purpose of this memo is to analyze restoring tidal action into the O’Neill Slough. The scope of the project consists of removing the temporary coffer dam at Baffin Street bridge to allow unimpeded tidal flow back into the slough.
Previously, there was a 36-inch culvert at the eastern end of O’Neill Slough that allowed tidal flow into the area, but over the years, the culvert has been crushed due to differential settlement of the underlying bay mud and the pipe has partially filled with sediment. Another culvert may have also existed at the western end of the slough, but remnants of this culvert have not been discovered during recent construction activities. As a result, the tidal flow into O’Neill Slough has been muted (i.e., substantially reduced) due to the damaged culvert pipe(s) blocking the tidal action. A map showing the location of the O’Neill Slough and two pedestrian bridges is provided in Figure 1 below.
Construction for the Baffin Street bridge (bridge to the right) started in July 2021. A temporary sheet pile coffer dam was installed in June 2021 in order to provide a temporary water protection barrier to construct the bridge. The Baffin Street bridge and related work was completed in November 2021. On January 29, 2022, the Contractor removed the temporary sheet pile coffer dam. Water filled the slough and caused concern with adjacent residents in the City of Belmont.
Because this level of tidal action had not been experienced for years (decades), some of the residents perceived the tidal flows from the bay to be flooding. City staff determined it was prudent to reinstall the coffer dam to restrict tidal flows until the City has completed discussions/evaluations of the effects of unimpeded tidal action.
As discussed in this memo, the proposed tidal action restoration of the O’Neill Slough includes removal of the temporary sheet pile coffer dam. This removal of the coffer dam for the purpose of restoring the tidal action would not result in any new or more significant environmental effects beyond those identified in the 2017 Levee FEIR and addenda thereto.
CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15164 FINDINGS
This memo is prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 which states: “The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” Section 15162 specifies that no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for a project unless:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects of a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
6.6 Attachment 1 - Urban Planning Partners Memo Re CEQA Compliance for O’Neill Slough Tidal Action Restoration
399
Francine Magno
September 11, 2023
FIGURE 1 O’NEILL SLOUGH & PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE LOCATIONS
Source: City of Foster City, 2022
6.6 Attachment 1 - Urban Planning Partners Memo Re CEQA Compliance for O’Neill Slough Tidal Action Restoration
400
Francine Magno
September 11, 2023
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative.
Urban Planning Partners reviewed the proposed use and location of the tidal action restoration which includes removal of the temporary coffer dam and based on the analysis in this memo, has concluded that there are no substantial project changes, substantial changes in circumstances, or new information that would result in any new significant effects or any substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect.
Therefore, under CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, no further environmental review is required.
The discussion below provides: (1) an overview of the Levee Protection Planning and Improvements Project and 2017 Levee FEIR, 2020 Addendum #1, and 2021 Addendum #2; (2) a discussion of the project changes resulting from the pedestrian bridges that would allow unimpeded tidal flow back into the slough; and (3) an analysis concluding that the proposed tidal action restoration falls within the scope of the 2017 Levee FEIR and subsequent 2020 and 2021 Addenda and does not require preparation of subsequent or supplemental environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163.
PRIOR PROJECT APPROVALS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Urban Planning Partners and a team of technical experts prepared an EIR for the Levee Protection Planning and Improvements Project. On May 8, 2017, the City Council certified the 2017 Levee FEIR to improve the City’s existing levee system to provide flood protection in accordance with updated Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) guidelines, retain FEMA accreditation for the levee, and protect against future sea level rise. The EIR studied the following two scenarios at an equal level, which would have different ranges of levee elevations/floodwall heights as needed to meet FEMA freeboard requirements and protect against future sea level rise: (1) FEMA Freeboard +
6.6 Attachment 1 - Urban Planning Partners Memo Re CEQA Compliance for O’Neill Slough Tidal Action Restoration
401
Francine Magno
September 11, 2023
15 inches of Sea Level Rise for the Year 2050 (2050 SLR); and (2) FEMA Freeboard + 46 inches of Sea Level Rise for the Year 2100 (2100 SLR).
The 2017 Levee FEIR prepared in accordance with CEQA concluded that, with the exception of two impacts, all project impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the 2017 FEIR’s mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The two significant and unavoidable impacts from the 2017 Levee FEIR are associated with aesthetics and noise and vibration. The increased elevation of the levee would alter the existing visual character and may adversely impact scenic vistas of the San Francisco Bay from Shorebird Park (segment 4) under the two project scenarios (2050 SLR and 2100 SLR) and scenic vistas of the Belmont Hills from Sea Cloud Park (segment 6) under the 2100 SLR project scenario (AES-1). The construction of the project could also result in the exposure of nearby sensitive receptors to temporary noise levels that would conflict with Foster City Municipal Code regulations, and could generate substantial increases in noise levels for intermittent periods when certain construction activities occur (e.g., pile driving) (NOISE-3).
Below is a list of required project permits and approvals obtained from regulatory agencies with permitting jurisdiction over the project:
• United States Army Corps of Engineers – USACE Permit, File No. 2015-00391S, dated January 6, 2020
• San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board – SF RWQCB Amended Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification, CIWQS No. 851477, dated November 26, 2019 • San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission - BCDC Permit, No. 2018.005.00.00, dated December 2, 2019
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA/NMFS ESA Concurrence Letter, File No. WCRO-2018-00327, dated August 28, 2019
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service - USFWS BO, O8FBDT00-2019-F-0036, dated October 2, 2019
• California Department of Fish & Wildlife - CDFW Executed Temporary Entry Permit, dated October 2, 2019
• State Lands Commission - SLC Lease Agreement, File Ref. PRC 9539.9, dated September 10, 2019
A 2020 Addendum #1 was completed on November 11, 2020 to analyze the following modifications to the project construction restrictions, assumptions, phasing, schedule, and staging since certification of the 2017 Levee FEIR:
(1) Bay Trail closure plan allowing closure of contiguous segments in three phases and ultimate closure of the entire Bay Trail;
(2) Modified soil sourcing and hauling assumptions;
(3) Partial closure of Shorebird Park to use as an additional staging area; and (4) Saturday construction activities.
6.6 Attachment 1 - Urban Planning Partners Memo Re CEQA Compliance for O’Neill Slough Tidal Action Restoration
402
Francine Magno
September 11, 2023
The 2020 Addendum #1 concluded that these modifications would not require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 and the proposed changes/modifications would not result in a new or greater impact than those previously analyzed in the certified 2017 Levee FEIR.
A 2021 Addendum #2 was completed on July 30, 2021 to analyze use of a 0.83-acre site for temporary storage and staging of equipment and materials on Caltrans property along East Third Avenue near the intersections of Marsh Drive and Lakeside Drive (“Caltrans Site”). The Caltrans Site would replace the proposed storage/staging area on a portion (about half) of Shorebird Park analyzed in the 2020 Addendum #1. The 2021 Addendum #2 concluded that these modifications would not require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 and the proposed changes/modifications would not result in a new or greater impact than those previously analyzed in the certified 2017 Levee FEIR.
CEQA ANALYSIS
Urban Planning Partners reviewed the BCDC permit mitigation measure to provide unimpeded tidal flow into the O’Neill Slough for the project and found that there: (1) are no substantial project changes, (2) are no substantial changes in the project circumstances, and (3) is no new information of substantial importance which could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence when the 2017 Levee FEIR was certified and that would require major revisions of the certified 2017 Levee FEIR because of a new significant effect or an increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect. Under CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, no further environmental review is required.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subd. (a) provides that the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration (ND) if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR or ND have occurred (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164, subd. (a)).
An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR or ND (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subd. (c)). The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subd. (d)). An agency must also include a brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR or ND pursuant to Section 15162 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subd. (e)).
Each environmental topic assessed under CEQA (Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) and in the 2017 Levee FEIR was considered, including Aesthetics and Shade and Shadow; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Soils, Geology, and Seismicity; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use; Noise and
6.6 Attachment 1 - Urban Planning Partners Memo Re CEQA Compliance for O’Neill Slough Tidal Action Restoration
403
Francine Magno
September 11, 2023
Vibration; Traffic and Transportation; and Recreation, to evaluate the categories in terms of any changed condition (e.g., changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in a changed environmental result (e.g., a new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162).
The MMRP requires the project obtain applicable resources agency permits and approvals and comply with permit requirements regarding water quality (see MM HYD-1a). Restoring tidal flow at the O’Neill Slough as detailed in the 2019 BCDC permit would be required to comply with the 2017 Levee FEIR MMRP along with all the conditions adopted as a part of City Council Resolution 2018-
28. As discussed below, there are no new impacts or more severe impacts not already identified and analyzed in the 2017 Levee FEIR that would result due to project changes, new information, or changed circumstances and therefore, no new or different mitigation measures would be required.
A summary of the assessment prepared for Biological Resources and Hydrology and Water Quality findings is provided below as these were the topics determined to be affected by the proposed tidal action restoration.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The current project site (O’Neill Slough) consists of Pacific Coast Salt Marsh. Vegetation within the Pacific Coast Salt Marsh habitat type is primarily Virginia pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) and cordgrass (Spartina foliosa). These salt marsh habitats provide suitable foraging and nesting habitat for special-status species Ridgway’s rail and salt marsh harvest mouse.
The biological resources impacts of the project are described in Section V.C. of the 2017 Levee FEIR.
The 2017 Levee FEIR did not identify any significant biological impacts related to special-status plant species, two federally listed animal species (Snowy Plover and California Least Tern), or fish species. There were also no significant impacts related to conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. The 2017 Levee FEIR identified four significant impacts related to special-status animal species (Ridgway's rail, California Black Rail, and salt marsh harvest mouse), riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, federal protected wetlands, and substantial interference with fish or wildlife movement, corridors, or nursery sites. Mitigation Measures BIO-1a and 1b , BIO-2, BIO-3, and BIO-4 would mitigate these impacts to a less-than-significant level.
These mitigation measures include measures such as protecting the Ridgway’s rail and salt marsh harvest mouse during construction, preparing a wetland mitigation plan, and implementing water quality controls with Best Management Practices during construction.
According to BCDC Permit No. 2018.005.00, restoring the tidal flow will lower water temperatures, nitrogen levels, and biological oxygen demand and enhance tidal marsh vegetation along the banks, resulting in vegetated connectivity between the adjacent marsh habitat within Belmont
6.6 Attachment 1 - Urban Planning Partners Memo Re CEQA Compliance for O’Neill Slough Tidal Action Restoration
404
Francine Magno
September 11, 2023
Slough. Full tidal connectivity also allows for enhanced carbon import and export and unimpeded movement connectivity of aquatic organisms and wildlife with Belmont Slough and the Bay.
Therefore, removing the temporary sheet pile coffer dam to restore tidal action through Baffin Street bridge would not result in any new or more severe biological resources impacts than what was previously analyzed in the 2017 Levee FEIR.
Hydrology and water quality impacts of the project are described in Section V.H. of the 2017 Levee FEIR. The 2017 Levee FEIR did not identify any significant project hydrology impacts related to groundwater supplies, drainage patterns resulting in erosion/siltation or flooding, runoff or storm drain system capacity, placing housing or structures in flood hazard areas, dam and levee failure, or water quality related to project operation. The 2017 Levee FEIR identified a significant impact of the project on water quality related to project construction and identified Mitigation Measures HYD-1a and HYD-1b which mitigate the impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure HYD-1a includes measures, such as specifying properly-designed centralized storage areas to keep hazardous materials out of the rain, to reduce the risk of spill/releases and disturbed soils from impacting water quality in nearby surface waters during construction activity. Mitigation Measure HYD-1b requires the project contractor(s) to obtain applicable resource agency permits and approvals and comply with permit requirements to prevent impacts to water quality and demonstrate that water quality standards and/or waste discharge requirements are not violated.
The project contractor obtained applicable resource agency permits from BCDC on December 2, 2019 to proceed with construction.
Removal of the temporary coffer dam to restore tidal flow back into the O’Neill Slough would alter the current drainage patterns. Under the current conditions, the rate of tidal flows into O’Neill Slough is blocked due to the sheet pile coffer dam.
As shown in Figure 2, the slopes of the slough are vegetated and restoring the gradual rising and lowering of tidal water levels into the slough would not be expected to increase erosion or siltation.
As shown in Figure 3, the slough and the existing housing developments to the south are included in the FEMA 100-year flood hazard zone with a base elevation of 10 feet North American Vertical Datum (NAVD). With or without tidal restoration within O’Neill Slough, the effective base flood elevation remains 10 feet NAVD. On January 29, 2022, after the O’Neill Slough was restored to full tidal action and equalized in elevation with Belmont Slough, the maximum tide recorded by NOAA at Redwood City was 8.06 feet NAVD. As discussed, the top of the floodwall is at about 10 feet NAVD. Mean Higher High Water is 7 feet NAVD. Under current conditions (with tidal flows impeded), flood waters from a 100-year flood event would spill over the southern embankment of the slough which could cause rapid flooding, erosion, and siltation within the slough. Restoring tidal flows back into the slough would allow flood waters to rise more gradually in the slough to minimize potential erosion and siltation. Restoring tidal flows would not change the amount or course of flooding. Therefore, restoring tidal flow back into the O’Neill Slough would not alter drainage patterns in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding.
6.6 Attachment 1 - Urban Planning Partners Memo Re CEQA Compliance for O’Neill Slough Tidal Action Restoration
405
Francine Magno
September 11, 2023
FIGURE 2 VIEW OF VEGETATED BANKS ALONG O’NEILL SLOUGH
Note: View looking west from the southeast corner of the slough.
Source: Google Earth, 2016. Street View, Imagery Dated December 2016.
FIGURE 3 FEMA 100-YEAR FLOOD HAZARD ZONe
Source: FEMA, 2019. National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map, San Mateo County, California, Panel 167 of 510, Map Number 06081C0167G. Revised April 5.
Removal of the temporary coffer dam to restore tidal flow back into the O’Neill Slough would not adversely affect local groundwater supplies; contribute to runoff or storm drain system capacity;
6.6 Attachment 1 - Urban Planning Partners Memo Re CEQA Compliance for O’Neill Slough Tidal Action Restoration
406
Francine Magno
September 11, 2023
add housing or structures in flood hazards area; contribute to dam and levee failure; or degrade water quality from project construction or operation. Therefore, removing the temporary sheet pile coffer dam to restore tidal action through Baffin Street bridge would not result in any new or more severe hydrology and water quality impacts than what was previously analyzed in the 2017 Levee FEIR.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, removal of the temporary coffer dam at Baffin Street bridge to restore tidal action at the O’Neill Slough would not require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163.
Specifically, there are no substantial changes that would result from providing unimpeded tidal flow back into the O’Neill Slough nor changes in circumstances under which the tidal action restoration will be undertaken, and there is no other relevant new information of substantial importance which will require any major revisions to the 2017 Levee FEIR. Therefore, no further environmental review is required and in considering restoring tidal flow back into the O’Neill Slough as required by the BCDC permit for the Levee project, the City should rely on the previously certified 2017 Levee FEIR and subsequent addenda.
Attachment
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Permit No. 2018.005.00, dated December 2, 2019
6.6 Attachment 1 - Urban Planning Partners Memo Re CEQA Compliance for O’Neill Slough Tidal Action Restoration
407
DATE: September 18, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
FROM: Priscilla Schaus, Communications Director/City Clerk DEPARTMENT: Communications/City Clerk
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS TO THE LEVEE BOND OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council, by Minute Order, appoint two residents and one business member to three-year terms on the Independent Citizen’s Bond Oversight Committee (Levee Bond Oversight Committee) to oversee the use of General Obligation bond funds raised pursuant to Measure P for the Levee Improvements Project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 5, 2018, Foster City voters passed Measure P, authorizing the City to issue General Obligation (G.O) bonds in the amount of $90,000,000 to fund improvements to the City’s levee system. The bond measure promised voters that the expenditure of bond funds would be subject to citizens’ oversight. On December 16, 2019, the City Council adopted bylaws that establish and govern the Levee Bond Oversight Committee charged with monitoring Measure P G.O bond proceed expenditures for the Levee Improvements Project.
The committee consists of three residents and two business member positions. There were 3 terms, two residents and one business, expiring on September 31, 2023 and one additional business position that remained vacant. On July 10, 2023, staff began recruitment to fill the expiring and vacant terms. As of the deadline of August 31, two applications were received from residents, and one application was received from a
6.7 6.7 Staff Report
408
business representative. It is recommended that the City Council appoint the two resident applicants and one business applicant to full terms from October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2026 on the Levee Bond Oversight Committee. City staff would leave the other business representative seat as open until filled, which is similar to a past process in 2022.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The purpose of the Independent Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee for the Levee Improvements Project is to ensure that bond proceeds are expended for their intended purposes. Each year, the Committee is required to submit to the City Council two written reports, summarizing the Committee’s activities and stating whether the expenditures comply with Measure P’s requirements.
The Committee is a five-member body comprised of three citizens and representatives from two businesses located in Foster City. On July 10, 2023, staff began recruitment to fill the resident and business positions with expiring terms, with the application deadline of August 31, 2023. There were two resident and one business member applications received by the deadline, and the applicants were Al De Groot (representing Gilead), Ken Ludlum (resident), and Bhavanishankar Subramaniam (resident). The applications have been attached to this report for City Council's review (Attachment 1). All applicants met the general qualification standards to serve as a Levee Bond Oversight Committee member. For enhanced effectiveness, staff recommends that the City Council also consider Committee appointees with skills and experience in the areas of financial management, construction management, civic engagement, and communication.
Based on the applications submitted, staff recommends appointing Al De Groot (representing Gilead), Ken Ludlum (resident), and Bhavanishankar Subramaniam (resident) to serve full terms from October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2026 on the Levee Bond Oversight Committee. All applicants met the general qualification standards to serve as a Levee Bond Oversight Committee member and Al De Groot was reapplying for a second term and has experience on the committee. Staff further recommends continuing the recruitment for the vacant business representative position on an open-until-filled basis and recommending a business representative following the receipt of application(s).
California Environmental Quality Act
Not Applicable
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
6.7 6.7 Staff Report
409
CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
City Council Operations and Improved Community Engagement ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Committee Applications
6.7 6.7 Staff Report
410
Return completed application forms to:
Communications/City Clerk Department
610 Foster City Boulevard
COMMITTEE/COMMISSION
Application for Appointment
By City Council/Board of Directors
5:00PM Thursday
Foster City, CA 94404
(650) 286-3250 DEADLINE FOR FILING: August 31, 2023
[email protected]
Please type or print in BLACK INK ONLY
For more information visit www fostercity org
Date: September 26, 2023
Committee or Commission for Which Application is Filed:Bond Oversight
Name: Ken Ludlum
Present Street Address: Foster City
E-mail Address
Cell Phone: Home Phone: NA How long have you lived in Foster City? 11 years
What is your occupation? retired
Employer's Name: NA
Employer's Address: NA
Your Present Position: Board member of healthcare corporations Length of Employment: 20+
Self Employed:
Name and Description of Business:
I serve as a Board member of three companies and have served on a dozen boards of medical and biotech companies.
Address: NA
Phone: same
Length of Ownership: NA
Have you ever served on a public board, committee or commission? If yes, please explain:
Yes, see above + two HOA boards and some non-profits
Do you have any relatives presently employed by the city or serving in any official capacity? No
If yes, please give names(s) and relationship:
6.7 Attachment 1 - Committee Applications
411
Please list names of any community organizations or activities to which you belong or in which you have participated, including dates of participation and offices held, if any:
Treasurer Lido Isle HOA board of directors 2022
Treasurer Deer Valley Club HOA board of directors 2006 - 2010 member Hunters Point Boys & Girls Club board in the 1980s
Please list individuals who are well acquainted with your personal and/or professional qualifications
Michael Terner Foster City Edgewater Marine
Name Address Occupation Phone
Mark McNay SF, CA 0 retired banker
Name Address Occupation Phone
Joe Benvinuto Foster City real estate agent
Name Address Occupation Phone
Please state reasons and objectives for desiring to become a member of this committee/commission:
I have been a CFO of medical companies for over 25 years and an investment banker raising money for medical companies through stock and bond offerings for 10 years. So I am very familiar with bonds and their structure, obligations and how they are used to finance projects and companies. Also very familiar with accounting and all aspects of financing and financings. It would be pleasure to help my city that I love with something I am familiar with. My background qualifies me as a "financial expert" according to SEC rules and regulations.
Please note, no attachments to this form will be accepted.
6.7 Attachment 1 - Committee Applications
412
August 29, 2023
12:56 PM
Return completed application forms to:
Communications/City Clerk Department
610 Foster City Boulevard
Foster City, CA 94404
(650) 286-3250
COMMITTEE/COMMISSION
Application for Appointment
By City Council/Board of Directors
DEADLINE FOR FILING:
5:00PM Thursday
August 31, 2023
[email protected]
Please type or print in BLACK INK ONLY
For more information, visit www.fostercity.org
Date: August 29, 2023 Committee or Commission for Which Application is Filed: Levee Bond Oversight Commit
Name: Al De Groot E-mail Address
Present Street Address: Foster City, CA 94404
Cell Phone:
Home Phone: N/A How long have you lived in Foster City? N/A
What is your occupation? Facility Management
Employer's Name:
Gilead Sciences Inc.
Employer's Address: Foster City, CA 94404
Your Present Position: Executive Director
Self Employed:
Length of Employment: 10 yrs
Name and Description of Business: N/A
Address: N/A
Phone: N/A
Length of Ownership: N/A
Have you ever served on a public board, committee or commission?
If yes, please explain:
Yes
I am currently serving as Vice-Chair of the active City of Foster City Levee Bond Oversight Committee. I am currently serving as Chair of the Vintage Park Community Association (VPCA). I have previously served as a Director on the Foster City Chamber of Commerce BOD and as a Director on the BOD for the Emeryville Transportation Management Association
Do you have any relatives presently employed by the city or serving in any official capacity? No
If yes, please give names(s) and relationship:
N/A
6.7 Attachment 1 - Committee Applications
413
Please list names of any community organizations or activities to which you belong or in which you have participated, including dates of participation and offices held, if any:
_Foster City Chamber of Commerce -_Director (BOD) - 2018 - 2023
_Foster City Business Leadership Council (BLC) Co-Chair 2018 - 2023 _City of Foster City Levee Bond Oversight Committee (LBOC) Vice Chair 2020 - 2023
Please list individuals who are well acquainted with your personal and/or professional qualifications
Cliff Barry Visa - Corp. Real Estate
Name
Joanne Bohigian
Address Occupation
Business Consultant
Phone
Name
George Fanourgiakis
Address Occupation
Business Owner - Penelope's
Phone
Name Address Occupation Phone
Please state reasons and objectives for desiring to become a member of this committee/commission:
My chief objective is to continue serving on this esteemed committee in order to complete the obligations set out for this committee - to ensure proper oversight of the levee bond funds.
Additionally:
- Gilead Sciences remains an active member of the Foster City Community and is keenly interested in understanding, supporting and investing in the long term safety of our residents and businesses. Gilead views this project as benefiting all aspects of our community and was a strong supporter of this project during the vote on the project.
- Gilead Sciences owns and operates property that is very near to the levee and could potentially be directly impacted by the execution of this investment project.
- Given my background in large capital infrastructure operations and reinvestment projects, I believe I can contribute to the viability and success of this project, and to this committee.
Please reach out to me should you have any questions regarding this application.
Please note, no attachments to this form will be accepted.
