Households incentives to promote housing for very low development of accessory units, by waiving parking requirements and eliminating Explore opportunities to and extremely low income households on limits on lot size for units added within existing square footage/structures, consistent encourage development of an annual basis. with State Law mandates. In addition, the City recently approved a joint development housing for very low and of downtown Parking Lots F & N which includes 132 workforce and senior housing extremely low income units. households through a variety of activities that may Commercial (linkage) impact fees were adopted by the City Council on July 3, 2017, include: as follows: • Examining the $7/SF — retail appropriateness of new $12/SF- hotel housing types that can $18/SF — office < 50,000 SF provide affordable options, $25/SF — office> 50,000 SF such as junior second units and micro -apartments; Residential impact fees were adopted in 2019, as follows: • Identifying grant and Base With Prevailing / Area Wage funding opportunities; Rental Multifamily— 11 units and above • Monitoring the availability Up to 50 du/ac $17.00 $14.00 of state cap -and -trade 51-70 du/ac $20.00 $17.00 funding for affordable 71 du/ac and above $30.00 $25.00 housing; For Sale Multifamily (Condominiums) — 7 units and above • Considering joint $35.00 $30.00 development opportunities Notes: with non- profit developers 1. Rental Multifamily with total of 10 units or fewer are exempt. for projects that 2. For Sale Multifamily (Condominiums) with total of 6 units or fewer are exempt. accommodate a wide range 3. Rental projects that convert to condominiums within 10 years of completion of of income categories construction would be subject to the fee differential as a condition of conversion including very low income; • Reaching out to housing These impacts fees will be updated by the end of 2022. developers and assisting Program H(F-11) — Anti- Conduct an annual review of the First reviewed January Anti -displacement strategies were discussed and examined by the City Council during Displacement Strategies availability and effectiveness of anti- 2015. then annually the last housing element cycle. The City Council has considered anti -displacement Acknowledge the problem displacement strategies and programs. strategies within the context of collection of commercial linkage fees and residential of tenant displacement and impact fees, with considerations for programs such as emergency rent assistance to convene a process to prevent displacement, and acquisition of existing housing stock to be retained with investigate mitigations and below -market rents. In conjunction with the County of San Mateo Home for All the obstacles to deploying initiative, the City has held two community meeting to hear from the community and them, including legislative discuss housing matters, including anti -displacement strategies. City Council allocates barriers such as the funds to the non-profit Samaritan House to assist with anti -displacement in the City. Burlingame Fair Property Rights Ordinance ("Measure 7) and establish or modify strategies as appropriate. Program H(C-4) - Consider adoption of a residential in - lieu fee option. Consider adopting a residential in -lieu fee as an alternative to providing affordable units on -site. Generate in -lieu fees to contribute toward lWithin 1 year of HE the creation of low and moderate income adoption housing. Residential impact fees were adopted in 2019, as follows: Linkage Fee Base With Prevailing / Area Wage Rental Multifamily— 11 units and above Up to 50 du/ac $17.00 $14.00 51-70 du/ac $20.00 $17.00 71 du/ac and above $30.00 $25.00 For Sale Multifamily (Condominiums) — 7 units and above $35.00 $30.00 Notes: 1. Rental Multifamily with total of 10 units or fewer are exempt. 2. For Sale Multifamily (Condominiums) with total of 6 units or fewer are exempt. 3. Rental projects that convert to condominiums within 10 years of completion of construction would be subject to the fee differential as a condition of conversion. Jurisdiction Burlingame Reporting Period 2021 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Planning Period 5thCycle 0113112015 - 0113112023 ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Housing Element Implementation (CCR Title 25 §6202) Note: 'Y' indicates an optional field Cells in grey contain auto -calculation formulas Table E Commercial Development Bonus Approved pursuant to GC Section 65915.7 Project Identifier Units Constructed as Part of Agreement Description of Commercial Development Bonus Commercial Development Bonus Date Approved 1 2 3 4 APN Street Address Project Name' Local Jurisdiction Tracking IDS Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Income Description of Commercial Development Bonus Commercial Development Bonus Date Approved Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below No Commercial Development Annual Progress Report Jurisdiction Burlingame Reporting Year 2021 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 Building Permits Issued by Affordability Summary Income Level Current Year Very Low Deed Restricted 0 Non -Deed Restricted 0 Low Deed Restricted 38 Non -Deed Restricted 0 Moderate Deed Restricted 15 Non -Deed Restricted 0 Above Moderate 421 Total Units 474 Note: Units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income permitted units totals Units by Structure Type Entitled Permitted Completed SFA 0 0 0 SFD 3 3 1 2to4 0 4 4 5+ 270 415 0 ADU 73 52 17 MH 01 01 0 Total 346 474 22 Housing Applications Summary Total Housing Applications Submitted: 77 Number of Proposed Units in All Applications Received: 807 Total Housing Units Approved: 62 Total Housing Units Disapproved: 0 Use of SB 35 Streamlining Provisions Number of Applications for Streamlining 0 Number of Streamlining Applications Approved 0 Total Developments Approved with Streamlining 0 Total Units Constructed with Streamlining 0 Units Constructed - SB 35 Streamlining Permits Income Rental Ownership Total Very Low 0 0 0 Low 0 0 0 Moderate 0 0 0 Above Moderate 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 Cells in grey contain auto -calculation formulas Lieutenant Kiely suggested that the applicant hire crossing guards to assist with the procession crossing the street. Councilmember Keighran amended her motion to deny the special event permit but to allow the applicant to utilize the alternatives outlined in the staff report and Councilmember Brownrigg's suggestion. She added that the applicant should work with BPD and determine how best to assure the safety of all, which may include hiring crossing guards. Councilmember Ortiz seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote, 4-1. (Vice Mayor Beach voted no). b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VACATION OF A 10-FOOT WIDE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AT 1568 ALTURAS DRIVE DPW Murtuza stated that there is an existing public utility easement located within the private property of 1568 Alturas Drive. He stated that the easement was accepted by the City in 1953, and there are no public or private utilities currently existing in this easement. He explained that the owner has asked that the City vacate the easement. Mayor Colson opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 84-2019; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 10. STAFF REPORTS a. DISCUSSION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND PROGRAMS CDD Gardiner stated that in 2017, the City Council adopted commercial linkage fees for all new commercial developments, and earlier this year, the Council adopted residential linkage fees for new residential development. He explained that over time, these fees will provide a dedicated source of funding for programs supporting workforce housing in Burlingame. CDD Gardiner stated that the Council has discussed a number of options for how to use the fees to support workforce housing. He noted that the City has yet to collect any fees. However, there are many projects in the works, including a mixed used office development, Topgolf, and a new hotel that will generate fees for the City. He explained that it is estimated that the City will collect between $3.5 and $4.3 million from these projects in linkage fees. He added that the residential impact fees are harder to predict as the developer has the choice of either paying the fee or building affordable units in lieu of paying the fee. CDD Gardiner stated that the City hired Bill Lowell, a consultant, who has worked with the County of San Mateo Department of Housing and the Home for All initiative, to help the Council determine how best to utilize the collected fees. He explained that attached to the staff report is a memo from Mr. Lowell providing an overview of the potential housing fund policies and programs, including information on the approaches of other jurisdictions. 9 Burlingame City Council July 1, 2019 Approved Minutes Mr. Lowell explained that he focused on what types of policies other municipalities have adopted for their affordable housing funds and what processes were enacted to carry out their policies. He stated that 16 cities in the county currently have ordinances that provide mechanisms for generating affordable housing funds. The mechanisms include in -lieu fees, dedicated hotel occupancy taxes, and impact fees. He noted that in reviewing the different cities' policies, most included a brief description of examples of potential uses but no direction for eligibility or prioritization of uses. Mr. Lowell stated that he spoke with HEART Executive Director Armando Sanchez and 21 Elements representative Josh Abrams to get their opinions on how the City should proceed. He explained that both cautioned against adoption of overly specific policies and instead encouraged the City to adopt "guiding principles" with a list of eligible uses. He stated that this was because opportunities change quickly, community needs evolve, and the market conditions change. Therefore, the City needs to be able to adapt. Mr. Lowell discussed Redwood City's recently adopted policy regarding the allocation of affordable housing funds. He stated that Redwood City adopted four guiding principles and priorities: 1. New affordable construction including site acquisition 2. Acquisition with or without rehabilitation of existing multi -family housing, which would become deed restricted 3. Money can be used for rehabilitation for existing deed restricted housing in the city 4. Need to refinance an existing deed restricting property where the deed is expiring. Mr. Lowell discussed the need to develop a process for the distribution of the funds. He noted that this could be done in a variety of ways: 1. Notice of Funding Availability ("NOFA") — This is used when a significant amount of funding is available for well-defined projects. He noted that this process is time consuming and has a fixed time schedule. He gave the example of the County's Department of Housing that issues a NOFA once a year for developers of large affordable multi -family projects. He added that the County recently issued a new NOFA for $27 million. 2. RFP Process — He explained that this process is best for services and small projects. He noted that the relative informality of the RFP enables the City and the applicant to develop the service or project together. 