6.7 Attachment 1 - Committee Applications
414
August 31, 2023
2:31 PM
Return completed application forms to:
Communications/City Clerk Department
610 Foster City Boulevard
Foster City, CA 94404
(650) 286-3250
COMMITTEE/COMMISSION
Application for Appointment
By City Council/Board of Directors
DEADLINE FOR FILING:
5:00PM Thursday
August 31, 2023
[email protected]
Please type or print in BLACK INK ONLY
For more information visit www fostercity org
Date: 8/30/2023 Committee or Commission for Which Application is Filed:Levee Bond Oversight Committ Name: Bhavanishankar Subramaniam E-mail Address
Present Street Addr ess: Foster Cit y, CA 94404
Cell Phone: Home Phone: How long have you lived in Foster City? 8 1/2 Yrs.
What is your occupation? Business Executive
Employer's Name: Serta Simmons Bedding LLC
Employer's Address: Dorav ille, GA 30360
Your Present Position: Chief Supply Chain Officer Length of Employment: 2 1/2 Yrs.
Self Employed:
Name and Description of Business:
Address:
Length of Ownership:
Have you ever served on a public board, committee or commission? If yes, please explain:
Phone:
No
Do you have
any relatives presently employed by the city or serving in any official capacity? No If yes, please give names(s) and relationship:
6.7 Attachment 1 - Committee Applications
415
Please list names of any community organizations or activities to which you belong or in which you have participated, including dates of participation and offices held, if any:
Parivaar
AID India
Please list individuals who are well acquainted with your personal and/or professional qualifications
Aruna Raghuram Foster City Sales and Operations Plan
Name Address Occupation Phone
Palu Dedhia Foster City Market Research Director
Name Address Occupation Phone
Julie Wheeler Foster City Teacher
Name Address Occupation Phone
Please state reasons and objectives for desiring to become a member of this committee/commission:
My family (wife and 2 kids) has been living in Foster City for over 8 years. We are blessed to be part of a friendly, welcoming and helpful community. One of my favorite activities is walking and biking along the Bay Trail along with my wife and children, and this experience has been enhanced after the construction of the levee.
I am a senior business executive with finance, operations and leadership experience in companies such as Amazon, Walmart and Starbucks managing large P&Ls (> $500M) and teams (> 3000 associates). I have also been an advisor to startups, and have mentored MBA students and executives. I have a strong understanding of finance, budgeting and audit, and have worked closely with multiple stakeholders, including employees, accountants, auditors, Board of Directors and the communities in which we operate.
My reasons for becoming a member of the Levee Bond Oversight Committee are:
1. I would like to be more involved in and give back to our community
2. Leverage my experience and expertise to provide oversight of the Levee Bond
3. Represent the community's perspectives and ensure the best use of our tax dollars
Please note, no attachments to this form will be accepted.
6.7 Attachment 1 - Committee Applications
416
4 5
0 DATE: September 18, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
President and Members of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) Board of Directors
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City/District Manager
FROM: Edmund Suen, Finance Director
Waqas Hassan, Assistant Finance Director
DEPARTMENT: Finance
SUBJECT: FOSTER CITY FOUNDATION FUND ANNUAL REPORT OF
FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the City Council/EMID Board of Directors (City Council), by Minute Order, receive and accept the Foster City Foundation Fund's annual report of financial activities for Fiscal Year 2022-23.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS
From time to time, the City/District receives donations/sponsorships from individuals or organizations. Such monies are held in the Foster City Foundation Fund. As stipulated in the City’s Donation Policy, the Finance Department shall issue an annual report summarizing the financial activities of the Foster City Foundation Fund. As a result, the financial activities of the Foster City Foundation Fund for Fiscal Year 2022-23 is provided in Attachment 1 and summarized below.
Total Receipts: $42,818.00
Total Disbursements, including credit card fees: $48,106.83 California Environmental Quality Act
6.8 6.8 Staff Report
417
4 5
0 Not Applicable
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact on the City Council's receipt and acceptance of this report.
CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Staff Empowerment and Operational Excellence
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Summary of Foster City Foundation Fund (as of June 30, 2023)
6.8 6.8 Staff Report
418
SUMMARY OF FOSTER CITY FOUNDATION FUND
As of Jun 30, 2023
Credit Card
Fiscal Year Department Donation Designation Revenues Expense Fees Balance 22/23 Park & Rec Arts and Culture 1,000.00 1,000.00
22/23 Park & Rec Bench 7,000.00 8,710.26 (1,710.26)
22/23 Park & Rec Bike Ride 290.00 1.25 288.75
22/23 Park & Rec Ceramics 695.00 (695.00)
22/23 Park & Rec Concert 20,100.00 21,287.29 124.62 (1,311.91) 22/23 Park & Rec Family Overnighter 40.00 1.25 38.75 22/23 Park & Rec FC Teen Center 10,258.00 7,120.62 14.94 3,122.44 22/23 Park & Rec 4th of July 1,390.00 12.11 1,377.89 22/23 Park & Rec Halloween Festival 840.00 13.61 826.39 22/23 Park & Rec Holiday Tree Lighting 840.00 1.25 838.75 22/23 Park & Rec Veterans Honor Walls 750.00 72.98 677.02 Total Park & Rec 42,508.00 37,886.15 169.03 4,452.82 -
22/23 Police Citizen's Police Academy -
22/23 Police Youth Outreach/GREAT -
22/23 Police Explorer 572.50 (572.50)
22/23 Police PD-Unrestricted 310.00 8,499.15 (8,189.15) 22/23 Police FC Adopt-A-Unit -
Total Police 310.00 9,071.65 - (8,761.65)
22/23 PW PW-Unrestricted 980.00 (980.00)
Total PW - 980.00 - (980.00)
Total FY 22/23 42,818.00 47,937.80 169.03 (5,288.83) ATTACHMENT 1
6.8 Attachment 1 - Summary of Foster City Foundation Fund (as of June 30, 2023)
419
SUMMARY OF FOSTER CITY FOUNDATION FUND
As of Jun 30, 2023
Credit Card
Fiscal Year Department Donation Designation Revenues Expense Fees Balance As of 06/30/23 Park & Rec Arts and Culture 22,697.66 17,211.68 - 5,485.98 As of 06/30/23 Park & Rec Bench 166,276.64 67,620.17 945.00 97,711.47 As of 06/30/23 Park & Rec Bike Ride 540.00 - 1.25 538.75 As of 06/30/23 Park & Rec Building Maintenance 10,775.36 6,268.53 128.26 4,378.57 As of 06/30/23 Park & Rec Ceramics 695.00 695.00 - - As of 06/30/23 Park & Rec Community Events 500.00 - - 500.00 As of 06/30/23 Park & Rec Concert 237,104.03 192,104.09 1,810.17 43,189.77 As of 06/30/23 Park & Rec Dog Park 4,171.00 4,000.00 - 171.00 As of 06/30/23 Park & Rec East Third Ave 179,765.49 179,765.49 - - As of 06/30/23 Park & Rec Family Overnighter 390.00 - 12.11 377.89 As of 06/30/23 Park & Rec FC Teen Center 168,034.26 51,687.98 74.43 116,271.85 As of 06/30/23 Park & Rec 4th of July 88,320.11 21,171.52 942.83 66,205.76 As of 06/30/23 Park & Rec Halloween Festival 12,813.00 5,360.89 54.47 7,397.64 As of 06/30/23 Park & Rec Holiday Tree Lighting 1,671.48 224.70 1.25 1,445.53 As of 06/30/23 Park & Rec Neighbor Nights 2,077.46 - 30.00 2,047.46 As of 06/30/23 Park & Rec Parks Maintenance 87,143.00 81,851.50 - 5,291.50 As of 06/30/23 Park & Rec Pickleball Court 530.00 - - 530.00 As of 06/30/23 Park & Rec Senior Bus Program 32,500.00 30,000.00 - 2,500.00 As of 06/30/23 Park & Rec Senior Express Bus Replacement 8,000.00 - - 8,000.00 As of 06/30/23 Park & Rec Senior Program 8,716.00 4,706.71 0.60 4,008.69 As of 06/30/23 Park & Rec Shade Structure @ Shorebird Park 30,000.00 30,000.00 - - As of 06/30/23 Park & Rec Synthetic Turf 908,805.05 908,805.05 - (0.00) As of 06/30/23 Park & Rec Table Tennis Equipment 2,650.00 2,550.00 - 100.00 As of 06/30/23 Park & Rec Tennis Court 47,482.29 26,432.29 - 21,050.00 As of 06/30/23 Park & Rec Veteran Honor Walls 51,672.76 48,319.50 388.50 2,964.76 Total Park & Rec 2,073,330.59 1,678,775.10 4,388.87 390,166.62 As of 06/30/23 Police Citizen's Police Academy 300.00 300.00 - - As of 06/30/23 Police Youth Outreach/GREAT 7,690.94 5,371.62 - 2,319.32 As of 06/30/23 Police Explorer 14,000.00 4,589.33 - 9,410.67 As of 06/30/23 Police PD-Unrestricted 93,416.34 85,621.24 - 7,795.10 As of 06/30/23 Police FC Adopt-A-Unit 500.00 500.00 - - Total Police 115,907.28 96,382.19 - 19,525.09 As of 06/30/23 Fire Non-CERT 2,600.73 - - 2,600.73 Total Fire 2,600.73 - - 2,600.73 As of 06/30/23 PW PW-Unrestricted 2,250.00 1,980.00 - 270.00 Total PW 2,250.00 1,980.00 - 270.00 As of 06/30/23 FCTV FCTV Programs 400.00 - - 400.00 Total FCTV 400.00 - - 400.00 As of 06/30/23 HR Employee Appreciation Event 7,502.50 7,502.50 - - Total Employee Appreciation 7,502.50 7,502.50 - - Grand Total as of 06/30/2023 2,201,991.10 1,784,639.79 4,388.87 412,962.44
6.8 Attachment 1 - Summary of Foster City Foundation Fund (as of June 30, 2023)
420
4 4
2 DATE: September 18, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
FROM: Tracy Avelar, Police Chief
DEPARTMENT: Police
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT "BIKE SAFETY IN SAN MATEO COUNTY: MAKING
BICYCLING SAFER IN THE COUNTY"
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council, by Minute Order, approve a response letter to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report titled “Bike Safety in San Mateo County:
Making Bicycling Safer in the County,” and authorize the Mayor to transmit the response letter.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The SMC Civil Grand Jury completed a 2002-2003 study titled, “Bike Safety in San Mateo County”. Using collected data, the SMC Civil Grand Jury concluded improvements were needed throughout the county concerning bicycle infrastructure and required funding, communication and planning between the County and municipalities specific to bicycle safety improvements, and the development of long- term strategic bicycle and safety plans throughout the county.
In 2023, bike safety within San Mateo County was again researched by the SMC Civil Grand Jury. The gathered data along with the SMC Civil Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations pertaining to this topic was released in their most recent report titled, “Bike Safety in San Mateo County: Making Bicycling Safer in the County,” released July 10, 2023. In this report, improvements made by the County and municipalities within the county pertaining to bicycle safety, education and accessibility were acknowledged.
6.9 6.9 Staff Report
421
4 4
2 The 2023 report focuses on the need for the County and municipalities to make further improvements toward increased bicycle safety. Highlighted in the report data and referenced in the report findings and recommendations is the SMC Civil Grand Jury’s position on several aspects of bicycle safety, which include but are not limited to the following:
•Lack of consistency throughout the county regarding approach to bicycle safety •Underreporting of collisions and incidents involving bicyclists •Minimal communication between relevant agencies in County and municipalities regarding shared efforts toward improving bicycle safety •Inconsistent enforcement of laws applicable to bicyclists and interactions with motorists
•Lacking interest in bicycling as a means of commuting due to safety concerns •Need for increased methods of educating the public on bicycle safety, reporting incidents, and sharing information throughout the county in a regional effort to increase bicycle safety
•Need for methods of measuring bicycle related information, such as collisions, incidents, and the overall status of the County’s and each municipality’s bicycle friendliness as well as improvements as they are made
On July 10, 2023, the SMC Civil Grand Jury released a report on bicycle safety, titled “Bike Safety in San Mateo County: Making Bicycling Safer in the County.” The Council has already received this report, which is included (Attachment 1). The report summarizes the Grand Jury’s assessment of the status of bicycle safety related topics throughout all San Mateo County municipalities and the County. The report also includes several findings and recommendations, with responses requested from each jurisdiction. City staff have prepared a proposed response letter for City Council to review, which addresses all respective findings and recommendations.
Proposed Response to Recommendations
The SMC Civil Grand Jury made nine (9) findings and seven (7) recommendations in its report and requested a response from each jurisdiction in San Mateo County, including Foster City. The report requires that the City of Foster City responds to each finding made by the Grand Jury, expressing either the City’s agreement or disagreement (wholly or partially). The City’s response must also address each of the Grand Jury’s recommendations by specifically indicating whether each recommended action has been implemented, is planned for implementation, requires further analysis, or will not be implemented. City staff has prepared proposed responses contained in an attached letter now presented for City Council’s review and approval (Attachment 2). The responses are due no later than October 10, 2023.
6.9 6.9 Staff Report
422
4 4
2 CONCLUSION
With City Council direction, City Staff will complete and submit the City’s response to the SMC Civil Grand Jury report no later than October 10, 2023, as directed by the SMC Civil Grand Jury in its transmittal letter dated July 10, 2023.
California Environmental Quality Act
Not Applicable
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with responding to the SMC Civil Grand Jury.
CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Smart Planning, Development, and the Local Economy
Facilities and Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:
•Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report – “Bike Safety in San Mateo County: Making Bicycling Safer in the County”
•Attachment 2 - Proposed Draft Response Letter
6.9 6.9 Staff Report
423
Bike Safety in San Mateo County
Making Bicycling Safer in the County
Release Date: July 10, 2023
2022-23 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
424
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 1
“Biking is one of the few activities that checks all the boxes at once — it’s active, practical, social, sustainable, stress-relieving, fun, and is a great family activity. Biking has the unique ability to elevate the mundane — it turns errands into adventures. More people on bikes keeps our streets safer, our air cleaner and our communities better connected.” Sonia Elkes, 2021 Bike Champion of the Year for San Mateo County Bay Area Bike to Work Website
“I often drive up Alpine Road near the Stanford golf course and I believe I would have a head-on crash with oncoming cars if I left a 3-foot margin between my car and the thoughtless bikers who ride out partially in the road. What is the best advice for that situation?” Comment on Bicyclists Can Now Report 3’ Rule Violations Online in The Almanac 5/12/2023.
“On the afternoon of Monday, April 10, bicyclist Lester Legarda was fatally struck by a driver on Cañada Road, a rural route popular among walkers, equestrians, and bicyclists. Details of the crash scene suggest that the collision speed was high. One solution to prevent future tragedies along Cañada is tantalizingly simple — reduce the 50-mph speed limit. Sure, drivers will likely continue to exceed the speed limit. But just like the paint on the road that defines where drivers are supposed to drive, posted speed limits set expectations for acceptable driver behavior.” Reduce the speed limit on Canada Road San Mateo Daily Journal 04/20/23.
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
425
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 2
Bike Safety in San Mateo County: Making Bicycling Safer in the County
ISSUE
As bicycle riding has become an ever more meaningful form of transportation, especially with the popularization of eBikes, the demand by County residents for safe micro-mobility solutions has soared. Are San Mateo County and its municipalities positioned to respond to safety concerns and meet those demands?
SUMMARY
Whether for commuting or recreational purposes, residents in every jurisdiction of San Mateo County (SMC), as well as from the surrounding Bay Area counties, use bicycles. Because bicycles are widely available, for some the only mode of getting to and from work and jobs, and ridden in every jurisdiction, bicycle safety has become an increasingly important issue for SMC and its cities and towns. Without greater focus on bike safety, the number of riders will remain low, because people will avoid bicycling when they don’t feel safe. The benefits of increasing bicycle riding are important to all residents of San Mateo County: reducing motor vehicles, healthy lifestyle and an inexpensive form of transportation. Accordingly, San Mateo County, and its cities and towns have a responsibility to make it safe for drivers and pedestrians, as well as bicyclists.
Due to differences in terrain, population density, and existing infrastructure, the 20 different municipalities and the unincorporated portions of the County have differing bicycle safety needs and requirements. Some cities are very hilly, making commuting to work, school, or transit stations nearly impossible. Others are more urban and accommodate many more commuting bicyclists. The County also has some areas that are primarily recreational biking destinations and areas that accommodate both commuting bicyclists and recreational bicyclists. As a result, each community also assigns a different level of importance to bicycle safety relative to other issues, such as crime, motor vehicle safety and public works improvement projects. And education and enforcement about bicycle laws varies from one jurisdiction to another.
Despite the differences among the jurisdictions, there are several commonalities. One is that cities and law enforcement do not consistently maintain records about bicycle near misses, accidents, or complaints; data is neither broadly available nor consistently maintained. Another commonality is that government entities focused on bicycling and/or improving bicycle safety do not communicate and collaborate with each other often enough, if at all. This makes it difficult to get accurate information on the number and severity of incidents and gauge how safe it is to bicycle in San Mateo County. Without data, and communication among the municipalities, San Mateo County and its cities and towns lose out on available state and local funding to improve bicycle safety through physical improvement projects.
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
426
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 3
To improve bicycle safety and thereby increase ridership, San Mateo County and its cities and towns need to:
1. Create effective ways to educate bicycle riders and motorists about bicycle rules of the road to enhance predictability.
2. Develop consistent communications among government organizations responsible for bike safety (e.g., between law enforcement and public works).
3. Conduct enforcement details in each jurisdiction to ensure enforcement leads to education.
4. Collect accurate data about accidents and incidents that is crucial to supporting and justifying grant applications and funding from State and local agencies for physical improvements to infrastructure for bicyclists (e.g., connectivity of bicycle routes from one city to another), needed signage, and other engineering improvements.
BACKGROUND
Why is bike safety an important topic?
Statistically, the safer a person feels riding a bike, the more likely they will use it as regular transportation; both as a commuter and a recreational user.
Fifty-three percent of Americans worry about being hit by a motor vehicle when riding a bicycle; 47% say they would be more likely to ride a bike if pathways were physically separated from motor vehicles.1
However, bicycle accident statistics, though better than in 1998, averaged 231 fatalities and injuries over the last ten years. The average was 203 fatalities the last three years, but the drop includes the pandemic shutdown and more people working from home. The source of the recent data is the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS2) database, managed by the California Highway Patrol. All law enforcement agencies are required to submit accident data to the database on a regular basis.
A 2002-2003 SMC Civil Grand Jury titled, Bike Safety in San Mateo County3, questioned whether San Mateo County and the cities adequately consider and support safe bicycle travel? At that time, it was estimated that 46% of Americans bicycle for pleasure and 300,000 County residents bicycle at least occasionally. Commuting by bicycle was less than 1% in the County.
That year’s Grand Jury found that bicycle infrastructure for safe travel needed improvement, but funding was an issue. It also found that communication and planning between the county and the cities on bicycle projects and safety could be improved. And that throughout SMC, bicycle safety was not a high priority. The primary recommendation of the report was the county, and all cities should develop a long-term strategic bicycle and safety plan.
1 People for Bikes: https://www.peopleforbikes.org/news/building-for-tomorrow 2 https://iswitrs.chp.ca.gov/Reports/jsp/logout.do
3 https://www.sanmateocourt.org/court_divisions/grand_jury/2002reports.php?page=02SMC -Bicycle.html
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
427
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 4
A few things have changed since then.
Over the years, the focus of cities and the county on improving bike and pedestrian forms of transportation has increased:
● Bicycle maps and routes are now generally available online. ● The City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) updated their San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan in 20114 and 20215. ● California enacted Assembly Bill 1358, California Complete Streets Act of 20086, requiring all cities and counties to include complete streets policies as part of any substantial revision to the circulation element of their general plans; and cities and the County have adopted these complete streets policies, noting these policies in their Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans, or Active Transportation Plans. ● SMC and most of its municipalities have created and consistently upgraded their Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans.
● Unincorporated San Mateo County has created an Active Transportation Plan7 (Active Transportation is a term often used to cover walking, bicycling, and other motorized devices as a primary mode of transportation).
● C/CAG, Unincorporated SMC and some cities have created Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committees to address active transportation improvements, safety issues, and other citizen related requests.
Meanwhile, the number of bicyclists in San Mateo County has not increased since 2002, according to the California Household Travel Survey, which is regularly used for data on the number of bicyclists in a community, but is restricted to commuting.
The 2002 and 2012 surveys showed only 1% of SMC’s population rides bicycles as a form of transportation. Looking at the various municipalities’ Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans, and the surveys and counts discussed in the plans, bicycle commute ridership still hovers at approximately 1% within SMC.
It is important to note that the number of people in SMC using bicycles in lieu of a car has not increased in 20 years. This is in contrast to the estimated number of recreational bicyclists (46%) in SMC, who also use streets and bicycle paths and expect a safe ride8.
4 https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/CBPP_Main-Report__Sept2011_FINAL.pdf 5https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/6_A1_San-Mateo-County-Comprehensive-Bicycle-and- Pedestrian-Plan-Update-Final-Plan.pdf
6 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1351-1400/ab_1358_bill_20080930_chaptered.pdf 7https://www.smcsustainability.org/livable-communities/active-transportation/unincorporated-smc-active- transportation-plan/
8https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/6_A1_San-Mateo-County-Comprehensive-Bicycle-and- Pedestrian-Plan-Update-Final-Plan.pdf
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
428
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 5
However, even with roadway and signage improvements over the past 20 years, there is much San Mateo cities and the county can do to improve bicycle safety.
DISCUSSION
The merits of bicycle riding may seem self-evident, but a wide range of research reveals often surprising benefits to local economies, personal health, the environment, traffic congestion, and pedestrian safety that are unique to bicycle friendly communities.
Health Benefits
Bicycle riding contributes to both physical and mental health. Regular exercise such as cycling can help prevent heart issues9 such as stroke, heart attack, high blood pressure, and may also help prevent and manage type 2 diabetes.10 Riding a bicycle is good for cognitive health and emotional well-being and can ease feelings of stress, depression, or anxiety.11
All in all, bicycling for only 30 minutes a day reduces a person’s chances of diabetes, dementia, depression, colon cancer, cardiovascular disease, anxiety and high blood pressure by 40 percent or more.12
The World Health Organization has found that “If every adult EU citizen walked or cycled for 15 extra minutes per day, we’d have 100,000 fewer people dying prematurely, each year.”13 Environmental Benefits
Among the most obvious benefits of cycling is its benign effects on the environment. A solo driver in an average car releases about 1.1 pounds of CO2 per mile.14 A standard compact to midsize car that travels 12,000 miles will emit 11,000 pounds of CO2.15 The average car produces about 1.3 billion cubic yards of polluted air over the course of its lifespan plus worn tire particles, brake wear, and the emissions from other materials in the car also contribute to air pollution.16 Recent research in Europe found that traveling by bicycle instead of by car once a day decreases your transportation carbon footprint by 67%.17
9 https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/exercise-and-the-heart 10 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4942105/ 11https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/minding-the-body/201505/bicycling-can-sharpen-your-thinking-and-improve-your- mood
12 https://www.exerciseismedicine.org/assets/page_documents/EIMFactSheet_2014.pdf 13 https://ecf.com/news-and-events/news/walking-and-cycling-reduce-congestion 14 https://www.sharetheroad.ca/what-are-the-environmental-traffic-congestion-benefits-of-cycling--s16223 15 https://www.treehugger.com/cars-are-causing-air-pollution-we-breathe-new-study-finds-4856825 16 https://www.scholaradvisor.com/essay-examples-for-college/bicycle-helps-reduce-air-pollution/ 17 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920921000687
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
429
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 6
Traffic
As active transportation choices like walking and bicycling gain attention and popularity, researchers are beginning to investigate the role these travel modes can play in reducing traffic congestion.18 Studies show that measures taken to promote bicycling and walking have a positive effect on congestion.
Research in Washington, DC identified a causal effect of the presence of a bike-share station on traffic congestion. The result is a 2-to-3% reduction in traffic congestion that can be attributed to the bike-share station within the sample.19
Economic Benefits
Among the more surprising findings is the positive economic impact from an increase in bicycle usage but studies show that the bicycle-related economy creates jobs, economic activity, and cost savings.20
Bicycle trails and facilities have a positive, statistically significant impact on home values; a 2006 study in Minneapolis found that the median home values rose $510 for every quarter mile they were located closer to an off-street bikeway.21
Indianapolis’ Cultural Trail, an 8-mile network of separated bike and pedestrian lanes, has reinvigorated a number of struggling business districts and sparked a whopping $1 billion in increased property values.22
And in an era when streets and sidewalks across the county are in various states of disrepair, bicycle projects can significantly reduce the cost of maintaining and expanding our transportation systems.23 Even protected bicycle lanes are “dirt cheap to build compared to road projects,” says Gabe Klein, a partner at Fontinalis, a venture capitalist firm founded by Ford Motor Co. Chairman Bill Ford. Cities everywhere need to be more efficient about the money they spend to move people. "We need to get more use from the streets we already have.” Research indicates that investments in cycling infrastructure generate more jobs per dollar spent than investments in road-only infrastructure; cycling projects create a total of 11.4 local jobs for each $1 million spent while road-only projects create 9.6 jobs per $1 million.24
18 https://kawarthanow.com/2019/01/17/reduce-traffic-congestion-bikes-can-do-that 19 https://www.resources.org/archives/commentary-does-bicycle-infrastructure-reduce-traffic-congestion/ 20 https://railyards.com/blog/7-benefits-of-bike-friendly-communities 21 https://smartcity.press/bicycle-infrastructure-in-smart-city/ 22 https://indyculturaltrail.org/2015/07/23/economic-impact-figures-released/ 23https://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/getting-around/info-2016/why-bicycling-infrastructure-is-good-for-people-who- dont-ride-bikes.html
24 https://www.sharetheroad.ca/what-are-the-environmental-traffic-congestion-benefits-of-cycling--s16223
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
430
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 7
Bicycle friendly communities are important to millennial job seekers and functional bicycle infrastructures help companies attract talent. “States and cities are competing for the most mobile generation ever and so the job creators and the innovators are really pushing for these amenities.”25
Safety
The most comprehensive study of bicycle and road safety to date finds that building safe facilities for cyclists is one of the biggest factors in road safety for everyone. Bicycling infrastructure -- specifically, separated and protected bike lanes -- leads to fewer fatalities and better road-safety outcomes for all road users.26
Davis, CA was the first city to gain “platinum” status by the League of American Bicyclists and is often referred to as the “bicycle capital of America.” From 1996 to 2007, Davis only had nine fatal road crashes. Despite having the largest percentage of bike commuters in the United States, none of these accidents involved a bicyclist. With a fatal crash rate of less than 1.5 per 100,000 residents, far fewer people are killed on Davis’ roads than in the U.S. as a whole, which averaged
14.5 fatalities per 100,000 residents.
Portland, OR, another platinum bicycling city, saw a nearly 50% decrease in road fatalities as it increased its bicycle mode share from 1.2% in 1990 to 5.8% in 2000. Bike friendly communities are safer for all road users, no matter what type of transportation is being used.
Social Benefits
Finally, bicycle riding as an alternative to car travel is associated with a number of social benefits, including increased social interaction, social networks, and social capital.27 A bicycle rider has a completely different relationship with their environment than those who are cocooned in their cars.
When communities invest in bicycle infrastructure, everyone benefits. Overall, bicycle commuters are healthier and bicycle-friendly streets are safer for everyone on the road. Bicycle friendly communities reap economic benefits including more retail activity and increased home values. The evidence is clear: bicycling brings big benefits to communities who embrace it.
Status Today
Twenty years after the first San Mateo Grand Jury report, significant gaps remain in jurisdictions’ approach to bicycle safety:
25 https://railyards.com/blog/7-benefits-of-bike-friendly-communities
26 https://www.cnu.org/sites/default/files/marshallw_cnu18.pdf 27 https://www.peoplepoweredmovement.org/benefits-of-biking-walking/
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
431
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 8
● San Mateo County and its municipalities’ characteristics make it difficult to create a consistent approach to bicycle safety.
● The use of bicycle safety education as a tool to increase safety for bicyclists and motorists is underutilized Countywide.
● Communication and coordinated planning across city lines is the exception, rather than the norm. Reporting of bicycle-related incidents is inconsistent throughout the county. ● Enforcement of bicycle laws, for motorists and bicyclists, is inconsistent and not prioritized.
Bicycle Safety in San Mateo County Cities
Each city and town in San Mateo County is unique and has a different relationship with bicycle use and safety. These variations include:
● Topography
● Objectives and priorities re bicycles and ridership ● Safety Perception
● Infrastructure
● Impact of eBikes
● Role of enforcement in bicycle safety.
For example:
Woodside and Portola Valley: Woodside and Portola Valley are hill communities with narrow roads. Woodside has a very active Circulation Committee which keeps a close eye on large bicycling events in the community and Portola Valley is focused on managing bicyclists on the weekend. But in both cases, the communities concentrate on ensuring quality of life for residents. They both see mostly recreational bicyclists.
Woodside has invested as much as $1 million to ensure a “safe route to school” for the children. However, the communities don’t make a strong effort to track riders or accidents. In both communities the Sheriff’s Office, which is their policing arm, enforces rules at some problem locations, but not regularly.
Hillsborough: Hillsborough is a relatively insular community by nature of its location and topography. It has no commercial districts and is, to a large degree, rather hilly. The view on bicyclists is very much a neighborhood view: meaning the expectation is that if there are problems with bicyclists they are brought up by members of the neighborhoods.
The primary focus on any kind of organized bicycling safety activity is efforts to teach children bicycle safety and safe routes to school at the beginning of the school year.
Belmont: Until quite recently, the City has been completely focused on ensuring that the community is comfortable for single family dwellings. However, areas close to El Camino Real are more commercial and have denser housing. The community now has both recreational and commuting bicyclists using the roads. While Belmont does have a bicycle master plan and holds an annual bike safety program for children and teenagers,
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
432
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 9
more needs to be done. The City needs to obtain funding from external Federal, State and County sources to do more.
Half Moon Bay: Possibly more than any other community in San Mateo County, Half Moon Bay has a sophisticated, complex relationship with bicyclists. On the one hand, Half Moon Bay attracts many visitors -- both vacationers and visitors from other Bay Area communities; and on the other hand, it has a robust population of residents who use their bicycles to get to work, school, and stores. Moreover, while Half Moon Bay has many surface streets, it is dominated by Highways 1 and 92 which have many challenging safety issues. As a result, the community has a bicycle master plan that focuses on bicycle safety and traffic planning. Despite this very proactive approach, the City deals with sometimes devastating safety issues. However, it appears that concern for bicycle safety is shared by many of the participants in the community.
San Mateo: The City of San Mateo updated its bicycle master plan in 2020. As a result, the City has focused on a variety of contemporaneous issues. These include working to develop a roadway network which could accommodate both bicycles and other types of active transportation. The City believes that it still skews toward recreational bicycling but is finding that more people want to use bicycles as a way of getting around. The master plan covers some education issues such as safe routes to school and safe bicycling for seniors. The plan does not talk about safety per se but addresses it from the vantage point of education. Though the City is focused on these matters it still recognizes that there's more education to be done about the rules of the road for bicyclists.
Unincorporated San Mateo County: Large areas of San Mateo County are small towns, private land, and open space, bisected, primarily, by two lane roads and highways. To address bicycle safety in these areas, the county created the Unincorporated San Mateo County Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee. Though there is no explicit Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, they do contribute to the SMC Active Transportation plan. The Committee makes recommendations regarding bicycle and pedestrian related grants, but expressed frustration with money not being shared equitably. Additionally, the Committee inputs bicyclist’s feedback. They are concerned with the number of incidents between motorists and bicyclists that are not addressed by law enforcement. The Committee has been working with the County Sheriff to address the problem.
These are just a few examples of San Mateo County and its municipalities' approach to bicycle safety. But because the communities are so diverse, thinking about bicycle safety needs to be broad-minded.
Bicycle Safety Education in SMC: Not just for cyclists
Since bicycle safety is crucial to encouraging bicycle usage, it follows that bicycle safety education is an essential component of the bicycle safety equation.
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
433
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 10
According to the US Department of Transportation: “Educating people about safe bicycling and walking, enforcing laws that make it easier and safer for people to bicycle and walk, and encouraging people to bicycle and walk, may help increase walking and bicycling activity, especially when combined with infrastructure improvements.”28 Moreover, as noted on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Bicycle Safety web page, “A large percentage of crashes can be avoided if motorists and cyclists follow the rules of the road and watch out for each other.”29
In San Mateo County, much of the focus on bicycle safety and bicycle safety education is focused on ensuring safe routes to schools for children. Several communities, as detailed below, have much more comprehensive approaches to bicycle safety education in their Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans. Here are some examples:
● Burlingame (Excerpt from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan) Policy 11: Educate people walking, bicycling, and driving, and the general public about roadway safety and the benefits of bicycling and walking.
11.1: Support the continuation and expansion of bicycle safety education programs such as those taught by Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition and the San Mateo County Office of Education.
Policy 12: Encourage Burlingame public schools to participate in the Safe Routes to School program organized by the San Mateo County Office of Education.
● Brisbane’s Master Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan examples:
“Policy 4.A.5: Provide support for programs that educate drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians about their rights and responsibilities, as well as traffic education and safety programs for adults and youth.”
“Programs support bicycling and walking by providing encouragement to those considering bicycling and walking, education for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians about safe and appropriate sharing of streets and roads, and enforcement of traffic laws that help ensure the safety of vulnerable road users.”
● County Sheriff:
The San Mateo County Sheriff’s office publishes a pamphlet, Bicycle Safety30, on the California Vehicle Code sections related to bicycle safety. One City, Woodside, references this document, which could be used by all cities, schools and police
28 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_focus/docs/fhwasa17050.pdf 29 https://www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety/bicycle-safety
30 https://www.woodsidetown.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community/page/33495/bicycle_safety.pdf
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
434
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 11
departments to improve bicycle safety education. However, the document is not available on the SMC Sheriff website.
● City of San Mateo:
San Mateo has some support for bicycle use and safety on its City website. The pages are listed in the table below.
EXISTING
Support Program Description Webpage
Bicycle Webpage There is brief text about bike
routes and using a bike with
public transport on the City’s
webpage
http://www/cityofsanmateo.org/
2125/Parking-and-
Transportation
Bicycle Education
Events
The city’s Public Works
Department hosts an annual
bike rodeo
http://www.cityofsanmateo.org/
3736/Bike-Rodeo
Moving to Excellent Bike Safety Education in all SMC Cities
Overall, the approach to bicycle safety education in SMC communities is inconsistent. Several of the master plans recognize that bicycle safety education is about teaching motorists and cyclists of all ages about the guidelines for bicycle safety. Other communities either don’t focus much on education or are focused exclusively on “Safe Routes to School”.
Nonetheless, there are a handful of programs identified in the table below that creatively address bicycle safety, which San Mateo County and its municipalities should consider adopting.
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
435
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 12
RECOMMENDED FOR ALL SMC CITIES
Support Program Description Webpage
Establish child and
adult education
programs
Identify and implement
education programs for
children and adults that build
bicyclists’ confidence, done
in coordination with the Parks
and Recreation Department,
Police or Local Schools.
https://www.portlandoregon.go
v/transportation/article/565224
http://www/cityofsanmateo.org/
2125/Parking-and-
Transportation
Establish Safe
Routes to School
Funding
Establish a stable funding
source for Safe Routes to
School programming
https://www.metro.net/projects/
sr_ts/fund-your-program
Implement and
promote
demonstration
projects
Implement short-term, high-
visibility bicycle
demonstration or ‘pop-up’
projects to serve as models
that can be applied throughout
the city. Market bicycle
safety.
https://transportation.bellevuew
a.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server
_4779004/File/Transportation/P
ublications/PBII_Demo%20Bik
eway%20Brochure_20180205.
pdf
Provide safety
education program
for users of all
modes
Provide safety education
programs or communications
campaigns for people driving,
bicycling, walking, and using
micro mobility devices that
encourage safe travel
behaviors.
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/
Create a robust
bicycling webpage
Develop and maintain a
content rich mobility
webpage(s) on the
County/City website and
communicate how to reach
city destinations by bike, on
foot or on micro-mobility
devices. Include information
on these transportation
options.
https://www.metro.net/riding/g
o-bike
http://www/cityofsanmateo.org/
2125/Parking-and-
Transportation
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
436
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 13
Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plans and Advisory Committees: Planning Across the County The 2002 SMC Grand Jury Report recommended that all municipalities create Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans. As a best practice, the municipalities were encouraged to form Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committees.
To date, almost all San Mateo County jurisdictions or cities have Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans, or Active Transportation Plans. Most, if not all of these plans, align with recommendations from the 2011 C/CAG’s San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The 2021 update of C/CAG’s plan enhances and adds to the 2011 C/CAG San Mateo County plan, but most of the cities and towns have not updated their plans to be consistent with the 2021 plan. (See Appendix D for a complete list of San Mateo County’s Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plans.)
The cities’ bicycle and pedestrian master plans help each city by identifying strategies to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety. The plans recommend improvements for roadway connectivity for bicyclists and pedestrians, within each city as well as with neighboring cities.
Numerous plans reference the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition and the League of American Bicyclists (LAB) as organizations that have certified instructors for bicycle safety education. At least several of the plans also discuss the LAB Bicycle Friendly Community Report Card to which five SMC cities and San Mateo County belong. The plans list potential State and Federal funding for projects that improve safety and roadway connectivity and make clear the importance of annually evaluating and tracking progress against objectives.
However, in SMC, County committees and municipalities do not always work together to generate consistent plans that meet C/CAG’s goal for a Countywide bicycle backbone. Though C/CAG does have an advisory committee which includes representatives from municipalities, it does not have control over what individual municipalities decide to do regarding grant applications, infrastructure projects for better bicycle and pedestrian safety and education initiatives. If the municipalities endeavored to work together to prioritize projects and programs that are consistent with C/CAG’s priorities, it would benefit all of San Mateo County, especially with respect to providing north-south connectivity between municipalities.
Metrics: If you don’t measure it, you can’t improve it.
One important measure of bicycle safety is arriving safely at a destination. This is usually reflected in the negative; that is, the number of fatalities and injuries during a calendar year versus the number of successful bicycle trips.
In San Mateo County, the cities and county rely heavily on data supplied to the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to state the number of fatalities and injuries. The CHP then maintains a database, SWITRS (California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System), which is accessible
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
437
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 14
to the public. And, UC Berkeley maintains a website, TIMS31 (Transportation Injury Mapping System), which can further refine the raw data from SWITRS.
However, relying on this data to evaluate Bicycle Safety is problematic.
Law enforcement agencies in the County submit their bicycle accident data to SWITRS based on incidents that result in fatality or injury. However, there are bicycle accidents resulting in injury which don’t make it into SWITRS because law enforcement is not called. Some examples are bicyclists being forced off the road by motor vehicles, collision near misses and, of course, bicyclist error. Consequently, the actual number of bicycle accidents is underreported and, more importantly, the list of accident locations is not complete. Cyclists that have an incident that does not involve either the police or the fire department do not have a consistent means to log their experience. That data goes unreported. And this goes both ways; there is no means for a motorist to complain about bicycle riders’ unsafe behavior.
Countywide there is no uniform metric to measure Bicycle Safety. Without such a measure, it’s impossible to assess progress while building infrastructure, enforcing laws, and educating everyone in safety principles.
An obvious metric is bicycle accidents as recorded by SWTRS and online reports, but there is another metric which evaluates the complex equation that results in safe bicycling: Bicycle Friendly America Certification32.
The League of American Cyclists is a national organization dedicated to creating “safer roads, stronger communities and a Bicycle Friendly America for everyone.” This is a grassroots organization dedicated since 1880 to protecting the right to safe and enjoyable bicycling. A valuable achievement of this organization is establishing the Bicycle Friendly America (BFA) certification for cities and counties. This consists of a very detailed application33 that a city or county official fills out to get a comprehensive rating of bicycle safety. BFA defines bicycle safety using 5 E’s:
● Equity and Accessibility: A bicycle-friendly America for everyone ● Engineering: Creating safe and creative places to ride and park ● Education: Giving people of all ages and abilities the skills and confidence to ride ● Encouragement: Creating a strong bike culture that welcomes and celebrates bicycling ● Evaluation and Planning: Planning for bicycling as a safe and viable transportation option [Note that Enforcement, a common element in the 5 E’s of safety, is not included in the BFA definition.]
31https://tims.berkeley.edu/summary.php?showArea=city&expandTables=false&injury=3&yearRange=3&showMap =crashes
32 https://bikeleague.org/bfa/
33 https://bicyclefriendly.secure-platform.com/a/organizations/main/home
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
438
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 15
The application covers the BFA 5 E’s and investigates what it calls the 10 building blocks of a Bicycle Friendly Community (BFC). Finally, the rating includes steps to reaching the next level of excellence. Oakland in 2022, for example, received a GOLD rating Report Card34 having been BRONZE in 2010 and SILVER in 2014. The following cities and SMC have received the following ratings:
● Menlo Park35: GOLD: 2017
● Redwood City36: BRONZE: 2016
● San Carlos37: BRONZE: 2016
● San Mateo38: BRONZE: 2016
● South San Francisco39: BRONZE: 2018
● San Mateo County40: BRONZE: 2016
The BFC Report Card is a valuable metric that all cities and the County should make use of. If SMC cities develop the information necessary to answer objective and comprehensive questions about bicycle safety, each jurisdiction would have a consistent metric that can be used to measure bicycle safety progress across the County.
Law Enforcement and Bicycle Safety
Laws regarding the operation of bicycles are in the California Vehicle Code (CVC), but in general, bicycles are governed by the same rules of the road as motor vehicles.
SMC law enforcement organizations are concerned that there is currently no way for them to track bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicle accidents, from near misses to actual contact, that did not require police involvement. And, even if an incident or infraction is reported, an officer may or may not go out to speak with the complainant.
Other than the initial report, there is no single repository in SMC to store and retrieve information regarding bicycle-related citations or enforcement of bicycle law so it can be used in the future.
And perhaps most importantly, the enforcement of laws, regarding motorists and bicyclists, is inconsistent due to competing priorities and the requirement that a citation requires an incident be witnessed by an officer.
34 https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bfareportcards/BFC_Fall_2022_ReportCard_Oakland_CA.pdf 35 https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bfareportcards/BFC_Fall_2017_ReportCard_Menlo_Park_CA.pdf 36 https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bfareportcards/BFC_Spring_2016_ReportCard_Redwood_City_CA.pdf 37 https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bfareportcards/BFC_Fall_2016_ReportCard_San_Carlos_CA.pdf 38 https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bfareportcards/BFC_Fall_2016_ReportCard_San_Mateo_CA.pdf 39https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bfareportcards/BFC_Fall_2018_ReportCard_South_San_Francisco_CA.p df
40https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bfareportcards/BFC_Spring_2016_ReportCard_San_Mateo_County_CA.p df
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
439
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 16
Conflicting Priorities
Law enforcement prioritizes assets based on the needs of the community, as well as their operating budget, when it comes to providing services. While public and political prioritization of bicycle safety issues may come up from time to time, calls for service are always prioritized.
This results in minimal officer resources dedicated to bicycle safety.
Police forces will:
● Focus resources or staff on bicycle safety, if there is an uptick in accidents at a particular location, citizen requests/calls, or requests from a jurisdiction’s public works or traffic departments to focus on certain locations; or
● Provide teams to schools and special events for bicycle safety education ● Much less often, assign their police officers to bicycle safety duty exclusively (some police departments do have officers that patrol on bicycles).
In addition, law enforcement agencies do not always enforce eBike laws, but this is mostly due to the popularity of eBikes being ahead of law enforcement policies.
Because of these conflicting priorities, and limited staff, enforcement of bicycle laws pertaining to motorists as well as bicyclists appears to be underreported.
Policing Bicycles and eBikes
Law enforcement departments in the county are very aware of the importance of bicycle safety.
Common sense says people generally want the streets to be safe for motor vehicles which translates to most officer resources going to motor vehicle enforcement.
It’s possible that safer bicycle riding could lead to fewer cars and free up police resources for more pressing issues.
The New 3’ Law for Motorists and Bicycles
In January 2023, California amended the California Vehicle Code (CVC). The new law (AB. 1909) requires all motorists to give a bicyclist three feet of clearance when passing on the left- hand side of the bicyclist or (depending on the width of the road) reduce speed appropriately, when passing. (See CVC: 21750 (b) (c) (d)). This is particularly crucial on narrow two-lane roads where there are many reports of bicyclists being forced off the road or hit by motor vehicles.
Hampering the situation is the requirement that a citation can only be written if the incident is witnessed by the officer. With the advent of helmet-worn cameras, cyclists have attempted to record these incidents with the hope that the recording can be used as “visual evidence”. But this evidence, post incident, cannot be used to issue a citation.
The San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department recently announced it will allow the public to submit these incidents on the Sheriff’s website.41 These reports have since resulted in the
41https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/05/12/bicyclists-can-now-report-3-foot-rule-violations-online-in-san- mateo-county
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
440
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 17
department sending a violation letter to the offending motorist; this is not a citation. However, only incidents that occur in unincorporated San Mateo County, Woodside, Portola Valley, San Carlos, Half Moon Bay, and Millbrae can use this online resource.
Citations vs. Reprimands for Education Purposes:
It is at the officer’s discretion, when addressing a law infraction, to issue a citation or give a reprimand. One advantage of a reprimand is that it creates an opportunity to educate. With officers focusing on education, these brief encounters, cumulatively, can do a lot to improve bicycle safety, for bicyclists and motorists. But only if these reprimand stops are recorded officially can an accurate picture of bicycle safety be established.
FINDINGS
F1. Bicycle policy and the approach to ensuring/improving bicycle safety is not consistent across San Mateo County due, at least in part, to:
a. Topography
b. Urban vs. suburban environments
c. Types of bicyclists (commuter, recreational)
d. Varying levels of enforcement of bicycle laws
e. Differing knowledge of bicycle laws and safe practices.
F2. Bicycle ridership as an alternative means of transportation (e.g., commuting to work, school, or transit hubs, running errands) is not increasing due, at least in part, to perceived safety issues.
F3. Bicycle accidents and incidents (such as near misses) are underreported, if reported at all.
F4. Only bicycle accidents or incidents that trigger a 911 call are consistently logged in the State (SWITRS) database and law enforcement agencies do not log bicycle accident data consistently.
F5. The amount of enforcement of laws, as they pertain to bicyclists and how motorists and bicyclists interact, is inconsistent due to other priorities (e.g., criminal enforcement and general automobile traffic) and the requirement that a citation can generally only be written if the violation is witnessed by an officer.
F6. There is no official metric in San Mateo County and its cities to evaluate how safe it is to ride a bicycle.
F7. Bicycle safety education, for the bicyclist, pedestrians and motorists, is not consistently offered across San Mateo County.
F8. Communication between various entities with responsibility for bicycle safety, including Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committees (BPACs), Law Enforcement, City Transportation Planning, and Public Works departments, is not formalized, resulting in inefficiencies, and missed opportunities (e.g., funding for improvements, shared bike safety education, or improving signage).
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
441
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 18
F9. City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans or Active Transportation Plans, have not been adopted/created by all SMC cities.
RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. By December 2023, all law enforcement agencies and the County Sheriff should submit bicycle related data to SWITRS monthly, and regularly post and update their websites with all reported bicycle accident data.
R2. By December 2023, all law enforcement agencies should begin sending warning letters to motorists for violations of the 3 ft. law.