3. Over -the -Counter Process — He explained that this option provides the most flexibility. Applications can be received at any time and, within guidelines and eligibility criteria, for any type of proposed use. He stated that appropriate City oversight can be protected by setting financial limits on the size of programs that can be approved by the Department Head/City Manager versus items that require Council approval. Mr. Lowell stated that attached to his memorandum are three documents: 1. Attachment A: Potential Priority Goals/Strategies 2. Attachment B: Homelessness Prevention Programs 3. Attachment C: Use of NOFA Process Mr. Lowell discussed the City's in -lieu option and stated that with this option, Council is addressing the City's need for moderate income units. Therefore, the affordable housing funds could be used to address 10 Burlingame City Council July 1, 2019 Approved Minutes low-income and very low-income housing. He noted that the Council should also consider whether the funds could be leveraged for a larger project. Mr. Lowell discussed several sources of funding that are available to developers of affordable housing projects. He stated that it is important to recognize that the City's funds could be just a piece of the puzzle for a project. He explained how the City could limit its contribution to a project on a per unit basis. He noted that the County had previously limited its contribution to $50,000 per unit and now contributes up to $100,000 per unit. Mr. Lowell explained that based on discussions with staff, he included Attachment B, which addresses funding for homelessness prevention programs. He stated that the San Mateo County Human Services Agency ("HSA") contracts with Samaritan to serve as the "front door" for residents needing assistance. He explained that emergency financial assistance, commonly known as "homelessness prevention," can provide payments for rent, utilities, and other items that prevent a household from losing their home. He stated that the logic for providing the assistance is that keeping a family housed prevents the onset of a tremendous number of other costly and debilitating problems. He noted that Samaritan works with each family to help the individuals review available assistance to prevent further need. Mr. Lowell stated that Samaritan will provide financial and statistical data to the City in order to help the City understand the scope of the issues and the funding requirements. He noted that the initial approximate estimate of the average cost of assistance during a single episode is $1,700. However, he explained that there is a feeling that this is moving quickly to the $2,000 to $3,000 range given rising costs. Councilmember Keighran discussed the homelessness prevention program and asked how it worked and whether assistance could be given two months in a row. Mr. Lowell stated that Samaritan will review the family's financials and help them create a plan. He added that Samaritan's emergency assistance isn't for monthly assistance but rather is a short-term cure. Councilmember Keighran asked if Samaritan would work with the City and if the landlord is brought into the emergency assistance discussions. Mr. Lowell stated that the City could provide additional funding to Samaritan for usage in Burlingame. He explained that Samaritan would make the rental payment directly to the landlord. Mayor Colson asked if Samaritan is part of the City's annual Community Service Funding. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Ortiz voiced his opinion that affordable housing funds should be utilized on creating new units and reaching lower income levels. Mr. Lowell replied that prioritizing new affordable housing construction is critical. Councilmember Ortiz asked if the City utilized affordable housing funds to rehabilitate units and impose deed restrictions, would these units then count towards the City's RHNA numbers. CDD Gardiner explained that he would need to review this as RHNA is usually based on new construction. 11 Burlingame City Council July 1, 2019 Approved Minutes Vice Mayor Beach noted that Mr. Lowell's memorandum states that: "research leads to the conclusion that funding homelessness prevention is the most effective and underfunded area related to affordable housing preservation." She discussed the importance of an emergency assistance program and how it helps to prevent an even larger problem. She explained that an additional benefit of Samaritan is that because it is an established program with a proven record, the City wouldn't need to create its own system. Vice Mayor Beach stated that she believed it was important to also consider preserving existing housing stock. She asked if she was correct that dollar for dollar, whether the City purchases the units or a nonprofit purchases them, you have to purchase the whole thing. Therefore, you might not get as much bang for the buck. Mr. Lowell replied in the affirmative. He explained that if there was $4 million available and the City put in $100,000 per unit, that is 40 new units. However, if the City has to purchase those units at $400,000 each, it is only 10 new units. He noted that in this sense it is the most expensive solution as there is no Federal or County fund to help with this. Vice Mayor Beach discussed the importance of providing below market rate housing as it helps to keep the local critical workforce including teachers, home healthcare aids, and retail workers. She asked if below market rate units are built with tax credits, is the City able to establish a preference for certain critical workforces. Mr. Lowell stated that this is tricky. He explained that under State and Federal law, preferences can't have unintended discriminatory effects. He stated that the City could establish a preference for individuals that live and work in Burlingame. However, if the City began to narrow this preference, for example to individuals that live in a particular neighborhood, the preference could be seen to disadvantage a protected class of people. Vice Mayor Beach asked if the project had Federal tax credits, could the City's preference be for those that live and work in Burlingame. Mr. Lowell replied in the affirmative and added that it is a preference and not a requirement. City Attorney Kane explained that the City needs to be careful that it doesn't inadvertently discriminate against a class of people when creating preferences. She noted that there is a lack of case law on this matter. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he didn't believe the Council would be able to come to decisions on what the principles and processes should be for the City. He discussed the expected $4 million that the City would soon be receiving in commercial linkage fees. He suggested that the Council hold a meeting to determine how best to allocate the $4 million. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he wanted the City to invest the funds in programs that are likely to result in a return/ "recycling" of the funds. He gave the example of a first-time homebuyer's program. He suggested a first-time homebuyer's program for teachers. Councilmember Ortiz asked if an opportunity comes about and the City has not yet received the predicted commercial linkage fee funds, is there a way that the City can borrow funds based on the expected fees. Finance Director Augustine stated that the City would need to establish a policy first. 12 Burlingame City Council July 1, 2019 Approved Minutes Councilmember Keighran stated that she thought it was important for the Council to discuss what the City's short-term and long-term goals are for the affordable housing fund prior to allocating funds. She explained that she agreed with Councilmember Brownrigg that it was important to consider a first-time homebuyer's program as a way to retain teachers. She noted that it was also important for the City to retain healthcare providers, especially because of the large senior citizen population in the county. Councilmember Brownrigg concurred with Councilmember Keighran. He stated that he wanted the Council to discuss the $4 million in terms of percentages. He gave the example of allocating 25% to homelessness prevention. Mayor Colson stated that HEART has a recycling loan program. She explained that the City would lend HEART funds to bridge the gap in an affordable housing project, and later the funds would be returned to the City. Mr. Lowell stated that rehabilitation programs and new construction funding are both structured as loans. Therefore, he explained to Councilmember Brownrigg's point there would be a "recycling" of funds. Mayor Colson stated that she agreed with Mr. Lowell's suggestion that the City should create guiding principles. She added that PCE is undertaking a similar project to Samaritan to assist the public in paying for their utility bill. Vice Mayor Beach asked about utilizing the funds for necessary safety improvements to existing multi -unit buildings in exchange for keeping the existing units at specified affordability levels. Mr. Lowell stated that he would need to get back to Council with more information. Councilmember Ortiz asked that the Council schedule a discussion to review the commercial linkage fees and determine if they should be increased. CDD Gardiner explained that because many cities established commercial linkage fees a few years ago it has been discussed that the nexus study should be revisited. He noted that 21 Elements is gathering interest from municipalities in participating in an updated nexus study, and the City has expressed interest in joining that effort. Vice Mayor Beach noted that nexus fee studies take time and asked if there was room within the current nexus study to increase fees. She agreed with Councilmember Ortiz that a discussion should be scheduled. Mayor Colson asked that staff schedule a discussion on this topic in the fall. Mayor Colson then opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Lucy discussed her experience as a renter in Burlingame and asked the Council to enact renter protections. Burlingame resident Cindy Cornell discussed the need for renter protections and asked for an emergency rent cap. 13 Burlingame City Council July 1, 2019 Approved Minutes Burlingame resident Jack Easterbrook asked the Council to consider individuals that have disabilities and their need for affordable housing assistance. Burlingame resident Tom Payne asked the Council to encourage developers to create in -lieu units instead of paying the fees. Mayor Colson closed public comment. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that when the City was debating residential impact fees, the Council set them high to encourage in -lieu units. Vice Mayor Beach stated that she has heard that even $3 or $4 million can allow for a project to move forward, if land is available. Mr. Lowell replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Beach stated that the City doesn't have to wait until there is $25 million to undertake a project; it could utilize City funds as seed money for a project. Mayor Colson discussed hotel occupancy taxes and how these taxes were being utilized to assist cities with creating affordable housing. She stated that this could be an option in the future for sea level rise and/or affordable housing. She stressed that it was important to continue to allow the thoughtful development of commercial building in the city as it provided for local jobs and was another revenue source for the City. Mayor Colson asked if staff had been provided adequate direction. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. He explained that staff would bring back to Council options for general policy decisions. b. UPDATE ON THE NEW COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad gave an update on the City's Community Center project. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad explained that in order to keep the cost under the requested $50 million, certain items have been removed from the project including: • Reduced extent of concrete seat walls • Removed retaining wall and seat wall around Community Hall lawn • Reduced concrete leaf imprint area (limited to Community Hall) • Reduced extent of glazing • Removed motorized operable windows • Removed selected skylights • Removed elevator #2 • Reduced furniture, fixtures, and equipment budget by reusing existing furniture and equipment where feasible 14 Burlingame City Council July 1, 2019 Approved Minutes