R3. By June 3, 2024, all law enforcement agencies should provide a means for citizens to report bicycle-related incidents that are not currently reported to law enforcement, similar to the SMC Sheriff’s Department Online Crime Reporting portal.
R4. By June 3, 2024 each city, town, and unincorporated SMC should offer a bike safety education program for riders and motorists about the laws and safety facts related to bicycles on the road.
R5. By June 3, 2024, each city, town, and unincorporated SMC should update or generate a new Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (or Active Transportation Plan) if their current plan is older than five years; consistent with the 2021 C/CAG San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
R6. By June 3, 2024, each city, town, and the county should apply (or reapply) online to generate the Bicycle Friendly Community Report Card.
R7. By February 1, 2024, the County should meet with cities within the County that are willing to participate, to consider establishing a regional effort that integrates the cities’ bicycle plans and to discuss how the cities and County could work together to apply for grant opportunities as a region.
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, County Sheriff and all 20 cities and towns’ governing bodies for each Finding and Recommendation.
The governing bodies should be aware that their comments or responses must be conducted subject to the Brown Act's notice, agenda, and open meeting requirements.
RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS
California Penal Code Section 933.05, provides (emphasis added):
(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following:
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
442
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 19
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding; in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons, therefore.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation, therefore.
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
443
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 20
METHODOLOGY
The Grand Jury used a variety of tools to obtain information regarding bicycle riding and safety in San Mateo County:
● Documents: The Bike and Pedestrian Master Plans that cities use to explain approaches to planning, prioritizing projects, and re-engineering their communities to make riding and walking easier and safer. These documents came with a variety of titles:
o Bike and Pedestrian Master Plans
o Active Transportation Plans
o Micro-Mobility Plans
o Transportation Plans
● Internet: Almost all the historical and current information (including the availability of documents) regarding bicycle safety came from internet searches. Information from those searches was verified.
● Survey: The Grand Jury sent a survey in December 2022 using Google Forms to understand whether the cities believe eBikes were an issue in their communities. The results helped in defining the broader issue of bicycle safety. o The survey questions and results are in Appendix A.
o Participants: The survey was sent to all the cities in SMC and, specifically, the City Managers. Many chose to have the chief of police of their city fill out the survey. Two cities did not respond to the survey.
● Interviews: The survey helped the Grand Jury develop a list of individuals for interviews. The questions for the interview came as a result of the investigation’s pivot to the state of bicycle safety in San Mateo County as a general topic. o Participants:
▪ Cities: Belmont, Daly City, Half Moon Bay, Hillsborough, Pacifica, Portola Valley, San Mateo, Woodside
▪ Unincorporated San Mateo County
▪ Police Departments: Burlingame, Foster City, Hillsborough, Redwood City, South San Francisco
▪ Sheriff of SMC
▪ BPACs: CCAG, Unincorporated SMC
▪ CyclistVideoEvidence.com: Craig Davis
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
444
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 21
GLOSSARY
3 ft. Rule – Motorists must yield at least 3 feet between their vehicle and a bicyclist on all roadways. This rule was amended by State legislation through Assembly Bill 1909, approved by the Governor in 2022, and commencing January 2024. Additionally, this bill requires a vehicle that is passing or overtaking a vehicle to move over to an adjacent lane of traffic, as specified, if one is available, before passing or overtaking the bicycle.
Active Transportation - A means of getting around that is powered by human energy, primarily walking and bicycling.
BFA – Bike Friendly America. A program sponsored by the League of American Bicyclists to evaluate communities with respect to their support for bicycling. As of December 2022, 501 communities are certified.
BFC – Bike Friendly Community. A Bike Friendly Awards Report Card that is given to a community that applies for a ranking (i.e., Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum).
BPAC – Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
CATSIP – California Active Transportation Safety Information Pages. An online resource for improving pedestrian and bicycle safety in California. This site is administered by UC Berkeley Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC)42. Funding for this program was provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety43, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
C/CAG – City County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Bicycle Roadways
● Bike paths (Class I): also termed shared-use or multi-use paths, are paved rights-of-way for exclusive use by bicyclists, pedestrians and those using non-motorized modes of travel. They are physically separated from vehicular traffic and can be constructed in roadway rights-of-way or exclusive rights-of-way. Bike paths provide critical connections in the city where roadways are absent or are not conducive to bicycle travel. ● Bike lanes (Class II): are defined by pavement striping and signage used to allocate a portion of a roadway for exclusive or preferential bicycle travel. Bike lanes are one-way facilities on either side of a roadway. Whenever possible, bike lanes should be enhanced with treatments that improve safety and connectivity by addressing site-specific issues, such as additional warning or wayfinding signage.
● Bike routes (Class III): provide shared use with motor vehicle traffic within the same travel lane. Designated by signs, bike routes provide continuity to other bike facilities or designate preferred routes through corridors with high demand. Whenever possible, bike
42 http://safetrec.berkeley.edu/
43 http://www.ots.ca.gov/
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
445
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 22
routes should be enhanced with treatments that improve safety and connectivity, such as the use of "Sharrows" or shared lane markings to delineate the road as a shared-use facility.
● Cycle tracks (Class IV): Also referred to as protected bikeways, are exclusive bike facilities that combine the user experience of a separated path with the on-street infrastructure of a conventional bike lane. A cycle track is physically separated from motor traffic and distinct from the sidewalk. The separation may be in the form of posts, parked cars or a combination of both.
eBike – motorized bicycle that comes in three different classes:
● Class I: Bicycle equipped with a motor that aids only when pedaling and ceases when 20 mph is reached.
● Class II: Same capability as a Class 1 eBike with a throttle-actuated motor. No pedaling required when operated with the throttle.
● Class III: Bicycle equipped with a motor that aids only when pedaling and ceases when 28 mph is reached.
GJ – Grand Jury
MTC – Metropolitan Transportation Commission is the transportation planning, financing, and coordinating agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area.
SHARROW – Sharrows are pavement markings that have been installed on city streets to provide guidance for both bicyclists and vehicles on roadways when sharing the road.
SMC ATP: San Mateo County Active Transportation Plan is a comprehensive framework to guide the development of active transportation projects and programs for walking, bicycling, and other forms of human powered movement for people of all ages and abilities throughout unincorporated County communities.
SWITRS – California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System.
TIMS – Transportation Injury Mapping System developed by the Safe Transportation Research & Education Center at the University of California, Berkeley.
TR-INST Form – Notice to Appear form used by law enforcement for law infractions.
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
446
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 23
APPENDIX A: Bicycle Safety Best Practices
Bicycle Education Best Practices
There are two excellent examples of California communities that are investing in Bike Safety education: Davis and San Diego.
San Diego Bike Coalition:
This is an excellent reference tool to see all the kinds of bicycle safety education that can be offered and the resources that can be used to teach those courses. Again, the classes range from those for a variety of ages of bicyclists, basic bicycling, bicycle friendly motorist safety, and others.
https://sdbikecoalition.org/our-work/education/
Davis, California:
The City of Davis, CA, which is one of the leading bicycle communities in the US, has several pages of information about bike safety education on its website. https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/public-works-engineering-and-transportation/bike- pedestrian-program
Two Cities Committed to Bicycling: Portland, Oregon and Davis, California Portland and Davis have become famous for their commitment to supporting bicycling, not only as recreational, but also as a true commuter alternative to motor vehicles and public transportation. Both have received the Platinum rating for a Bicycle Friendly Community from The League of American Bicyclists, while being quite different communities.
Portland is a large city of 622,000 residents with similar topography to the linked San Mateo County cities along El Camino Real: hilly and flat lands, urban centers, urban neighborhoods, suburbia, and major freeways. Portland advertises itself as “Bicycle Friendly” and claimed the highest percentage of bike commuters in US large cities in 2019 at 6% (Portland does annual bike ride census counts). Portland started investing in bicycle infrastructure with the acceptance of the 1973 Portland Bike Plan and the formation of a Bicycle Advisory Committee within the City Transportation Department. Since then, it has created:
● 385 miles of bikeways
● 36 miles of protected bike lanes
● A pedestrian and bicycle only bridge over the Willamette River and protected bike lanes on other bridges
● Intersections with bicycle specific traffic signals
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
447
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 24
● Bicycle boxes44 at intersections to raise the visibility for motorists turning right ● A Safe Routes for Schools serving 100 schools
● 6500 bike racks to meet increased demand for safe stow of bicycles ● 3 bicycle plans over 40 years that establish policy, goals and a bikeway network ● $60 M spent to 2008 on bicycle infrastructure (one mile of installed freeway costs $60M)
Portland’s safety record is very good for a large city: 4.3% of all traffic injury accidents from 2015-2019 are bicycle related. In comparison, San Francisco’s number is 14% for the same period. Portland also does better than San Mateo County (8%) and a representative city, Redwood City (10%).
Davis in California is a small city between San Francisco and Sacramento with a population of 66,800. It has earned a nationwide reputation for supporting bicycles in its community (there is a bicycle on the city logo). The topography of Davis could not be flatter and more conducive to bicycle riding. The current statistics indicate that 20% of Davis’s population commutes on bicycles. In 1967, Davis was the first community in the US to develop dedicated bicycle lanes (a total of 4!). The origins of this project were a couple that had visited the Netherlands, often cited as the most bicycle friendly nation in the world. They were so impressed with the bicycle infrastructure that they started a grassroots movement in Davis to promote safe bicycle riding.
The group had to overcome CA law that did not support bike lanes on city streets, but once the law was revised, Davis proceeded to create bicycle infrastructure throughout the City:
● 63 miles of pathways
● 102 miles of bike lanes
● 75% of roads have a posted speed limit of 25 mph
● Of the 169 miles in the road network, 140 miles of roads are posted at 25 mph or less., 21 miles of roads are posted at between 25 mph and 35 mph, and 8 miles of roads posted over 35 mph
● 1 mile of bicycle boulevards
● 1 mile of cycle track
● 4 miles of buffered bike lanes
● 4,300 bike racks within the City and over 2,000 bike racks downtown ● 25 grade separated crossings. Four overpasses and 21 underpass crossings. Grade- separated crossings are used to move people on bikes and pedestrians over and under barriers like railroad tracks, busy roads, and the freeway.
Davis’s bicycle accidents with injury (and fatalities) are high for a city of its size. However, the number of total accidents with injury is also very low compared to cities of comparable size. For
44 https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/intersection-treatments/bike-boxes/
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
448
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 25
example: in 2019 there were 60 bicycle accidents with injury and 221 total vehicle injury accidents resulting in 27% of all vehicular accidents involving a bicycle. Redwood City’s number is 4.8%, but their number of bicycle commuters is less than 1%. If you look at the percentage of accidents with respect to the biking population for 2019, Davis’s percentage is .4% and Redwood City’s percentage is 2.4%. Davis’s safety statistics are very good, given the number of bicycle riders.
Both Portland and Davis are renowned environments for bicycle riders because they committed early to bicycle infrastructure and consistently improved it over the years. The city government and the school systems actively support bicycle education. Both cities conduct counts to determine bicycle use. They are both advocates of the Vision Zero policy to reduce accidents and fatalities. They use the Bicycle Friendly Community evaluation process to assess their progress towards their bicycle plans and goals.
Disclosure: Portland, beginning in 2020, noted a decline in bicycle commuter percentages.
Thinking it was an aberration of the pandemic shutdown, it continued to do annual bike counts.
As of 2022, its percentage had gone down to 3.1%. The current theory of why there has been a decline is assumed to be the increase of work from home. Regardless, Portland continues to make improvements to its bicycle infrastructure and safety.
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
449
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 26
APPENDIX B: San Mateo County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan List
Jurisdiction Year Name of Report Link to Report
Atherton Jul 2014 Town of Atherton Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan
https://www.ci.atherton.ca.us/Docume
ntCenter/View/1381/Atherton-
BPMP_Proposed-Final-July-
2014?bidId=
Belmont Nov 2016 City of Belmont
Comprehensive Pedestrian &
Bicycle Plan
https://www.belmont.gov/home/show
publisheddocument/14951/636179086
799900000
Brisbane Feb 2017 Brisbane Pedestrian and
Bicycle Master Plan
https://www.brisbaneca.org/sites/defa
ult/files/fileattachments/public_works/
page/149/bikepedmasterplanappendic
es.pdf
Burlingame Dec 2020 City of Burlingame Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan
https://www.burlingame.org/business
_detail_T54_R154.php
Colma Feb 2021 Colma El Camino Real
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Improvement Plan
https://www.colma.ca.gov/documents/
ecr-improvement-plan/
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
450
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 27
Jurisdiction Year Name of Report Link to Report
Daly City Feb 2020 Walk Bike Daly City; City of
Daly City Pedestrian and
Bicycle Master Plan 2020
https://dalycity.org/1106/Daly-City-
Pedestrian-and-Bicycle-Master-
East Palo Alto Oct 2017 2017 East Palo Alto Bicycle
Transportation Plan
https://www.cityofepa.org/sites/defaul
t/files/fileattachments/planning/page/2
801/reso_4905_adopting_2017_bicycl
e_transportation_plan.pdf
Half Moon Bay Sep 2019 City of Half Moon Bay
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan
https://www.half-moon-
bay.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/224
3/Bicycle-and-Pedestrian-Master-
Plan-Final?bidId=
Menlo Park Nov 2020 City of Menlo Park
Transportation Master Plan
https://beta.menlopark.org/Governme
nt/Departments/Public-
Works/Transportation-
Division/Bicycling
Millbrae 2021/2022 City of Millbrae Active
Transportation Plan
https://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/home/sh
owpublisheddocument/25807/637787
902014030000
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
451
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 28
Jurisdiction Year Name of Report Link to Report
Pacifica Feb 2020 City of Pacifica Bicycle &
Pedestrian Master Plan
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/depart
ments/public-
works/engineering/bicycle-pedestrian-
master-plan
Redwood City July 2018 Redwood City Moves, A
Comprehensive Assessment
of Transportation with
Redwood City
San Bruno Jul 2016 City of San Bruno Walk 'n
Bike Plan
https://sanbruno.ca.gov/DocumentCen
ter/View/1733/Adopted-San-Bruno-
Walk-n-Bike-Plan-PDF
San Carlos Jun 2020 City of San Carlos Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan
Final
https://www.cityofsancarlos.org/home
/showpublisheddocument/8139/63815
5282314370000
San Mateo Apr 2020 San Mateo Bicycle Master
Plan April 2020 Final
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/Docu
mentCenter/View/85445/2020-Bike-
Master-Plan_Final_Updated-
62021?bidId=
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
452
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 29
Jurisdiction Year Name of Report Link to Report
South San
Francisco
Mar 2022 Active South City: South San
Francisco's Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan Draft
https://activesouthcity.com/wp-
content/uploads/2022/03/SSF-
ActiveSouthCity_PublicDraft_31Mar
ch2022_plan_only.pdf
San Mateo
County
2021
2021 C/CAG San Mateo
County Comprehensive
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2021/06/San-Mateo-
County-Comprehensive-Bicycle-and-
Pedestrian-Plan-Update-Final-
Plan.pdf
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
453
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 30
APPENDIX C: Survey Questions and Results
This is a summary of the responses:
1. Cities and law enforcement do not track bicycle and eBike accident statistics separately; in fact, most respondents did not track eBike specific data at all (94%).
2. Complaints on Class I Bicycle Roadways include speeding and not yielding to pedestrians.
3. Complaints on Class II and III Bicycle Roadways include speeding, improper signaling, mixed use of bikes/eBikes and violation of the 3 ft. Rule.
4. Of 361 citations issued, only 11 were specifically for eBikes. It is impossible to know if there were more eBikes in violation as there is no requirement to ID the type of bicycle when filling out the form.
5. Class 3 eBikes are more powerful machines and have specific laws regarding usage. Only 50% of the respondents were enforcing the Class 3 eBike laws.
6. Complaints and incidents regarding bicycles (from riders or others) come mostly through police reports, but also from input to City Halls, Redwood City’s “app”, city planning, parks and recreation.
7. 1/3 respondents said there has been an increase in complaints regarding bicycles in the last three years (speeding, underage use, reckless behavior, vehicular code).
8. 2/3 of respondents said there had not been an increase in complaints regarding eBikes and 25% said they didn’t know.
9. Civilian bicycle complaints are generally not available to the public (over 50% of respondents).
10. 44% of respondents said they don’t provide bicycle safety education.
11. Enforcement of bicycle-related law is done where appropriate, with discretionary authority. Effort is made to educate at the time of the infraction. Additional enforcement is budget driven.
12. Future planning for the regulation of bicycles and eBikes varies greatly in the responses (see Question II-16 in Appendix A).
List of responses to questions (on the next page):
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
454
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 31
Number of bicycle accidents in 2022? 212
Number of bicycle accidents in 2020 to the end of 2021? 307
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
455
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 32
How many Bicycle citations were issued in the last year? 361 How many eBike Citations were issued in the last year? 0 [Comments: this information is not tracked]
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
456
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 33
If you are enforcing bicycle/eBike law, how is it accomplished? ● Nothing too specific. Enforcement during routine patrol if violations are witnessed. The PD has done a few details and targeted patrols in our downtown area specifically looking for bicycle violations (riding on sidewalks, helmet violations, reckless behavior, etc.). ● The Police Department enforces all laws as appropriate and with necessary and legal discretionary authority.
● Education and Enforcement
● All officers are trained to enforce Vehicle Code and Municipal Code law on bicycles and eBikes.
● On view and by complaint.
● On view and calls for service which result in Education or Enforcement. ● Traffic enforcement resulting in citations and/or verbal warnings/ education to the public. ● Through proactive patrols, directed enforcement and calls for service. ● Most bicycle stops are made for violations occurring on roadways, not on trails or sidewalks. Most bike stops result in education and not citations as evidenced by our low citation numbers.
● Primarily through education and warnings.
● We have not enforced the Bicycle/eBike law because we have not received any comments to date that have triggered the Police Department to enforce.
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
457
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 34
● By Sheriff patrol.
● We can’t enforce much because of limitations in light of funding and staffing needs
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
458
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 35
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
459
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 36
Does your city/town have any future plans regarding the regulation of bicycles and eBikes? ● Not at this time.
● Yes. Additional and improved bike lanes.
● Policies in the newly adopted General Plan supporting alternative modes of transportation, including bikes.
● Awaiting the results of the County-wide eBike pilot to determine best practices to implement.
● Not at this time.
● Not at this time. There have not been complaints/concerns regarding eBikes. ● Not at this time.
● Not that I am aware of.
● No, unless we start receiving complaints.
● Yes, The City of South San Francisco's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. ● No
● As the Town begins to understand various micro-mobility issues going forward, eBikes being part of that growth pattern, we will plan to prepare plans and outreach material to help educate the bike populations on eBike protocols and safety. ● With the growing development, more bike facilities are being provided for the general public. Public outreach and programs to help educate both current/new users are currently
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
460
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 37
being implemented citywide. Buildout of Bike & Pedestrian master plan is underway.
Alameda de Las Pulgas and Ralston 4 designs are underway. Creation of a transportation master plan is also underway. Parks & Recreation Department is developing a Master Plan that also includes implementation of eBikes policies on open space trails. ● Yes
● Nothing specific regulatory changes planned at this time. ● City is currently drafting ordinance language to address the increasing number of electric mobility devices that are present on trails and paths. Many conversations have occurred at BPAC and council (among other committees and commissions) and will continue in 2024.
6.9 Attachment 1 - Grand Jury Report - Bike Safety in San Mateo County Making Bicycling Safer in the County
461
1 1
4 8
August 15, 2023
Honorable Nancy L. Fineman
Judge of the Superior Court
c/o Bianca Fasuescu
Hall of Justice
400 County Center; 2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063-1655
RE: Response of the Foster City Police Department to the Grand Jury Report “Bike Safety in San Mateo County – Making Bicycling Safer in the County.” Honorable Nancy L. Fineman;
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above referenced Grand Jury Report filed on July 10, 2023. The City of Foster City’s response to the findings and recommendations are detailed below.
Responses to Grand Jury Findings:
F1. Bicycle policy and the approach to ensuring/improving bicycle safety is not consistent across San Mateo County due, at least in part, to:
a. Topography
b. Urban vs. suburban environments
c. Types of bicyclists (commuter, recreational)
d. Varying levels of enforcement of bicycle laws
e. Differing knowledge of bicycle laws and safe practices. •Response to F1:
The City of Foster City and the Foster City Police Department agree with this finding, relying on the Grand Jury’s representations in their report.
F2. Bicycle ridership as an alternative means of transportation (e.g., commuting to work, school, or transit hubs, running errands) is not increasing due, at least in part, to perceived safety issues.
•Response to F2:
The City of Foster City and the Foster City Police Department agree with this finding, relying on the Grand Jury’s representations in their report.
F3. Bicycle accidents and incidents (such as near misses) are underreported, if reported at all.
6.9 Attachment 2 - Proposed Draft Response Letter
462
1 1
4 8
•Response to F3:
The City of Foster City and the Foster City Police Department agree with this finding, relying on the Grand Jury’s representations in their report.
F4. Only bicycle accidents or incidents that trigger a 911 call are consistently logged in the State (SWITRS) database and law enforcement agencies do not log bicycle accident data consistently.
•Response to F4:
The City of Foster City and the Foster City Police Department partially disagree with this finding, relying on the Grand Jury’s representations in their report. It should be noted that each law enforcement agency may handle reporting differently and consistent reporting of bicycle accident data may be accomplished by agencies handling reported accidents and incidents. Also, reported bicycle accidents and incidents may be reported through an agency’s business line, although the majority are likely to be reported using 911.
F5. The amount of enforcement of laws, as they pertain to bicyclists and how motorists and bicyclists interact, is inconsistent due to other priorities (e.g., criminal enforcement and general automobile traffic) and the requirement that a citation can generally only be written if the violation is witnessed by an officer.
•Response to F5:
The City of Foster City and the Foster City Police Department agree with this finding, relying on the Grand Jury’s representations in their report.
F6. There is no official metric in San Mateo County and its cities to evaluate how safe it is to ride a bicycle.
•Response to F6:
The City of Foster City and the Foster City Police Department agree with this finding, relying on the Grand Jury’s representations in their report.
F7. Bicycle safety education, for the bicyclist, pedestrians and motorists, is not consistently offered across San Mateo County.
•Response to F7:
The City of Foster City and the Foster City Police Department agree with this finding, relying on the Grand Jury’s representations in their report.
6.9 Attachment 2 - Proposed Draft Response Letter
463
1 1
4 8
F8. Communication between various entities with responsibility for bicycle safety, including Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committees (BPACs), Law Enforcement, City Transportation Planning, and Public Works departments, is not formalized, resulting in inefficiencies, and missed opportunities (e.g., funding for improvements, shared bike safety education, or improving signage).
•Response to F8:
The City of Foster City and the Foster City Police Department agree with this finding, relying on the Grand Jury’s representations in their report.
F9. City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans or Active Transportation Plans, have not been adopted/created by all SMC cities.
•Response to F9:
The City of Foster City and the Foster City Police Department agree with this finding, relying on the Grand Jury’s representations in their report.
Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations:
R1. By December 2023, all law enforcement agencies and the County Sheriff should submit bicycle related data to SWITRS monthly, and regularly post and update their websites with all reported bicycle accident data.
•Response to R1:
The Foster City Police Department (FCPD) currently reports all collisions involving a bicyclist on a public roadway to SWITRS monthly.
A public facing mapping program is in the final stages of development, which will display many reported incidents and approximate locations (block reference) of all collisions, including collisions on public and private property. The FCPD will attempt to have collisions involving bicyclists clearly identified in this mapping program.
Information provided to the public through this program will be refreshed daily and will display information for the past 30 days. This program will be prominently displayed on the FCPD website and is expected to be available to the public by September 15, 2023.
6.9 Attachment 2 - Proposed Draft Response Letter
464
1 1
4 8
R2. By December 2023, all law enforcement agencies should begin sending warning letters to motorists for violations of the 3 ft. law.
•Response to R2:
By the end of December 2023, the FCPD will review the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department’s program and consider options that may work for the City of Foster City, the FCPD, and the Foster City community. The City of Foster City and the FCPD recognize the possible value of educating through the issuance of warning letters; all aspects of a possible program will be considered to ensure the appropriateness of a program. Considerations may include the method of verifying the distance between a bicyclist and motor vehicle, any legal concerns that may surround a program, and the feasibility of such a program.
R3. By June 3, 2024, all law enforcement agencies should provide a means for citizens to report bicycle-related incidents that are not currently reported to law enforcement, similar to the SMC Sheriff’s Department Online Crime Reporting portal. •Response to R3:
By June 3, 2024, the FCPD will add information to the agency website informing community members of their reporting options specific to bicycle-related incidents. This will likely be part of a larger bicycle information portion of the FCPD website, which would be prominently displayed on the agency home page. Reporting options may include telephone, email, and in-person reporting. The FCPD is a full-service agency and will accept any reporting request.
R4. By June 3, 2024 each city, town, and unincorporated SMC should offer a bike safety education program for riders and motorists about the laws and safety facts related to bicycles on the road.
•Response to R4:
The City of Foster City and the FCPD understand the value of offering bike safety information to community members. The FCPD will include bike safety education information as a significant consideration while looking into an addition to the agency website, directed at riders and motorists.
6.9 Attachment 2 - Proposed Draft Response Letter
465
1 1
4 8
R5. By June 3, 2024, each city, town, and unincorporated SMC should update or generate a new Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (or Active Transportation Plan) if their current plan is older than five years; consistent with the 2021 C/CAG San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
•Response to R5:
In January 2018, the City Council adopted the Bicycle Network Assessment Study prepared by the City’s consultant Fehr and Peers. The City has now implemented or incorporated many of the short-term and long-term recommendations from that assessment into future project plans. The City agrees that updating the City’s active transportation plans, through the development of a comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, is an appropriate next step. However, the process of developing such a plan is longer than the timeframe identified in the recommendation, therefore, the recommendation will be implemented by June 30, 2025.
R6. By June 3, 2024, each city, town, and the county should apply (or reapply) online to generate the Bicycle Friendly Community Report Card.
•Response to R6:
The City of Foster City and the FCPD will not be implementing the Bicycle Friendly Community Report Card program as it’s believed the benefits of the program may not warrant any involved cost and Staff time necessary to be included in the program.
Considering the City of Foster City’s significant and continuous efforts to promote bicycling within the city, to create safe riding and driving conditions for bicyclists and motorists, and to be inclusive of bicyclists as they utilize the City’s public roadways and pathways, it’s believed the Report Card program is unnecessary; the City of Foster City and the FCPD will remain committed to safe bicycling through established priorities.
R7. By February 1, 2024, the County should meet with cities within the County that are willing to participate, to consider establishing a regional effort that integrates the cities’ bicycle plans and to discuss how the cities and County could work together to apply for grant opportunities as a region.
•Response to R7:
Foster City is willing to meet with the County to discuss the potential to work together to apply for grant opportunities.
6.9 Attachment 2 - Proposed Draft Response Letter
466
DATE: September 18, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City Manager
FROM: Sofia Mangalam, Community Development Director
James Atkins, Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUBJECT: RZ2023-0006 & RZ2023-0007, AMEND TITLE 17, “ZONING” CHAPTERS 17.78 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, AND 17.86
DENSITY BONUSES AND FINDING THE AMENDMENTS
EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE SECTION
15061(B)(3)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council introduce and pass to second reading the ordinances (Attachment 1 & 2) amending Title 17, “Zoning” Chapters 17.78 Accessory Dwelling Units, and 17.86 Density Bonuses and finding the amendments exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Over the past several years, the California State Legislature has passed specific bills intended to address California’s housing crisis by limiting local government discretion over housing development projects in an effort to increase housing supply. In 2022, this trend continued, and the legislature introduced numerous bills related to planning and land use laws, including refinements to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Density Bonus law via Assembly Bills (AB) and Senate Bills (SB), including AB 2221, SB 897, AB
7.1 7.1 Staff Report
467
682, AB 2334, and AB 1551. In order to comply with recent state legislation, staff prepared draft amendments to Title 17, “Zoning” Chapters 17.78 Accessory Dwelling Units, and 17.86 Density Bonuses.
On August 17, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the draft amendments to Chapters 17.78 Accessory Dwelling Units and 17.86 Density Bonuses.
At the meeting, the Commission voted 5-0 to approve resolutions P-11-23 and P-12-23, (Attachment 5 and 6) recommending to the City Council to adopt ordinances amending Title 17, “Zoning” Chapters 17.78 Accessory Dwelling Units, and 17.86 Density Bonuses (see attachments for the Planning Commission public hearing on August 17, 2023). At the meeting, two (2) Commissioners expressed an interest in the removal of owner- occupied deed restrictions currently included in Chapter 17.78 Accessory Dwelling Units of the Foster City Municipal Code for Council consideration.
BACKGROUND
To ensure that the City of Foster City continues to stay apprised of recent changes in state laws, a Planning Commission study session was held on June 15, 2023, informing the Planning Commission and the public regarding the most recent legislative changes in land use and housing laws including key ADUs and Density Bonus bills (see attachments for the Study Session on June 15, 2023).
Title 17, Zoning, Chapter 17.78 Accessory Dwelling Units was last amended on January 09, 2023, and Chapter 17.86 Density Bonuses was last amended on November 18, 2013.
Further amendments are required to ensure compliance with the State law.
ANALYSIS
Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory Dwelling Units, more commonly known as ADUs, second units, in-law units, granny flats, or casitas, allow property owners to add additional residential units to their properties with existing or proposed primary dwelling units (both single-family and multifamily homes are eligible). With few exceptions, the City must allow ADUs everywhere residential uses are permitted, and applications to add an ADU must be processed ministerially using applicable, objective standards and without a public hearing. The legislature adopted two (2) key ADU bills in 2022: AB 2221 and SB 897.
These bills took effect on January 1, 2023, and amend Government Code Sections 65852.2, 65852.22. and 65852.23, and Health and Safety Code Section 17980.12. These bills make further revisions to state law, and local jurisdictions need to readopt any local ordinances related to ADUs to include new State law provisions and provide clarifications.clarifications.
7.1 7.1 Staff Report
468
The following points outline the proposed amendments, which include mandatory revisions to comply with updated legal requirements as well as several clarifications to definitions and the general language of the current code:
•Amended Sections 17.78.010 Findings, 17.78.020 Purpose, and 17.78.030 Application to clarify that accessory dwelling units are permitted in all areas zoned to allow residential development.
•Amended Section 17.78.040(A)(1)(2)(3) Definitions, for ADU and JADU for compliance with Gov. Code §65852.2 and §65852.22.
•Amended Section 17.78.040(B)(C)(D)(E)(G)(I) Definitions adding and amending general terms identified in the City’s code including:
-Attached accessory dwelling unit
-Conversion accessory dwelling unit
-Detached accessory dwelling unit
-Efficiency unit
-Major transit stop
•Amended Section 17.78.050(C) and (E) Permit application for an accessory dwelling unit - added that garage conversions are exempt from courtesy neighbor notifications and removed the requirement for homeowners association (HOA) approval letter for all ADUs.
•Added options to Section 17.78.060(A) Standards applicable to single-family residence zoning districts, that will determine the maximum number of accessory dwelling units permitted on a single-family residential lot. Under this provision, five (5) options are included:
oOption 1 - One JADU (up to 500 SF).
oOption 2 - One ADU (conversion, attached, or detached). oOption 3- One (1) JADU (up to 500 SF); and One (1) conversion ADU; and One (1) newly constructed ADU (up to 800 SF).
oOption 4 - One (1) JADU (up to 500 SF); and One (1) newly constructed ADU over 800 square feet.
oOption 5 - One (1) JADU (up to 500 SF); and One (1) conversion ADU. •Amended Section 17.78.060(B)(1), (4), (5), and (6) Standards applicable to single- family residence zoning districts, where required development standards for Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) must comply with Gov. Code §65852.22. •Amended Section 17.78.060(C)(2) & (D)(2) Standards applicable to single-family residence zoning districts, to allow for accessory dwelling units in front yards when infeasible to locate elsewhere on a single-family residential lot, in compliance with Gov. Code §65852.2.
•Amended Section 17.78.060(C)(4)(a) & (D)(4)(a) Standards applicable to single- family residence zoning districts, to allow for heights of accessory dwelling units to range from 16 feet to 25 feet when certain conditions are satisfied. •Amended Section 17.78.060(E)(1) & (2) Standards applicable to single-family residence zoning districts, to clarify development standards for Conversion ADUs.
7.1 7.1 Staff Report
469
•Amended Section 17.78.060(F)(1), (2), and (3) Standards applicable to single- family residence zoning districts, clarifying development standards for JADUs. •Amended Section 17.78.070(B)(1), (3), and (4) Standards applicable to single- family residence zoning districts, clarifying development standards for Detached ADUs.
•Amended Section 17.78.080(B) Parking requirements for accessory dwelling units, adding parking regulations in compliance with Gov. Code §65852.2., to clarify that parking is not required where the ADU is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure.
•Amended Section 17.78.090(A), (B), and (C) Permit issuance, renaming to “Permit process”; and, clarifying timelines for approval; and, added included language stating that if an application is denied, the City shall respond with a full set of comments identifying the application’s defects and an explanation as to how it may be remedied; and, added language for a demolition permit to run concurrently with an application for an accessory dwelling unit in compliance with Gov. Code §65852.2. •Amended Section 17.78.100(D), (E), (F), and (J) Other provisions, clarifying lease periods (not less than 30 days); and, added language to ensure compliance with California Fire Code as amended by San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department; fire sprinkler requirements compliance with Title 24 California Code of Regulations.
Subsequent to the June 15, 2023, Planning Commission Study Session, staff drafted amendments to Chapters 17.78 Accessory Dwelling Units and 17.86 Density Bonuses and presented them to the Planning Commission for review on July 20, 2023. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to approve resolutions recommending that the City Council adopt ordinances amending Title 17, “Zoning” Chapters 17.78 Accessory Dwelling Units, and 17.86 Density Bonuses.
The motion passed with a majority of the Planning Commission supporting the proposed ordinances including two (2) minor changes:
(1) Add existing options for one JADU and one ADU (attached or detached) from the current code section 17.78.060.A back into the ordinance as these options were inadvertently removed from the draft version of ordinance during text formatting, and (2) Add a definition for the word “Infeasible” as it relates to locating an ADU in the front yard of a single-family home.
Two (2) Commissioners asked that the City Council consider the removal of existing language regarding owner-occupancy deed restrictions in Sections 17.78.100(A) & (B).
The Commission discussed the matter as positions were taken on deed restrictions potentially being discriminatory as the tenants should be able to occupy the main home or the ADU, while an opposing position focused on protecting the character of single-
7.1 7.1 Staff Report
470
family neighborhoods from potentially allowing properties to function as multifamily residential developments. Ultimately, the removal of the existing language regarding owner-occupancy deed restrictions was not supported by a majority of the Planning Commission.
Staff comments: Currently, section 17.78.100(B) and state law does not allow the enforcement of owner-occupancy and the recordation of deed restrictions for ADUs between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2024, and this language has been retained in the proposed amendments in the ADU ordinance. Also, as noted during the meeting, even if the owner-occupancy deed restriction requirements in Section 17.78.100(A) were removed for ADUs, state law requires owner-occupancy for all single-family residences with Junior ADUs (or JADUs) and the recordation of deed restriction as outlined in in Gov Code §65852.22. Thus, staff recommends that the current language is retained as it is.
Density Bonus Law
Density Bonus Law was enacted in 1979 (Gov. Code §§65915 – 65918), allowing developers with five (5) or more homes the right to increase density on a property above the maximum set under a jurisdiction’s General Plan. In exchange for the increased density, a certain number of the new dwelling units must be reserved at below-market rate rents or meet other specified criteria, such as housing for seniors. The law also provides rights to housing and mixed-use developments to reduce development costs through the granting of incentives/concessions, achieve permitted densities through waivers of development standards, and reduce parking requirements.
On September 28, 2022, the Governor signed AB 2334, AB 1551, and AB 682, three (3) bills that make various amendments and clarifications to the State Density Bonus Law.
The following points outline required amendments, as well as clarifications to definitions and the general language of the current code:
•Amended Section 17.86.010 Purpose, clarifying government code sections and implementation of the City’s Housing Element.
•Amended Section 17.86.030 Applicability, clarifying language, and ensuring compliance with Gov. Code §§65915 – 65918.
•Amended Section 17.86.040 Application requirements, and simplified the application requirements, and identified pertinent information to ensure compliance with Gov. Code §§65915 – 65918. This is to help staff with application intake. •Amended Section 17.86.060 Incentives, clarifying language, and ensuring compliance with Gov. Code §§65915 – 65918.
•Amended Section 17.86.070 Discretionary approval authority retained, to clarify language.
•Amended Section 17.86.080 Waivers, clarifying definition of “waivers”.
7.1 7.1 Staff Report
471
•Amended Section 17.86.090 Affordable housing agreement, adding senior housing agreements, adjusted agreement length from 30 years to 55 years, and added covenant requirements, and recordation with the county recorder’s office. •Amended Section 17.86.100 Design and quality, removing language regarding that the requirement regarding the number of bedrooms mix may be waived for certain special groups.
As a means to reduce the number of code amendments required to be made to the City’s municipal code due to constant changes in State law, the proposed amendments to the Density Bonus sections are revised to directly defer to State law where the City’s regulations are not specific to the City’s permissible regulations. Additionally, revisions to these sections have been made to add clarity to requirements for ease of understanding and interpretation.
The proposed amendments are included in Attachments 3 and 4 and include text edits in a strike-through and replace format for review by the City Council. All the proposed amendments to both the ordinances have been reviewed by the City’s Attorney’s Office for compliance with the state law.
To ensure that the Municipal Code is in sync with state laws, staff recommends that the City Council introduce and pass to second reading the ordinances (Attachment 1 & 2) amending Title 17, “Zoning” Chapters 17.78 Accessory Dwelling Units, and 17.86 Density Bonuses and finding the amendments exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3).
If introduced for adoption, the Ordinances would be scheduled for a second reading at a future City Council Regular Meeting. Once adopted, the Ordinances would be in effect after 30 days from adoption.
CEQA
The proposed actions would update City’s existing Municipal Code to align with the requirements of the most recent updates to the State’s laws. The actions would not result in physical changes to the environment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the adoption of an ordinances regulating Density Bonus and ADU regulations are exempt.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Smart Planning, Development, and the Local Economy
7.1 7.1 Staff Report
472
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Ordinance for Chapter 17.78 Accessory Dwelling Units Attachment 2 – Ordinance for Chapter 17.86 Density Bonuses Attachment 3 – Revised Section 17.78 Accessory Dwelling Units with Redlines Attachment 4 – Revised Section 17.86 Density Bonuses with Redlines Attachment 5 – Planning Commission Resolution P-11-23
Attachment 6 – Planning Commission Resolution P-12-23
Attachment 7 – Meeting Minutes for August 17, 2023 Planning Commission meeting
7.1 7.1 Staff Report
473
1 1
9 8
ORDINANCE NO. __________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY MAKING VARIOUS TEXT AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 17, “ZONING” OF THE FOSTER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 17.78, “ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS” AND FINDING THE
AMENDMENTS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT - RZ2023-0006
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Law authorizes local jurisdictions to act by ordinance to provide for the creation and regulation of accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) and junior accessory dwelling units (“JADUs”); and
WHEREAS, in 2022, the legislature adopted two (2) key ADU bills in 2022:
Assembly Bill (AB) 2221 and Sente Bill (SB) 897 that amended Government Code Sections 65852.2, 65852.22. and 65852.23, and Health and Safety Code Section 17980.12; and
WHEREAS, these bills make further revisions to state law, and local jurisdictions need to readopt any local ordinances related to ADUs to include new provisions/clarifications; and
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2023, a Planning Commission Study Session was held to update the public and the Planning Commission on most recent State Laws affecting land uses, including additional revisions to the requirements of accessory dwelling units; and
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 says that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the adoption of an ordinance to implement the provisions of Section 65852.2 of the Government Code, which means that adoption of this ordinance to update the Municipal Code to implement State ADU law is statutorily exempt from CEQA; and
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing to take public testimony and consider a Resolution regarding the amendments to Chapter 17.78, and after conducting the public hearing, adopted Resolution No. P-11-23 with the Planning Commission recommending City Council approval of the amendments to Chapter 17.78; and WHEREAS, on September 6, 2023, a public hearing notice was published posted in three public places, and mailed pursuant to California Code Section 65090 for the City Council public hearing on September 18, 2023; and
7.1 Attachment 1 - Ordinance for Chapter 17.78 Accesory Dwelling Units
474
1 1
9 8
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council does hereby find and determine based upon the aforementioned Record as follows:
1. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference; and
2. The proposed amendments are internally consistent with all other provisions of the General Plan and do not conflict with any of the previously adopted goals, policies, or programs of the General Plan.
3. The proposed amendments are necessary to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan through implementation of the Housing Element.
4. The proposed Zoning amendments comply with, and are required by, applicable State law, including Government Code Section 65852.2, 65852.22, 68852.23, and the Health and Safety Code Section 17980.12.
5. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest, convenience, and general welfare of the City.
6. The proposed amendments are exempt from CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3) and consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21080.17.
Section 2. Amendment. Chapter 17.78 “Accessory Dwelling Units” within Title 17, “Zoning” of the Foster City Municipal Code are hereby amended by repealing the existing Chapters 17.78 in their entireties and replacing those Chapters to read as set forth in the attached Exhibits A, as listed below and attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference:
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council does hereby declare that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 4. Taking Effect. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its adoption.
Section 5. Posting. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall have it posted in three (3) public places designated by the City Council.
7.1 Attachment 1 - Ordinance for Chapter 17.78 Accesory Dwelling Units
475
1 1
9 8
This Ordinance was introduced and read on the 18th day of September, 2023, and passed and adopted on the ____ day of October, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JON FROOMIN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK
7.1 Attachment 1 - Ordinance for Chapter 17.78 Accesory Dwelling Units
476
1 1
9 8
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 17.78 Accessory Dwelling Unit Update
2023 Updates
Chapter 17.78
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Sections:
17.78.010 Findings.
17.78.020 Purpose.
17.78.030 Application.
17.78.040 Definitions.
17.78.050 Permit application for an accessory dwelling unit.
17.78.060 Standards applicable to single-family residence zoning districts.
17.78.070 Standards applicable to multifamily residence zoning districts.
17.78.080 Parking requirements for accessory dwelling units.
17.78.090 Permit issuance.
17.78.100 Other provisions.
17.78.010 Findings.
A. The adoption of an accessory dwelling unit ordinance which permits accessory dwelling units by ministerial review in areas zoned to allow residential development is consistent with the goals and policies of the Foster City general plan in that accessory dwelling units would help meet the need for affordable housing. Furthermore, construction of accessory dwelling units is not as costly as new construction, because there are no additional land costs, infrastructure costs are reduced, and an accessory dwelling unit can be added at the cost of an addition to, or remodeling of, the main single- family dwelling.
B. The accessory dwelling unit ordinance is intended to permit accessory dwelling units while maintaining the health, safety and welfare of surrounding residents, the character of existing neighborhoods, and the community as a whole. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
17.78.020 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to allow accessory dwelling units in areas zoned to allow residential development through ministerial permit procedures in compliance with state laws. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh.
P), 2023)
17.78.030 Application.
The provisions of this chapter shall apply in zoning districts where residential uses are permitted (with or without a planned development combining district). Accessory dwelling units are not permitted in any other district. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
17.78.040 Definitions.
A. “Accessory dwelling unit” or “ADU” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a
7.1 Attachment 1 - Ordinance for Chapter 17.78 Accesory Dwelling Units
477
1 1
9 8
proposed or existing primary residence. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following:
1. An efficiency unit.
2. A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code.
B. “Attached accessory dwelling unit” means an ADU that is constructed as a physical expansion (i.e., addition) of an existing single-family residence and shares at least one (1) wall with the single-family residence.
C. “Conversion accessory dwelling unit” means an ADU that is created within existing space, including a portion of a primary dwelling unit or existing non-habitable space in an existing primary or accessory structure.
D. “Detached accessory dwelling unit” means an ADU that is constructed as a separate structure from the primary dwelling unit and does not share any walls with the primary dwelling unit or an existing attached accessory structure.
E. “Efficiency unit” has the same meaning as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code.
F. “High-quality transit corridor” means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than fifteen minutes during peak commute hours.
G. “Infeasible” shall mean when applicable development standards are applied, they would physically preclude development of a proposed ADU up to 800 square feet with at least 4 ft. side and read yard setbacks.
H. “Junior accessory dwelling unit” or “JADU” means a unit that is no more than five hundred (500) square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-family residence. A junior accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure.
I. “Living area” means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit including basements and attics but does not include a garage or any accessory structure or building.
J. “Major transit stop” has the same meaning as defined in Section 21155 of the California Public Resources Code.
K. “Passageway” means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the ADU.
L. “Public transit” means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
17.78.050 Permit application for an accessory dwelling unit.
7.1 Attachment 1 - Ordinance for Chapter 17.78 Accesory Dwelling Units
478
1 1
9 8
The application for an ADU permit shall be made by the owners of the subject property in writing to the building division in the form designated by the building division and shall contain the following:
A. A completed building permit application form and applicable fee; B. Written project description;
C. Courtesy neighbor notification report in a form designated by building official indicating adjacent property owners have been notified of the new ADU (garage conversions are exempt from notification); D. Plans and drawings as required by the building division; E. A copy of required deed restriction as included in Section 17.78.100, unless exempt. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
17.78.060 Standards applicable to single-family residence zoning districts.
The following shall apply to single-family lots in R-1, R-2 and R-1/PD zoning districts:
A. Number of Units. A single-family lot with a primary dwelling unit may have:
Option 1
One JADU (up to 500 SF); or
Option 2
One ADU (conversion, attached, or detached); or
Option 3
One (1) JADU (up to 500 SF); and,
One (1) conversion ADU; and,
One (1) newly constructed ADU (up to 800 SF).
Option 4
One (1) JADU (up to 500 SF); and,
One (1) newly constructed ADU over 800 square feet
Option 5
One (1) JADU (up to 500 SF); and,
One (1) conversion ADU
B. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.
1. The number of JADUs shall be limited to one (1) unit per residential lot zoned for single-family residences that includes a proposed or existing single-family residence.
2. The property owner must reside in either the remaining portion of the primary dwelling unit or the JADU. Owner occupancy shall not be required if the owner is another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.
3. The owner must record a deed restriction as outlined in Government Code Section 65852.22, which shall run with the land, and shall include both of the following:
a. A prohibition on the sale of the JADU separate from the sale of the single-family residence, including a statement that the deed restriction may be enforced against future purchasers.
7.1 Attachment 1 - Ordinance for Chapter 17.78 Accesory Dwelling Units
479
1 1
9 8
b. A restriction on the size and attributes of the JADU that conforms with this chapter. c. If a JADU is rented, the unit shall not be rented for a period of less than thirty consecutive calendar days.
4. A JADU shall be constructed within the walls of the proposed or existing single-family residence, including attached garages.
5. JADUs shall include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the proposed or existing single-family residence. If a permitted JADU does not include a separate bathroom, the permitted JADU shall include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the structure, with an interior entry to the main living area.
6. The JADU shall include an efficiency kitchen, which shall include all of the following:
a. A cooking facility with appliances.
b. A food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the junior accessory dwelling unit.
C. Attached ADUs. One attached ADU per single-family lot is permitted, subject to the following requirements:
1. Size. The total floor area of an attached ADU shall be not more than one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet or fifty (50) percent of the existing or proposed primary dwelling, whichever is less.
2. Location. Attached ADUs shall not be located in the front yard unless development of an eight hundred (800 sq. ft.) square foot ADU is otherwise infeasible.
3. Setbacks. The side and rear setbacks shall be no less than four (4) feet.
4. Height.
a. An attached ADU shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height, or the height requirement for the primary dwelling, whichever is lower.
b. ADUs shall not exceed two (2) stories in height.
D. Detached ADUs. One newly constructed detached ADU per single-family lot is permitted, subject to the following requirements:
1. Size. The total floor area of a detached ADU shall not exceed one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet or fifty (50) percent of the existing or proposed primary dwelling, whichever is less.
2. Location. Detached ADUs shall not be located in the front yard unless development of an eight hundred (800 sq. ft.) square foot ADU is otherwise infeasible.
3. Setbacks.
a. The side and rear setbacks shall be no less than four feet. b. The separation between the detached ADU and the primary dwelling shall be as per California Residential Code.
4. Height. A detached ADU shall not exceed sixteen (16) feet in height, except in the following cases:
a. A height of eighteen (18) feet is permitted when an ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in this code section; and, and additional two (2) feet of height to accommodate a roof pitch on the ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit.
E. Conversion ADUs. One conversion ADU per single-family lot is permitted, subject to the following requirements:
1. Setbacks. No setbacks shall be required for ADU conversions located within the existing living area or an existing accessory structure, or an ADU that replaces an existing structure and is
7.1 Attachment 1 - Ordinance for Chapter 17.78 Accesory Dwelling Units
480
1 1
9 8
located in the same location and to the same dimensions as the structure being replaced. A legal accessory building (including a detached garage) may be converted into an ADU provided the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire safety.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, conversion ADUs shall provide sufficient side and rear setbacks for fire safety.
2. Height. A conversion ADU shall not alter the height of the existing structure (single-family dwelling, accessory building, or garage) that is being converted.
3. Other Standards.
a. Conversion ADUs in existing accessory structures may expand the existing dimensions of the structure no more than one hundred fifty (150) square feet to accommodate ingress/egress.
Any such expansion shall count towards the size of the ADU.
F. Additional Requirements.
1. All JADUs and ADUs shall provide exterior access that is separate from the proposed or existing single-family dwelling.
2. Except as specified in this section, ADUs shall comply with lot coverage, open space, front setbacks, minimum lot size, and other zoning standards applicable to the primary dwelling, except in no event shall the application of any of these standards preclude at least an eight hundred (800) square foot ADU. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
17.78.070 Standards applicable to multifamily residence zoning districts.
The following shall apply to multifamily dwelling lots in R-3, R-4 and R-T (with or without a planned combining district) zoning districts:
A. Conversion ADUs. ADUs are permitted within portions of existing legally permitted multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space including storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, and garages, subject to the following requirements:
1. Number of ADUs. At least one ADU within an existing multifamily building and no more than twenty-five percent of the existing multifamily dwelling units shall be permitted.
2. Size. The total floor area of a conversion ADU shall not exceed eight hundred fifty square feet for a studio or one bedroom, or one thousand square feet for an ADU with two or more bedrooms.
3. Existing livable space may not be converted into an ADU.
B. Detached ADUs.
1. Number of ADUs. Up to two (2) detached ADUs are permitted on a multifamily lot with an existing, new, or proposed multifamily building.
2. Size. The total floor area of a detached ADU shall not exceed eight hundred fifty (850) square feet for a studio or one (1) bedroom, or one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet for an ADU with two (2) or more bedrooms.
3. Setbacks.
a. The side and rear setbacks shall be no less than four (4) feet. b. The separation between the detached ADU and the primary dwelling shall be as per California Residential Code.
4. Height.
a. Where an ADU is on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily, multi-story dwelling, it shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet in height.
7.1 Attachment 1 - Ordinance for Chapter 17.78 Accesory Dwelling Units
481
1 1
9 8
b. An ADU may add up to two (2) feet of height to accommodate a roof pitch on the ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the multifamily dwelling (for a maximum of twenty (20) feet. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
17.78.080 Parking requirements for accessory dwelling units.
A. Parking requirements for newly constructed ADUs shall not exceed one (1) parking space per unit or per bedroom, whichever is less. This space may be provided as tandem parking, including on an existing driveway or in setback areas, excluding the non-driveway front yard setback. Exception to the requirement for provision of one parking space may be made per subsection B of this section.
B. Parking is not required in the following instances:
1. The ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit.
2. When there is an approved car share vehicle for which a Foster City business license has been issued and remains active, located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit.
3. JADU.
4. ADU that only includes a studio with no bedroom.
5. The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant area.
6. Where the ADU is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
17.78.090 Permit process.
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.2 mandating ministerial approval of ADUs if all of the applicable standards are met, the chief building official or his/her designee shall approve the ADU permit within sixty (60) days of the complete application being submitted. If the ADU or JADU is proposed as part of a new or remodeled primary residence, the sixty (60) day timeline shall not commence until the primary residence is permitted. The City may review and approve the ADU or JADU in conjunction with the new or remodeled primary residence, but the application to create the ADU or JADU shall be considered without discretionary review or hearing.
B. If the City disapproves an application for an ADU or JADU, the building division shall return in writing, a full set of comments to the applicant with a list of items that are defective or deficient and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant.
C. A demolition permit for a detached garage that is to be replaced with an ADU, mut be reviewed with the application for the ADU and issued at the same time. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
17.78.100 Other provisions.
A. Unless exempt from the owner-occupancy requirement per subsection B of this section, prior to obtaining a building permit for an ADU, an owner-occupancy deed restriction, approved by the city attorney, shall be recorded with the county recorder’s office, which shall include the pertinent restrictions and limitations of an ADU identified in this section including but not limited to: prohibition of the sale of the ADU separate from the sale of the single-family residence; restrictions on the size and attributes of the ADU; and prohibitions on rentals less than thirty consecutive days. Said deed restriction shall run with the land, and shall be binding upon any future owners, heirs, or assigns.
B. Owner Occupancy. Notwithstanding the foregoing or any other provision of this chapter, no owner- occupancy requirement shall be enforced and no deed restriction shall be required for ADU permit applications submitted between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2024.
7.1 Attachment 1 - Ordinance for Chapter 17.78 Accesory Dwelling Units
482
1 1
9 8
C. Delay in Enforcement of Unpermitted ADUs. For any unpermitted or substandard ADU built before January 1, 2020, upon an owner’s request, the city’s chief building official shall delay enforcing any building standards if the building official determines that the unpermitted ADU meets health and safety standards. This provision shall sunset on January 1, 2030; however, any delay that was approved by the enforcement agency before January 1, 2030, shall be valid for the full term of the delay.
D. Any ADU may be leased for a period not fewer than thirty (30) consecutive days.
E. Fire flow and fire department access must comply with the California Fire Code as amended by the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department, or an alternate means shall be proposed.
F. Fire Sprinklers.
1. An ADU shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence and may employ alternative methods for fire protection.
2. The construction of an ADU shall not trigger a requirement of fire sprinklers to be installed in the existing primary dwelling.
G. ADUs that are seven hundred fifty square feet or smaller are exempt from impact fees.
H. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the requirements for newly constructed ADUs shall not preclude constructing one ADU of at least eight hundred square feet, which is not more than sixteen feet in height, and at least four feet setback from the side and rear property lines.
I. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, an applicant shall not be required to correct nonconforming conditions on the subject property as a condition of obtaining permits to construct an ADU or JADU.
J. Any properties with ADUs built or developed by a nonprofit corporation may qualify to be sold or conveyed separately from the primary residence, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65852.26. A qualified nonprofit corporation is a nonprofit corporation which is organized pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that has received a welfare exemption under Section 214.15 of the Revenue and Taxation Code for properties intended to be sold to low-income families who participate in a special no-interest loan program.
K. All JADUs and ADUs shall comply with the current Title 24 California Code of Regulations, as adopted by the city and all related safety codes. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
7.1 Attachment 1 - Ordinance for Chapter 17.78 Accesory Dwelling Units
483
1 2
0 0
ORDINANCE NO. __________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY MAKING TEXT AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 17, “ZONING” OF THE FOSTER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 17.86, “DENSITY BONUSES”, TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH RECENT CHANGES IN
STATE LAW AND FINDING THE AMENDMENTS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT – RZ2023-0007
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65915 ("State Density Bonus Law") requires all cities to adopt an ordinance that specifies how compliance with State Density Bonus Law will be implemented; and;
WHEREAS, in 2022, the Legislature adopted three (3) bills, Assembly Bills (AB) 2334, 1551, and 682, that make various amendments and clarifications to State Density Bonus Law, Government Code (GC) Section 65915; and
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2023, a Planning Commission Study Session was held to update the public and the Planning Commission on most recent State Laws affecting land uses, including additional revisions to the requirements density bonus law; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are required to be adopted to comply with State Density Bonus Law, which would preempt inconsistent provisions of the Municipal Code if such amendments were not adopted, and therefore the Municipal Code amendments would not result in a direct or indirect foreseeable physical change to the environment and are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) Section 15061(b)(3), Common Sense Exemption; and
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing to take public testimony and consider a Resolution regarding the amendments to Chapter 17.86, and after conducting the public hearing, adopted Resolution No. P-12-23 with the Planning Commission recommending City Council approval of the amendments to Chapter 17.86; and WHEREAS, on September 6, 2023, a public hearing notice was published posted in three public places, and mailed pursuant to California Code Section 65090 for the City Council public hearing on September 18, 2023; and
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council does hereby find and determine based upon the aforementioned Record as follows:
7.1 Attachment 2 - Ordinance for Chapter 17.86 Density Bonuses
484
1 2
0 0
1. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference; and
2. The proposed amendments are internally consistent with all other provisions of the General Plan and do not conflict with any of the previously adopted goals, policies or programs of the General Plan.
3. The proposed amendments are necessary to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan through implementation of the Housing Element.
4. The proposed Zoning amendments comply with, and are required by, applicable State law, including Government Code Section 68915 – 65918, and the Health and Safety Code Section 17980.12.
5. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest, convenience, and general welfare of the City.
6. The proposed amendments are exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
Section 2. Amendment. Chapter 17.86 “Density Bonuses” within Title 17, “Zoning” of the Foster City Municipal Code are hereby amended by repealing the existing Chapters
17.86 in their entireties and replacing those Chapters to read as set forth in the attached Exhibits A, as listed below and attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference:
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council does hereby declare that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 4. Taking Effect. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its adoption.
Section 5. Posting. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall have it posted in three (3) public places designated by the City Council.
7.1 Attachment 2 - Ordinance for Chapter 17.86 Density Bonuses
485
1 2
0 0
This Ordinance was introduced and read on the 18th day of September, 2023, and passed and adopted on the ____ day of October, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JON FROOMIN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK
7.1 Attachment 2 - Ordinance for Chapter 17.86 Density Bonuses
486
1 2
0 0
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 17.86 Density Bonuses
2023 Updates
Chapter 17.86
DENSITY BONUSES
Sections:
17.86.010 Purpose.
17.86.020 Definitions.
17.86.030 Applicability.
17.86.040 Application requirements.
17.86.050 Density bonus.
17.86.060 Incentives.
17.86.070 Discretionary approval authority retained.
17.86.080 Waivers.
17.86.090 Affordable housing agreement.
17.86.100 Design and quality.
17.86.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to comply with Government Code Section 65915 through 65918 (“State Density Bonus Law”) and implement the housing element of the Foster City General Plan in an effort to encourage the production of affordable housing units in developments proposed within the city. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
17.86.020 Definitions.
Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, the definitions found in State Density Bonus Law shall apply to the terms contained herein. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
17.86.030 Applicability.
A. This chapter and State Density Bonus Law shall apply to all zoning districts, where residential development, including mixed-use development, are allowed.
B. An applicant that proposes a housing development of five or more dwelling units is eligible to apply for a density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers, and reduced parking standards if the applicant seeks and agrees to construct a housing development that includes at least one of the housing types specified in State Density Bonus Law in at least the quantity specified therein.
C. If any portion of this Chapter conflicts with State Density Bonus Law, State Density Bonus Law shall supersede this Chapter. Any ambiguities in this Chapter shall be interpreted to be consistent with State Density Bonus Law. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
17.86.040 Application requirements.
A. To apply for a State Density Bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or parking modification, the applicant shall submit a letter of intent to the City along with the first application for approval of a
7.1 Attachment 2 - Ordinance for Chapter 17.86 Density Bonuses
487
1 2
0 0
residential or mixed-use development project that demonstrates the project's eligibility for the requested State Density Bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or parking modification.
B. The letter of intent shall specify the density permitted by the zoning and general plan, the affordability levels to be provided, tenure (for-sale or rental), number and location of affordable housing units or senior housing provided, description of all dwelling units existing on the site in the five-year period preceding the date of submittal, number of bonus units requested, number of concessions or incentives requested, and what specific incentives, concessions, waivers, or parking modifications would be sought.
C. The letter of intent shall include sufficient information for the review authority to determine whether the application conforms with the following requirements:
1. Replacement of Units. The development provides sufficient units to account for the replacement of units currently rented or rented to very low-, and low-income households in the past five (5) years, as required by State Density Bonus Law.
2. Concessions and Incentives. Provide evidence that any requested concession or incentive will reduce the cost of the housing development to provide for affordable housing costs or rents; except that, if a mixed-use development is requested, the application must instead meet all of the requirements of State Density Bonus Law.
3. Waiver. Evidence that the development standards for which a waiver is requested would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by State Density Bonus Law.
4. Parking Modification. If a parking modification is sought, evidence that the project is eligible for the parking reduction allowed by State Density Bonus Law.
5. Donation of Land. If the density bonus is based all or in part on donation of land, all of the requirements included in State Density Bonus Law have been met.
6. Child Care Facility. If the density bonus or incentive is based all or in part on the inclusion of a childcare facility, all of the requirements included in State Density Bonus Law have been met.
7. Condominium Conversion. If the density bonus or incentive is based all or in part on the inclusion of affordable units as part of a condominium conversion, all of the requirements included in State Density Bonus Law have been met.
D. The applicant shall be notified if the application is complete in a manner consistent with State Density Bonus Law.
E. (An application for a State Density Bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or parking modification shall be considered and acted upon by the review authority with authority to review the residential or mixed-use development project concurrently with the action on the underlying project within the timelines prescribed by State Density Bonus Law et seq. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
17.86.050 Density bonus.
7.1 Attachment 2 - Ordinance for Chapter 17.86 Density Bonuses
488
1 2
0 0
A. A density bonus for a housing development means a density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable zoning and land use designation on the date the application is deemed complete. The amount of the allowable density bonus shall be calculated as provided in State Density Bonus Law. The applicant may select from only one of the income categories identified in State Density Bonus Law and may not combine density bonuses from different income categories to achieve a larger density bonus.
B. The body with approval authority for the planning approval sought will approve, deny or modify the request for a density bonus, incentive, waiver or use of density bonus parking standards in accordance with State Density Bonus Law and this chapter. Additionally, nothing herein prevents the city from granting a greater density bonus and additional incentives or waivers than that provided for herein, or from providing a lesser density bonus and fewer incentives and waivers than that provided for herein, when the housing development does not meet the minimum thresholds. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
17.86.060 Incentives.
A. Incentives and concessions are those defined by State Density Bonus Law.
B. The number of incentives granted shall be based upon the number the applicant is entitled to pursuant to State Density Bonus Law.
C. A requested incentive may be denied only for those reasons provided in State Density Bonus Law.
Denial of an incentive is a separate and distinct act from a decision to deny or approve the entirety of the project. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
17.86.070 Discretionary approval authority retained.
The granting of a density bonus or incentive(s) shall not be interpreted in and of itself to require a general plan amendment, zoning change or other discretionary approval. If a density bonus or an incentive would otherwise trigger one of these approvals, when it is granted as a density bonus or an incentive, no general plan amendment, zoning change or other discretionary approval is required.
However, if the base project without the density bonus or incentive requires a general plan amendment, zoning change or other discretionary approval, the city retains discretion to make or not make the required findings for approval of the base project. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
17.86.080 Waivers
A waiver is a modification to a development standard that would otherwise physically preclude the construction of a housing project eligible for a density bonus at the densities or with the incentives or concessions permitted by State Density Bonus Law. Development standards include, but are not limited to, a height limitation, a setback requirement, minimum floor areas, an on-site open space requirement, or a parking ratio that applies to a residential development. There is no limit on the number of waivers. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
17.86.090 Affordable housing agreement and senior housing agreement.
A. Except when a density bonus, waiver, or parking reduction is awarded for a market-rate senior housing development, the applicant shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the city to the satisfaction of the city attorney guaranteeing the affordability of the rental or ownership units for a minimum of 55 years, identifying the type, size and location of each affordable unit and containing requirements for administration, reporting and monitoring.
7.1 Attachment 2 - Ordinance for Chapter 17.86 Density Bonuses
489
1 2
0 0
B. Where a density bonus, waiver, or parking reduction is provided for a market-rate senior housing development, the applicant shall enter into a restrictive covenant with the city to the satisfaction of the City Attorney to require that the housing development be operated as “housing for older persons” consistent with state and federal fair housing laws.
C. Such affordable housing agreement or senior housing agreement, as applicable, shall be recorded in the San Mateo County recorder’s office prior to issuance of the first building permit for the housing development. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
17.86.100 Design and quality.
A. Affordable units shall be constructed concurrently with market-rate units and shall be integrated into the project.
B. Affordable units shall be of equal design and quality as the market rate unit. Exteriors and interiors, including architecture, elevations, floor plans, interior finishes and amenities of the affordable units shall be substantially similar to the market rate units.
C. The number of bedrooms in the affordable units shall be consistent with the mix of market rate units.
D. Parking standards may be modified as allowable under the State Density Bonus Law and anything beyond those standards shall be considered a request for an incentive. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
7.1 Attachment 2 - Ordinance for Chapter 17.86 Density Bonuses
490
Chapter 17.78
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Sections:
17.78.010 Findings.
17.78.020 Purpose.
17.78.030 Application.
17.78.040 Definitions.
17.78.050 Permit application for an accessory dwelling unit.
17.78.060 Standards applicable to single-family residence zoning districts.
17.78.070 Standards applicable to multifamily residence zoning districts.
17.78.080 Parking requirements for accessory dwelling units.
17.78.090 Permit issuance.
17.78.100 Other provisions.
17.78.010 Findings.
A. The adoption of an accessory dwelling unit ordinance which permits accessory dwelling units by ministerial review in areas zoned to allow residential zoning districtsdevelopment is consistent with the goals and policies of the Foster City general plan in that accessory dwelling units would help meet the need for affordable housing. Furthermore, construction of accessory dwelling units is not as costly as new construction, because there are no additional land costs, infrastructure costs are reduced, and an accessory dwelling unit can be added at the cost of an addition to, or remodeling of, the main single- family dwelling.
B. The accessory dwelling unit ordinance is intended to permit accessory dwelling units while maintaining the health, safety and welfare of surrounding residents, the character of existing neighborhoods, and the community as a whole. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
17.78.020 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to allow ADUs in single-family residence and multifamily residence zoning districtsaccessory dwelling units in areas zoned to allow residential development through ministerial permit procedures in compliance with state laws. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
17.78.030 Application.
The provisions of this chapter shall apply in residential zoning districts where residential uses are permitted (with or without a planned development combining district). ADUs Accessory dwelling units are not permitted in any other district. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
17.78.040 Definitions.
A. “Accessory dwelling unit” or “ADU” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit which that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the primary single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated. The unit shall be clearly subordinate to the primaryAn accessory dwelling unit on the parcel by size, location, and appearance. An ADU also includes the following:
1. An efficiency unit, as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1, except that the efficiency unit shall be required to provide complete cooking and sanitation facilities.
7.1 Attachment 3 - Revised Section 17.78 Accessory Dwelling with Redlines
491
2. A manufactured home, as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 18007, subject to all provisions of this chapter of the Health and Safety Code.
3. A conversion ADU or ADU converted from existing spaces is a unit within an existing permitted, legally constructed space, including a subordinate portion of the primary structure, an attached or detached garage, or other accessory building or accessory structure.
B. “Attached accessory dwelling unit” means an ADU that is constructed as a physical expansion (i.e., addition) of an existing single-family residence and shares at least one (1) wall with the single-family residence.
C. “Conversion accessory dwelling unit” means an ADU that is created within existing space, including a portion of a primary dwelling unit or existing non-habitable space in an existing primary or accessory structure.
D. “Detached accessory dwelling unit” means an ADU that is constructed as a separate structure from the primary dwelling unit and does not share any walls with the primary dwelling unit or an existing attached accessory structure.
E. “Efficiency unit” has the same meaning as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code.
BF. “High-quality transit corridor” means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than fifteen minutes during peak commute hours.
G. “Infeasible” shall mean when applicable development standards are applied, they would physically preclude development of a proposed ADU up to 800 square feet with at least 4 ft. side and read yard setbacks.
CH. “Junior accessory dwelling unit” or “JADU” is defined per California Government Code Section 65852.22, as it may be amended from time to time, and generally means a unit of that is no more than five hundred (500) square feet, which is located in size and contained entirely within the walls of an existing or proposed a single-family residence, maintains a separate exterior entrance from the main entrance to the single-family residence, maintains an interior connection to the main living area of the single-family residence, either includes. A junior accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation facilities, or shares may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure, and includes an efficiency kitchen.
DI. “Living area” means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit including basements and attics but does not include a garage or any accessory structure or building.
EJ. “Major transit stop” means a site containing (1) an existing rail or bus rapid transit station, (2) a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, (3) the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of fifteen minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods, or (4) a major transit stop that is included in the applicable regional transportation planhas the same meaning as defined in Section 21155 of the California Public Resources Code.
FK. “Passageway” means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the ADU.
7.1 Attachment 3 - Revised Section 17.78 Accessory Dwelling with Redlines
492
GL. “Public transit” means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
17.78.050 Permit application for an accessory dwelling unit.
The application for an ADU permit shall be made by the owners of the subject property in writing to the building division in the form designated by the building division and shall contain the following:
A. A completed building permit application form and applicable fee; B. Written project description;
C. Courtesy neighbor notification report in a form designated by building official indicating adjacent property owners have been notified of the new ADU (garage conversions are exempt from notification); D. Plans and drawings as required by the building division; E. A copy of approval from the HOA (if applicable), unless exempt; FE. A copy of required deed restriction as included in Section 17.78.100, unless exempt. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
17.78.060 Standards applicable to single-family residence zoning districts.
The following shall apply to single-family lots in R-1, R-2 and R-1/PD zoning districts:
A. Number of Units. A single-family lot with a primary dwelling unit may have:
Option 1
1. One JADU (up to 500 SF); or
Option 2
2. One ADU (conversion, attached, or detached); or
Option 3
3. One (1) JADU (up to 500 SF); and,
One (1) conversion ADU; and,
One (1) newly constructed, detached ADU and one JADU(up to 800 SF).
Option 4
One (1) JADU (up to 500 SF); and,
One (1) newly constructed ADU over 800 square feet
Option 5
One (1) JADU (up to 500 SF); and,
One (1) conversion ADU
B. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.
7.1 Attachment 3 - Revised Section 17.78 Accessory Dwelling with Redlines
493
1. Owner Occupancy Required. The number of JADUs shall be limited to one (1) unit per residential lot zoned for single-family residences that includes a proposed or existing single-family residence.
2. The property owner must reside in either the remaining portion of the primary dwelling unit or the JADU. Owner occupancy shall not be required if the owner is another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.
23. The owner must record a deed restriction as outlined in Government Code Section 65852.22, which shall run with the land, and shall include both of the following:
a. A prohibition on the sale of the JADU separate from the sale of the single-family residence, including a statement that the deed restriction may be enforced against future purchasers. b. A restriction on the size and attributes of the JADU that conforms with this chapter. c. If a JADU is rented, the unit shall not be rented for a period of less than thirty consecutive calendar days.
4. A JADU shall be constructed within the walls of the proposed or existing single-family residence, including attached garages.
5. JADUs shall include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the proposed or existing single-family residence. If a permitted JADU does not include a separate bathroom, the permitted JADU shall include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the structure, with an interior entry to the main living area.
6. The JADU shall include an efficiency kitchen, which shall include all of the following:
a. A cooking facility with appliances.
b. A food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the junior accessory dwelling unit.
C. Attached ADUs. One attached ADU per single-family lot is permitted, subject to the following requirements:
1. Size. The total floor area of an attached ADU shall be not more than one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet or fifty (50) percent of the existing or proposed primary dwelling, whichever is less.
2. Location. Attached ADUs shall not be located in the front yard unless development of an eight hundred (800 sq. ft.) square foot ADU is otherwise infeasible.
3. Setbacks. The side and rear setbacks shall be no less than four (4) feet.
4. Height.
a. An attached ADU shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height, or the height requirement for the primary dwelling, whichever is lower.
b. ADUs shall not exceed two (2) stories in height.
D. Detached ADUs. One newly constructed detached ADU per single-family lot is permitted, subject to the following requirements:
1. Size. The total floor area of a detached ADU shall not exceed one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet or fifty (50) percent of the existing or proposed primary dwelling, whichever is less.
2. Location. Detached ADUs shall not be located in the front yard unless development of an eight hundred (800 sq. ft.) square foot ADU is otherwise infeasible.
3. Setbacks.
a. The side and rear setbacks shall be no less than four feet. b. The separation between the detached ADU and the primary dwelling shall be as per California Residential Code.
7.1 Attachment 3 - Revised Section 17.78 Accessory Dwelling with Redlines
494
4. Height. A detached ADU shall not exceed sixteen (16) feet in height, except in the following cases:
a. Where A height of eighteen (18) feet is permitted when an ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in this code section, it shall not exceed eighteen feet in height, with the exception that; and, and additional two (2) feet of height may be added to this to accommodate a roof pitch on the ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit. b. Where an ADU is on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily, multistory dwelling, it shall not exceed eighteen feet in height.
E. Conversion ADUs. One conversion ADU per single-family lot is permitted, subject to the following requirements:
1. Size. The total floor area of detached and attached conversion ADU may be up to one thousand two hundred square feet as long as it does not exceed fifty percent of an existing or proposed primary dwelling.
2. Setbacks. No setbacks shall be required for ADU conversions located within the existing living area or an existing accessory structure, or an ADU that replaces an existing structure and is located in the same location and to the same dimensions as the structure being replaced. A legal accessory building (including a detached garage) may be converted into an ADU provided the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire safety.No setbacks shall be required for ADU conversions of:
a. Existing living space in the primary dwelling.
b. Existing accessory buildings constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions. c. Existing attached or detached garages in single-family neighborhoods.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, conversion ADUs shall provide sufficient side and rear setbacks for fire safety.
32. Height. A conversion ADU shall not alter the height of the existing structure (primary single- family dwelling, accessory building, or garage) that is being converted.
43. Other Standards.
a. Conversion ADUs in existing accessory structures may expand the existing dimensions of the structure no more than one hundred fifty (150) square feet to accommodate ingress/egress.
Any such expansion shall count towards the size of the ADU.
F. Additional Requirements.
1. All JADUs and ADUs shall provide exterior access that is separate from the proposed or existing single-family dwellingcomply with the current Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the city and all related safety codes.
2. All JADUs and ADUs shall provide exterior access that is separate from the primary dwelling.
32. Except as specified in this section, ADUs shall comply with lot coverage, open space, front setbacks, minimum lot size, and other zoning standards applicable to the primary dwelling, except in no event shall the application of any of these standards preclude at least an eight hundred (800) square foot ADU that is up to sixteen feet in height. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
17.78.070 Standards applicable to multifamily residence zoning districts.
The following shall apply to multifamily dwelling lots in R-3, R-4 and R-T (with or without a planned combining district) zoning districts:
7.1 Attachment 3 - Revised Section 17.78 Accessory Dwelling with Redlines
495
A. Conversion ADUs. ADUs are permitted within portions of existing legally permitted multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space including storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, and garages, subject to the following requirements:
1. Number of ADUs. At least one ADU within an existing multifamily building and no more than twenty-five percent of the existing multifamily dwelling units shall be permitted.
2. Size. The total floor area of a conversion ADU shall not exceed eight hundred fifty square feet for a studio or one bedroom, or one thousand square feet for an ADU with two or more bedrooms.
3. Existing livable space may not be converted into an ADU.
B. Detached ADUs.
1. Number of ADUs. Up to two (2) detached ADUs are permitted on a multifamily lot that haswith an existing, new, or proposed multifamily building.
2. Size. The total floor area of a detached ADU shall not exceed eight hundred fifty (850) square feet for a studio or one (1) bedroom, or one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet for an ADU with two (2) or more bedrooms.
3. Setbacks.
a. The side and rear setbacks shall be no less than four (4) feet. b. The separation between the detached ADU and the primary dwelling shall be as per California Building Residential Code.
4. Height.
a. A detachedWhere an ADU is on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily, multi-story dwelling, it shall not exceed sixteen eighteen (18) feet in height. b. An ADU may add up to two (2) feet of height to accommodate a roof pitch on the ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the multifamily dwelling (for a maximum of twenty (20) feet. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
17.78.080 Parking requirements for accessory dwelling units.
A. Parking requirements for newly constructed ADUs shall not exceed one (1) parking space per unit or per bedroom, whichever is less. This space may be provided as tandem parking, including on an existing driveway or in setback areas, excluding the non-driveway front yard setback. Exception to the requirement for provision of one parking space may be made per subsection B of this section.
B. Parking is not required in the following instances:
1. The ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit.
2. The ADU is a conversion ADU.
32. When there is an approved car share vehicle for which a Foster City business license has been issued and remains active, located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit.
43. JADU.
54. ADU that only includes a studio with no bedroom.
5. The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant area.
6. Where the ADU is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
17.78.090 Permit issuanceprocess.
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.2 mandating ministerial approval of ADUs if all of the applicable standards are met, the chief building official or his/her designee shall approve the ADU permit within sixty (60) days of the complete application being submitted. If the ADU or JADU is
7.1 Attachment 3 - Revised Section 17.78 Accessory Dwelling with Redlines
496
proposed as part of a new or remodeled primary residence, the ADU or JADU is not subject to the sixty (60) day timeline and shall be not commence until the primary residence is permitted. The City may review and approve the ADU or JADU in conjunction with the new or remodeled primary residence, but the application to create the ADU or JADU shall be considered without discretionary review or hearing.
B. If the City disapproves an application for an ADU or JADU, the building division shall return in writing, a full set of comments to the applicant with a list of items that are defective or deficient and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant.
C. A demolition permit for a detached garage that is to be replaced with an ADU, mut be reviewed with the application for the ADU and issued at the same time. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
17.78.100 Other provisions.
A. Unless exempt from the owner-occupancy requirement per subsection B of this section, prior to obtaining a building permit for an ADU, an owner-occupancy deed restriction, approved by the city attorney, shall be recorded with the county recorder’s office, which shall include the pertinent restrictions and limitations of an ADU identified in this section including but not limited to: prohibition of the sale of the ADU separate from the sale of the single-family residence; restrictions on the size and attributes of the ADU; and prohibitions on rentals less than thirty consecutive days. Said deed restriction shall run with the land, and shall be binding upon any future owners, heirs, or assigns.
B. Owner Occupancy. Notwithstanding the foregoing or any other provision of this chapter, no owner- occupancy requirement shall be enforced and no deed restriction shall be required for ADU permit applications submitted between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2024.
C. Delay in Enforcement of Unpermitted ADUs. For any unpermitted or substandard ADU built before January 1, 2020, upon an owner’s request, the city’s chief building official shall delay enforcing any building standards if the building official determines that the unpermitted ADU meets health and safety standards. This provision shall sunset on January 1, 2030; however, any delay that was approved by the enforcement agency before January 1, 2030, shall be valid for the full term of the delay.
D. Any ADU may be leased to a maximum of two paying guests, for a period not fewer than thirty (30) consecutive days. If an ADU is constructed pursuant to all of the provisions described herein, the primary residence may be leased to a maximum of two paying guests for a period not fewer than thirty consecutive days. In no case, except as specified in subsection B of this section, shall both the primary residence and ADU on a lot be leased simultaneously.
E. Fire flow and fire department access must comply with the California Fire Code as amended by the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department, or an alternate means shall be proposed.
EF. Fire Sprinklers.
1. An ADU shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence and may employ alternative methods for fire protection.
2. The construction of an ADU shall not trigger a requirement of fire sprinklers to be installed in the existing primary dwelling.
FG. ADUs that are seven hundred fifty square feet or smaller are exempt from impact fees.
7.1 Attachment 3 - Revised Section 17.78 Accessory Dwelling with Redlines
497
G. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the requirements for newly constructed ADUs shall not preclude constructing one ADU of at least eight hundred square feet, which is not more than sixteen feet in height, and at least four feet setback from the side and rear property lines.
H. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, an applicant shall not be required to correct nonconforming conditions on the subject property as a condition of obtaining permits to construct an ADU or JADU.
I. Any properties with ADUs built or developed by a nonprofit corporation may qualify to be sold or conveyed separately from the primary residence, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65852.26. A qualified nonprofit corporation is a nonprofit corporation which is organized pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that has received a welfare exemption under Section 214.15 of the Revenue and Taxation Code for properties intended to be sold to low-income families who participate in a special no-interest loan program.
J. All JADUs and ADUs shall comply with the current Title 24 California Code of Regulations, as adopted by the city and all related safety codes. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
7.1 Attachment 3 - Revised Section 17.78 Accessory Dwelling with Redlines
498
4856-8438-3345 v4
Chapter 17.86
DENSITY BONUSES
SecƟons:
17.86.010 Purpose.
17.86.020 DefiniƟons.
17.86.030 Applicability.
17.86.040 ApplicaƟon requirements.
17.86.050 Density bonus.
17.86.060 IncenƟves.
17.86.070 DiscreƟonary approval authority retained.
17.86.080 Waivers.
17.86.090 Affordable housing agreement.
17.86.100 Design and quality.
17.86.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to adopt an ordinance that specifies how compliancecomply with Government Code SecƟon 65915 65915 through 65918 (“State Density Bonus Law”) will be implementedand implement the housing element of the Foster City General Plan in an effort to encourage the producƟon of affordable housing units in developments proposed within the city. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
17.86.020 DefiniƟons.
Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, the definiƟons found in State Density Bonus Law shall apply to the terms contained herein. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
17.86.030 Applicability.
A. This chapter and State Density Bonus Law shall apply to all zoning districts, where residenƟal development, including mixed -use zoning districts, where residenƟal developmentsdevelopment, are allowed.
B. An applicant that proposes a housing development of five or more dwelling units are proposed and whereis eligible to apply for a density bonus, incenƟves or concessions, waivers, and reduced parking standards if the applicant seeks and agrees to provide low, very-low or moderate income or seniorconstruct a housing units indevelopment that includes at least one of the threshold amountshousing types specified in State Density Bonus Law such thaƟn at least the resulƟng density is beyond that which is permiƩed by the applicable zoning. This chapter andquanƟty specified therein.
C. If any por Ɵon of this Chapter conflicts with State Density Bonus Law, State Density Bonus Law shall apply only to the residenƟal component of a mixed use project andsupersede this Chapter. Any ambiguiƟes in this Chapter shall not operatebe interpreted to increase the allowable density of the nonresidenƟal component of any proposed project.be consistent with State Density Bonus Law. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
17.86.040 ApplicaƟon requirements.
A. To apply for a State Density Bonus, incenƟve, concession, waiver, or parking modificaƟon, the applicant shall submit a leƩer of intent to the City along with the first applicaƟon for approval of a
7.1 Attachment 4 - Revised Chapter 17.86 Density Bonuses with Redlines
499
4856-8438-3345 v4
residenƟal or mixed-use development project that demonstrates the project's eligibility for the requested State Density Bonus, incenƟve, concession, waiver, or parking modificaƟon.
B. A. Any Applicant RequesƟng a Density Bonus, IncenƟve(s), Waiver(s) and/or Use of Density Bonus Parking Standards. The proposal shall be submiƩed prior to or concurrently with the filing of the planning applicaƟon for the housing development and shall be processed in conjuncƟon with the underlying applicaƟon.
B. The proposal for a density bonus, incenƟve(s) and/or waiver(s) pursuant to State Density Bonus Law shall include the following informaƟon:
1. Requested Density Bonus. The specific requested density bonus proposal shall include evidence that the project meets the thresholds for State Density Bonus Law. The proposal shall also include calculaƟons showing the maximum base density, the number/percentage of affordable units and idenƟficaƟon of the income level at which such units will be restricted, addiƟonal market rate units resulƟng from the density bonus allowable under State Density Bonus Law and the resulƟng unit per acre density. The density bonus units shall not be included in determining the percentage of base units that qualify a project for a density bonus pursuant to State Density Bonus Law.
2. Requested IncenƟve(s). The request for parƟcular incenƟve(s) shall include a pro forma or other report evidencing that the requested incenƟve(s) results in idenƟfiable, financially sufficient and actual cost reducƟons that are necessary to make the housing units economically feasible. The report shall be sufficiently detailed to allow the city to verify its conclusions. If the city requires the services of specialized financial consultants to review and corroborate the analysis, the applicant will be responsible for all costs incurred in reviewing the documentaƟon.
3. Requested Waiver(s). The wriƩen proposal shall include an explanaƟon of the waiver(s) of development standards requested and why they are necessary to make the construcƟon of the project physically possible. Any requested waiver(s) shall not exceed the limitaƟons provided by SecƟon 17.86.080 and to the extent such limitaƟons are exceeded will be considered as a request for an incenƟve pursuant to SecƟon 17.86.060.
4. Fee. Payment of the fee in an amount set by resoluƟon of the city council to reimburse the city for staff Ɵme spent reviewing and processing the State Density Bonus Law applicaƟon submiƩed pursuant to this chapter.The leƩer of intent shall specify the density permiƩed by the zoning and general plan, the affordability levels to be provided, tenure (for-sale or rental), number and locaƟon of affordable housing units or senior housing provided, descripƟon of all dwelling units exisƟng on the site in the five-year period preceding the date of submiƩal, number of bonus units requested, number of concessions or incenƟves requested, and what specific incenƟves, concessions, waivers, or parking modificaƟons would be sought.
C. The le Ʃer of intent shall include sufficient informaƟon for the review authority to determine whether the applicaƟon conforms with the following requirements:
1. Replacement of Units. The development provides su fficient units to account for the replacement of units currently rented or rented to very low-, and low-income households in the past five (5) years, as required by State Density Bonus Law.
2. Concessions and Incentives. Provide evidence that any requested concession or incen Ɵve will reduce the cost of the housing development to provide for affordable housing costs or rents;
7.1 Attachment 4 - Revised Chapter 17.86 Density Bonuses with Redlines
500
4856-8438-3345 v4
except that, if a mixed-use development is requested, the applicaƟon must instead meet all of the requirements of State Density Bonus Law.
3. Waiver. Evidence that the development standards for which a waiver is requested would have the effect of physically precluding the construcƟon of a development at the densiƟes or with the concessions or incenƟves permiƩed by State Density Bonus Law.
4. Parking Modification. If a parking modi ficaƟon is sought, evidence that the project is eligible for the parking reducƟon allowed by State Density Bonus Law.
5. Donation of Land. If the density bonus is based all or in part on dona Ɵon of land, all of the requirements included in State Density Bonus Law have been met.
6. Child Care Facility. If the density bonus or incen Ɵve is based all or in part on the inclusion of a childcare facility, all of the requirements included in State Density Bonus Law have been met.
7. Condominium Conversion. If the density bonus or incen Ɵve is based all or in part on the inclusion of affordable units as part of a condominium conversion, all of the requirements included in State Density Bonus Law have been met.
D. The applicant shall be no Ɵfied if the applicaƟon is complete in a manner consistent with State Density Bonus Law.
E. An applica Ɵon for a State Density Bonus, incenƟve, concession, waiver, or parking modificaƟon shall be considered and acted upon by the review authority with authority to review the residenƟal or mixed- use development project concurrently with the acƟon on the underlying project within the Ɵmelines prescribed by State Density Bonus Law et seq. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
17.86.050 Density bonus.
A. A density bonus for a housing development means a density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable residenƟal density under the applicable zoning and land use designaƟon on the date the applicaƟon is deemed complete. The amount of the allowable density bonus shall be calculated as provided in State Density Bonus Law. The applicant may select from only one of the income categories idenƟfied in State Density Bonus Law and may not combine density bonuses from different income categories to achieve a larger density bonus.
B. The body with approval authority for the planning approval sought will approve, deny or modify the request for a density bonus, incenƟve, waiver or use of density bonus parking standards in accordance with State Density Bonus Law and this chapter. AddiƟonally, nothing herein prevents the city from granƟng a greater density bonus and addiƟonal incenƟves or waivers than that provided for herein, or from providing a lesser density bonus and fewer incenƟves and waivers than that provided for herein, when the housing development does not meet the minimum thresholds. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
17.86.060 IncenƟves.
A. IncenƟves and concessions are those defined by State Density Bonus Law.
B. The number of incenƟves granted shall be based upon the number the applicant is enƟtled to pursuant to State Density Bonus Law.
7.1 Attachment 4 - Revised Chapter 17.86 Density Bonuses with Redlines
501
4856-8438-3345 v4
B. An incenƟve includes a reducƟon in site development standards or a modificaƟon of zoning code requirements or architectural requirements that result in idenƟfiable, financially sufficient and actual cost reducƟons. An incenƟve may be the approval of mixed use zoning (e.g., commercial) in conjuncƟon with a housing project if the mixed use will reduce the cost of the housing development and is compaƟble with the housing project. An incenƟve may, but need not be, the provision of a direct financial incenƟve, such as the waiver of fees.
C. A requested incenƟve may be denied only for those reasons provided in State Density Bonus Law.
Denial of an incenƟve is a separate and disƟnct act from a decision to deny or approve the enƟrety of the project. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
17.86.070 DiscreƟonary approval authority retained.
The granƟng of a density bonus or incenƟve(s) shall not be interpreted in and of itself to require a general plan amendment, zoning change or other discreƟonary approval. IfIf a density bonus or an incenƟve would otherwise trigger one of these approvals, when it is granted as a density bonus or an incenƟve, no general plan amendment, zoning change or other discreƟonary approval is required.
However, if the base project without the density bonus or incenƟve requires a general plan amendment, zoning change or other discreƟonary approval, the city retains discreƟon to make or not make the required findings for approval of the base project. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
17.86.080 Waivers
A waiver is a modificaƟon to a development standard such that construcƟon at the increased density would be physically possible.that would otherwise physically preclude the construcƟon of a housing project eligible for a density bonus at the densiƟes or with the incenƟves or concessions permiƩed by State Density Bonus Law. Development standards include, but are not limited to, a height limitaƟon, a setback requirement, minimum floor areas, an on-site open space requirement, or a parking raƟo that applies to a residenƟal development. An applicant may request a waiver of any development standard to make the project physically possible to construct at the increased density. To be enƟtled to the requested waiver, the applicant must show that without the waiver, the project would be physically impossible to construct. There is no limit on the number of waivers. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
17.86.090 Affordable housing agreement. and senior housing agreement.
Prior to issuance of a building permitA. Except when a density bonus, waiver, or parking reduc Ɵon is awarded for a market-rate senior housing development, the applicant shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the city to the saƟsfacƟon of the city aƩorney guaranteeing the affordability of the rental or ownership units for a minimum of thirty55 years, idenƟfying the type, size and locaƟon of each affordable unit and containing requirements for administraƟon, reporƟng and monitoring. Such affordable housing agreement shall be recorded in the San Mateo County recorder’s office. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
B. Where a density bonus, waiver, or parking reduc Ɵon is provided for a market-rate senior housing development, the applicant shall enter into a restricƟve covenant with the city to the saƟsfacƟon of the City AƩorney to require that the housing development be operated as “housing for older persons” consistent with state and federal fair housing laws.
7.1 Attachment 4 - Revised Chapter 17.86 Density Bonuses with Redlines
502
4856-8438-3345 v4
C. Such affordable housing agreement or senior housing agreement, as applicable, shall be recorded in the San Mateo County recorder’s office prior to issuance of the first building permit for the housing development. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
17.86.100 Design and quality.
A. Affordable units mustshall be constructed concurrently with market-rate units and shall be integrated into the project.
B. Affordable units shall be of equal design and quality as the market rate unit. Exteriors and interiors, including architecture, elevaƟons, floor plans, interior finishes and ameniƟes of the affordable units shall be substanƟally similar to the market rate units.
C. The number of bedrooms in the affordable units shall be consistent with the mix of market rate units. This secƟon may be waived or modified on a case by case basis for affordable housing units developed for special groups, including housing for special needs or seniors.
BD. Parking standards may be modified as allowable under the State Density Bonus Law and anything beyond those standards shall be considered a request for an incenƟve. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
7.1 Attachment 4 - Revised Chapter 17.86 Density Bonuses with Redlines
503
RESOLUTION NO. P - 11 - 23
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE VARIOUS TEXT AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 17, “ZONING” OF THE FOSTER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 17.78, “ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS” AND FINDING THE AMENDMENTS EXEMPT
FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE SECTION 15061(B)(3) - RZ2023-0006
FOSTER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Law authorizes local jurisdictions to act by ordinance to provide for the creation and regulation of accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) and junior accessory dwelling units (“JADUs”); and
WHEREAS, in 2022, t he legislature adopted two (2) key ADU bills in 2022:
Assembly Bill (A B) 2221 and Sente Bill ( SB) 897 that amended Government Code Sections 65852.2, 65852.22. and 65852.23, and Health and Safety Code Section 17980.12; and
WHEREAS, these bills make further revisions to state law, and local jurisdictions need to readopt any local ordinances related to ADUs to include new provisions/clarifications; and
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2023, a Planning Commission Study Session was held to update the public and the Planning Commission on most recent State Laws affecting land uses, including additional revisions to the requirements of accessory dwelling units; and
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 says that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the adoption of an ordinance to implement the provisions of Section 65852.2 of the Government Code, which means that adoption of this ordinance to update the Municipal Code to implement State ADU law is statutorily exempt from CEQA; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was duly posted for consideration of the amendment to the Municipal Code Chapter 17.78 at the Planning Commission meeting on August 17, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Foster City has carefully reviewed and considered the staff report and all attachment thereto presented as part of the agenda for the public hearing regarding the proposed amendment to Title 17, Zoning, of the Foster City Municipal Code as referenced above including any and all timely submitted correspondence, all information submitted at or prior to the public hearing, and all public comment and testimony presented at the public hearing (collectively, the “Record”); and
DocuSign Envelope ID: 23DE143A-F499-4E5E-9E06-9565F4F431C9
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution P-11-23
504
Resolution No. P- 11 -23
RZ2023-0006
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, based on facts and analysis in the staff report, written and oral testimony, and exhibits presented, finds that:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action.
2. The proposed amendments are internally consistent with all other provisions of the General Plan and do not conflict with any of the previously adopted goals, policies, or programs of the General Plan.
3. The proposed amendments are necessary to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan through implementation of the Housing Element.
4. The proposed Zoning amendments comply with, and are required by, applicable State law, including Government Code Section 65852.2, 65852.22, 68852.23, and the Health and Safety Code Section 17980.12.
5. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest, convenience, and general welfare of the City.
6. The proposed amendments are exempt from CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3) and consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21080.17.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Foster City does hereby recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance making various text amendments to Title 17, “Zoning” of the Foster City Municipal Code Chapters 17.78 Accessory Dwelling Units, contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein and finding the amendments exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
PASSED AND ADOPTED as a Resolution by the Planning Commission of the City of Foster City at a Regular Meeting thereof held on August 17, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES, COMMISSIONERS: Bronitsky, Haddad, Pedro, Venkat, and Chair Jagtiani
NOES, COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN, COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT, COMMISSIONERS:
___________________
RAVI JAGTIANI, CHAIR
ATTEST:
____________________________
SOFIA MANGALAM, SECRETARY
DocuSign Envelope ID: 23DE143A-F499-4E5E-9E06-9565F4F431C9
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution P-11-23
505
Resolution No. P- 11 -23
Chapter 17.78 Accessory Dwelling Unit Update
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 17.78 Accessory Dwelling Unit Update
2023 Updates
Chapter 17.78
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Sec�ons:
17.78.010 Findings.
17.78.020 Purpose.
17.78.030 Applica�on.
17.78.040 Defini�ons.
17.78.050 Permit applica�on for an accessory dwelling unit.
17.78.060 Standards applicable to single-family residence zoning districts.
17.78.070 Standards applicable to mul�family residence zoning districts.
17.78.080 Parking requirements for accessory dwelling units.
17.78.090 Permit issuance.
17.78.100 Other provisions.
17.78.010 Findings.
A. The adop�on of an accessory dwelling unit ordinance which permits accessory dwelling units by ministerial review in areas zoned to allow residen�al development is consistent with the goals and policies of the Foster City general plan in that accessory dwelling units would help meet the need for affordable housing. Furthermore, construc�on of accessory dwelling units is not as costly as new construc�on, because there are no addi�onal land costs, infrastructure costs are reduced, and an accessory dwelling unit can be added at the cost of an addi�on to, or remodeling of, the main single- family dwelling.
B. The accessory dwelling unit ordinance is intended to permit accessory dwelling units while maintaining the health, safety and welfare of surrounding residents, the character of exis�ng neighborhoods, and the community as a whole. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
17.78.020 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to allow accessory dwelling units in areas zoned to allow residen�al development through ministerial permit procedures in compliance with state laws. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh.
P), 2023)
17.78.030 Applica�on.
The provisions of this chapter shall apply in zoning districts where residential uses are permitted (with or without a planned development combining district). Accessory dwelling units are not permitted in any other district. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
17.78.040 Definitions.
A. “Accessory dwelling unit” or “ADU” means an atached or a detached residen�al dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facili�es for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or exis�ng primary residence. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, ea�ng, DocuSign Envelope ID: 23DE143A-F499-4E5E-9E06-9565F4F431C9
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution P-11-23
506
Resolution No. P- 11 -23
Chapter 17.78 Accessory Dwelling Unit Update
cooking, and sanita�on on the same parcel as the single-family or mul�family dwelling is or will be situated. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following:
1. An efficiency unit.
2. A manufactured home, as defined in Sec�on 18007 of the Health and Safety Code.
B. “Atached accessory dwelling unit” means an ADU that is constructed as a physical expansion (i.e., addi�on) of an exis�ng single-family residence and shares at least one (1) wall with the single-family residence.
C. “Conversion accessory dwelling unit” means an ADU that is created within exis�ng space, including a por�on of a primary dwelling unit or exis�ng non-habitable space in an exis�ng primary or accessory structure.
D. “Detached accessory dwelling unit” means an ADU that is constructed as a separate structure from the primary dwelling unit and does not share any walls with the primary dwelling unit or an exis�ng atached accessory structure.
E. “Efficiency unit” has the same meaning as defined in Sec�on 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code.
F. “High-quality transit corridor” means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than fi�een minutes during peak commute hours.
G. “Junior accessory dwelling unit” or “JADU” means a unit that is no more than five hundred (500 sq. �.) square feet in size and contained en�rely within a single-family residence. A junior accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanita�on facili�es, or may share sanita�on facili�es with the exis�ng structure.
H. “Living area” means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit including basements and a�cs but does not include a garage or any accessory structure or building.
I. “Major transit stop” has the same meaning as defined in Sec�on 21155 of the California Public Resources Code.
J. “Passageway” means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the ADU.
K. “Public transit” means a loca�on, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train sta�on, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transporta�on that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
17.78.050 Permit applica�on for an accessory dwelling unit.
The applica�on for an ADU permit shall be made by the owners of the subject property in wri�ng to the building division in the form designated by the building division and shall contain the following:
A. A completed building permit applica�on form and applicable fee;
B. Writen project descrip�on;
DocuSign Envelope ID: 23DE143A-F499-4E5E-9E06-9565F4F431C9
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution P-11-23
507
Resolution No. P- 11 -23
Chapter 17.78 Accessory Dwelling Unit Update
C. Courtesy neighbor no�fica�on report in a form designated by building official indica�ng adjacent property owners have been no�fied of the new ADU (Garage Conversions are exempt from no�fica�on);
D. Plans and drawings as required by the building division;
E. A copy of required deed restric�on as included in Sec�on 17.78.100, unless exempt. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
17.78.060 Standards applicable to single-family residence zoning districts.
The following shall apply to single-family lots in R-1, R-2 and R-1/PD zoning districts:
A. Number of Units. A single-family lot with a primary dwelling unit may have:
Op�on 1
One (1) JADU (up to 500 SF); or
Op�on 2
One (1) ADU (conversion, atached, or detached); or
Op�on 3
One (1) JADU (up to 500 SF); and,
One (1) conversion ADU; and,
One (1) newly constructed ADU (up to 800 SF); or,
Op�on 4One (1) JADU (up to 500 SF); and,
One (1) newly constructed ADU over 800 SF; or,
Op�on 5
One (1) JADU (up to 500 SF); and,
One (1) conversion ADU
B. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.
1. The number of JADUs shall be limited to one (1) unit per residen�al lot zoned for single-family residences that includes a proposed or exis�ng single-family residence.
2. The property owner must reside in either the remaining por�on of the primary dwelling unit or the JADU. Owner occupancy shall not be required if the owner is another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organiza�on.
3. The owner must record a deed restric�on as outlined in Government Code Sec�on 65852.22, which shall run with the land, and shall include both of the following:
a. A prohibi�on on the sale of the JADU separate from the sale of the single-family residence, including a statement that the deed restric�on may be enforced against future purchasers. b. A restric�on on the size and atributes of the JADU that conforms with this chapter. c. If a JADU is rented, the unit shall not be rented for a period of less than thirty (30) consecu�ve calendar days.
4. A JADU shall be constructed within the walls of the proposed or exis�ng single-family residence, including atached garages.
5. JADUs shall include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the proposed or exis�ng single-family residence. If a permited JADU does not include a separate bathroom, the DocuSign Envelope ID: 23DE143A-F499-4E5E-9E06-9565F4F431C9
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution P-11-23
508
Resolution No. P- 11 -23
Chapter 17.78 Accessory Dwelling Unit Update
permited JADU shall include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the structure, with an interior entry to the main living area.
6. The JADU shall include an efficiency kitchen, which shall include all of the following:
a. A cooking facility with appliances.
b. A food prepara�on counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in rela�on to the size of the junior accessory dwelling unit.
C. Atached ADUs. One atached ADU per single-family lot is permited, subject to the following requirements:
1. Size. The total floor area of an atached ADU shall be not more than one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet or fi�y (50) percent of the exis�ng or proposed primary dwelling, whichever is less.
2. Loca�on. Atached ADUs shall not be located in the front yard unless development of an eight hundred (800 sq. �.) square foot ADU is otherwise infeasible.
3. Setbacks. The side and rear setbacks shall be no less than four (4) feet.
4. Height.
a. An atached ADU shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height, or the height requirement for the primary dwelling, whichever is lower.
b. ADUs shall not exceed two (2) stories in height.
D. Detached ADUs. One newly constructed detached ADU per single-family lot is permited, subject to the following requirements:
1. Size. The total floor area of a detached ADU shall not exceed one thousand two hundred square feet or fi�y percent of the exis�ng or proposed primary dwelling, whichever is less.
2. Loca�on. Detached ADUs shall not be located in the front yard unless the development of an eight hundred (800) square foot ADU is otherwise infeasible.
3. Setbacks.
a. The side and rear setbacks shall be no less than four (4) feet. b. The separa�on between the detached ADU and the primary dwelling shall be as per California Residen�al Code.
4. Height. A detached ADU shall not exceed sixteen (16) feet in height, except in the following cases:
a. A height of eighteen (18) feet is permited when an ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in this code sec�on; and, an addi�onal two (2) feet of height to accommodate a roof pitch on the ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit.
E. Conversion ADUs. One conversion ADU per single-family lot is permited, subject to the following requirements:
1. Setbacks. No setbacks shall be required for ADU conversions located within the exis�ng living area or an exis�ng accessory structure, or an ADU that replaces an exis�ng structure and is located in the same loca�on and to the same dimensions as the structure being replaced. A legal accessory building (including a detached garage) may be converted into an ADU provided the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire safety.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this sec�on, conversion ADUs shall provide sufficient side and rear setbacks for fire safety.
2. Height. A conversion ADU shall not alter the height of the exis�ng structure (single-family dwelling, accessory building, or garage) that is being converted.
3. Other Standards.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 23DE143A-F499-4E5E-9E06-9565F4F431C9
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution P-11-23
509
Resolution No. P- 11 -23
Chapter 17.78 Accessory Dwelling Unit Update
a. Conversion ADUs in exis�ng accessory structures may expand the exis�ng dimensions of the structure no more than one hundred fi�y (150) square feet to accommodate ingress/egress.
Any such expansion shall count towards the size of the ADU.
F. Addi�onal Requirements.
1. All JADUs and ADUs shall provide exterior access that is separate from the proposed or exis�ng single-family dwelling.
2. Except as specified in this sec�on, ADUs shall comply with lot coverage, open space, front setbacks, minimum lot size, and other zoning standards applicable to the primary dwelling, except in no event shall the applica�on of any of these standards preclude at least an eight hundred (800) square foot ADU. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
17.78.070 Standards applicable to mul�family residence zoning districts.
The following shall apply to mul�family dwelling lots in R-3, R-4 and R-T (with or without a planned combining district) zoning districts:
A. Conversion ADUs. ADUs are permited within por�ons of exis�ng legally permited mul�family dwelling structures that are not used as livable space including storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, a�cs, basements, and garages, subject to the following requirements:
1. Number of ADUs. At least one ADU within an exis�ng mul�family building and no more than twenty-five percent of the exis�ng mul�family dwelling units shall be permited.
2. Size. The total floor area of a conversion ADU shall not exceed eight hundred fi�y square feet for a studio or one bedroom, or one thousand square feet for an ADU with two or more bedrooms.
3. Exis�ng livable space may not be converted into an ADU.
B. Detached ADUs.
1. Number of ADUs. Up to two (2) detached ADUs are permited on a mul�family lot with an exis�ng, new, or proposed mul�family building.
2. Size. The total floor area of a detached ADU shall not exceed eight hundred fi�y (850) square feet for a studio or one (1) bedroom, or one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet for an ADU with two (2) or more bedrooms.
3. Setbacks.
a. The side and rear setbacks shall be no less than four (4) feet.
4. Height.
a. Where an ADU is on a lot with an exis�ng or proposed mul�family, mul�-story dwelling, it shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet in height.
b. An ADU may add up to two (2) feet of height to accommodate a roof pitch on the ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the mul�family dwelling (for a maximum of twenty (20) feet. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
17.78.080 Parking requirements for accessory dwelling units.
A. Parking requirements for newly constructed ADUs shall not exceed one (1) parking space per unit or per bedroom, whichever is less. This space may be provided as tandem parking, including on an exis�ng driveway or in setback areas, excluding the non-driveway front yard setback. Excep�on to the requirement for provision of one parking space may be made per subsec�on B of this sec�on.
B. Parking is not required in the following instances:
1. The ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 23DE143A-F499-4E5E-9E06-9565F4F431C9
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution P-11-23
510
Resolution No. P- 11 -23
Chapter 17.78 Accessory Dwelling Unit Update
2. When there is an approved car share vehicle for which a Foster City business license has been issued and remains ac�ve, located within one block of the ADU.
3. JADU.
4. An ADU that only includes a studio with no bedroom.
5. The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant area.
6. Where the ADU is part of the proposed or exis�ng primary residence or an accessory structure. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
17.78.090 Permit Process.
A. Pursuant to Government Code Sec�on 65852.2 manda�ng ministerial approval of ADUs if all of the applicable standards are met, the chief building official or his/her designee shall approve the ADU permit within sixty (60) days of the complete applica�on being submited. If the ADU or JADU is proposed as part of a new or remodeled primary residence, the sixty-day �meline shall not commence un�l the primary residence is permited. The City may review and approve the ADU or JADU in conjunc�on with the new or remodeled primary residence, but the applica�on to create the ADU or JADU shall be considered without discre�onary review or hearing.
B. If the City disapproves an applica�on for an ADU or JADU, the building division shall return in wri�ng, a full set of comments to the applicant with a list of items that are defec�ve or deficient and a descrip�on of how the applica�on can be remedied by the applicant.
C. A demoli�on permit for a detached garage that is to be replaced with an ADU, mut be reviewed with the applica�on for the ADU and issued at the same �me. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
17.78.100 Other provisions.
A. Unless exempt from the owner-occupancy requirement per subsec�on B of this sec�on, prior to obtaining a building permit for an ADU, an owner-occupancy deed restric�on, approved by the city atorney, shall be recorded with the county recorder’s office, which shall include the per�nent restric�ons and limita�ons of an ADU iden�fied in this sec�on including but not limited to: prohibi�on of the sale of the ADU separate from the sale of the single-family residence; restric�ons on the size and atributes of the ADU; and prohibi�ons on rentals less than thirty consecu�ve days. Said deed restric�on shall run with the land, and shall be binding upon any future owners, heirs, or assigns.
B. Owner Occupancy. Notwithstanding the foregoing or any other provision of this chapter, no owner- occupancy requirement shall be enforced and no deed restric�on shall be required for ADU permit applica�ons submited between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2024.
C. Delay in Enforcement of Unpermited ADUs. For any unpermited or substandard ADU built before January 1, 2020, upon an owner’s request, the city’s chief building official shall delay enforcing any building standards if the building official determines that the unpermited ADU meets health and safety standards. This provision shall sunset on January 1, 2030; however, any delay that was approved by the enforcement agency before January 1, 2030, shall be valid for the full term of the delay.
D. Any ADU may be leased for a period not fewer than thirty (30) consecu�ve days.
E. Fire flow and fire department access must comply with the California Fire Code as amended by the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department, or an alternate means shall be proposed.
F. Fire Sprinklers.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 23DE143A-F499-4E5E-9E06-9565F4F431C9
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution P-11-23
511
Resolution No. P- 11 -23
Chapter 17.78 Accessory Dwelling Unit Update
1. An ADU shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence and may employ alterna�ve methods for fire protec�on.
2. The construc�on of an ADU shall not trigger a requirement of fire sprinklers to be installed in the exis�ng primary dwelling.
G. ADUs that are seven hundred fi�y (750) square feet or smaller are exempt from impact fees.
H. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, an applicant shall not be required to correct nonconforming condi�ons on the subject property as a condi�on of obtaining permits to construct an ADU or JADU.
I. Any proper�es with ADUs built or developed by a nonprofit corpora�on may qualify to be sold or conveyed separately from the primary residence, pursuant to California Government Code Sec�on 65852.26. A qualified nonprofit corpora�on is a nonprofit corpora�on which is organized pursuant to Sec�on 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that has received a welfare exemp�on under Sec�on 214.15 of the Revenue and Taxa�on Code for proper�es intended to be sold to low-income families who par�cipate in a special no-interest loan program. (Ord. 657 § 4 (Exh. P), 2023)
J. All JADUs and ADUs shall comply with the current Title 24 California Code of Regula�ons., as adopted by the city and all related safety codes.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 23DE143A-F499-4E5E-9E06-9565F4F431C9
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution P-11-23
512
RESOLUTION NO. P - 12 - 23
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 17, “ZONING” OF THE FOSTER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 17.86, “DENSITY BONUSES” TO COMPLY WITH RECENT CHANGES IN STATE LAW AND FIND ING
THE AMENDMENTS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE SECTION 15061(B)(3) – RZ2023-0007
FOSTER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
WHEREAS California Government Code Section 65915 ("State Density Bonus Law") requires all cities to adopt an ordinance that specifies how compliance with State Density Bonus Law will be implemented; and;
WHEREAS, in 2022, the Legislature adopted three (3) bills, Assembly Bills (AB) 2334, 1551, and 682, that make various amendments and clarifi cations to State Density Bonus Law, Government Code (GC) Section 65915; and
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2023, a Planning Commission Study Session was held to update the public and the Planning Commission on most recent State Laws affecting land uses, including additional revisions to the requirements density bonus law; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are required to be adopted to comply with State Density Bonus Law, which would preempt inconsistent provisions of the Municipal Code if such amendments were not adopted, and therefore the Municipal Code amendments would not result in a direct or indirect foreseeable physical change to the environment and are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) Section 15061(b)(3), Common Sense Exemption; and
WHEREAS a Notice of Publ ic Hearing was duly posted for consideration of the amendment to the Municipal Code Chapter 17.786 at the Planning Commission meeting on August 17, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Foster City has carefully reviewed and considered the staff report and all attachment thereto presented as part of the agenda for the
public hearing regarding the proposed amendment to Title 17, Zoning, of the Foster City Municipal Code as referenced above including any and all timely submitted correspondence, all information submitted at or prior to the public hearing, and all public comment and testimony presented at the public hearing (collectively, the “Record”); and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, based on facts and analysis in the staff report, written and oral testimony, and exhibits presented, finds that:
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE6C45F8-337A-4E16-A22D-84D0E45164B6
7.1 Attachment 6 - Planning Commission Resolution P-12-23
513
Resolution No. P- 12 -23
RZ2023-0007
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action.
2. The proposed amendments are internally consistent with all other provisions of the General Plan and do not conflict with any of the previously adopted goals, policies or programs of the General Plan.
3. The proposed amendments are necessary to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan through implementation of the Housing Element.
4. The proposed Zoning amendments comply with, and are required by, applicable State law, including Government Code Section 68915 – 65918, and the Health and Safety Code Section 17980.12.
5. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest, convenience, and general welfare of the City.
6. The proposed amendments are exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Foster City does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance making text amendments to Title 17, “Zoni ng” of the Foster City Municipal Code Chapter 17.86 Density Bonuses, contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein and finding the amendments exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Foster City at a Regular Meeting thereof held on August 17, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES, COMMISSIONERS: Bronitsky, Haddad, Pedro, Venkat, and Chair Jagtiani
NOES, COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN, COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT, COMMISSIONERS:
___________________
RAVI JAGTIANI, CHAIR
ATTEST:
____________________________
SOFIA MANGALAM, SECRETARY
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE6C45F8-337A-4E16-A22D-84D0E45164B6
7.1 Attachment 6 - Planning Commission Resolution P-12-23
514
Resolution No. P-12-23
Chapter 17.86 Density Bonuses Updates
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 17.86 Density Bonuses
2023 Updates
Chapter 17.86
DENSITY BONUSES
Sec�ons:
17.86.010 Purpose.
17.86.020 Defini�ons.
17.86.030 Applicability.
17.86.040 Applica�on requirements.
17.86.050 Density bonus.
17.86.060 Incen�ves.
17.86.070 Discre�onary approval authority retained.
17.86.080 Waivers.
17.86.090 Affordable housing agreement.
17.86.100 Design and quality.
17.86.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to comply with Government Code Sec�on 65915 through 65918 (“State Density Bonus Law”) and implement the housing element of the Foster City General Plan in an effort to encourage the produc�on of affordable housing units in developments proposed within the city. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
17.86.020 Defini�ons.
Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, the defini�ons found in State Density Bonus Law shall apply to the terms contained herein. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
17.86.030 Applicability.
A. This chapter and State Density Bonus Law shall apply to all zoning districts, where residen�al development, including mixed-use development, are allowed.
B. An applicant that proposes a housing development of five or more dwelling units is eligible to apply for a density bonus, incen�ves or concessions, waivers, and reduced parking standards if the applicant seeks and agrees to construct a housing development that includes at least one of the housing types specified in State Density Bonus Law in at least the quan�ty specified therein.
C. If any por�on of this Chapter conflicts with State Density Bonus Law, State Density Bonus Law shall supersede this Chapter. Any ambigui�es in this Chapter shall be interpreted to be consistent with State Density Bonus Law. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
17.86.040 Applica�on requirements.
A. To apply for a State Density Bonus, incen�ve, concession, waiver, or parking modifica�on, the applicant shall submit a leter of intent to the City along with the first applica�on for approval of a residen�al or mixed-use development project that demonstrates the project's eligibility for the requested State Density Bonus, incen�ve, concession, waiver, or parking modifica�on.
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE6C45F8-337A-4E16-A22D-84D0E45164B6
7.1 Attachment 6 - Planning Commission Resolution P-12-23
515
Resolution No. P-12-23
Chapter 17.86 Density Bonuses Updates
B. The leter of intent shall specify the density permited by the zoning and general plan, the affordability levels to be provided, tenure (for-sale or rental), number and loca�on of affordable housing units or senior housing provided, descrip�on of all dwelling units exis�ng on the site in the five-year period preceding the date of submital, number of bonus units requested, number of concessions or incen�ves requested, and what specific incen�ves, concessions, waivers, or parking modifica�ons would be sought.
C. The leter of intent shall include sufficient informa�on for the review authority to determine whether the applica�on conforms with the following requirements:
1. Replacement of Units. The development provides sufficient units to account for the replacement of units currently rented or rented to very low-, and low-income households in the past five (5) years, as required by State Density Bonus Law.
2. Concessions and Incentives. Provide evidence that any requested concession or incen�ve will reduce the cost of the housing development to provide for affordable housing costs or rents; except that, if a mixed-use development is requested, the applica�on must instead meet all of the requirements of State Density Bonus Law.
3. Waiver. Evidence that the development standards for which a waiver is requested would have the effect of physically precluding the construc�on of a development at the densi�es or with the concessions or incen�ves permited by State Density Bonus Law.
4. Parking Modification. If a parking modifica�on is sought, evidence that the project is eligible for the parking reduc�on allowed by State Density Bonus Law.
5. Donation of Land. If the density bonus is based all or in part on dona�on of land, all of the requirements included in State Density Bonus Law have been met.
6. Child Care Facility. If the density bonus or incen�ve is based all or in part on the inclusion of a childcare facility, all of the requirements included in State Density Bonus Law have been met.
7. Condominium Conversion. If the density bonus or incen�ve is based all or in part on the inclusion of affordable units as part of a condominium conversion, all of the requirements included in State Density Bonus Law have been met.
D. The applicant shall be no�fied if the applica�on is complete in a manner consistent with State Density Bonus Law.
E. (An applica�on for a State Density Bonus, incen�ve, concession, waiver, or parking modifica�on shall be considered and acted upon by the review authority with authority to review the residen�al or mixed- use development project concurrently with the ac�on on the underlying project within the �melines prescribed by State Density Bonus Law et seq. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
17.86.050 Density bonus.
A. A density bonus for a housing development means a density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable residen�al density under the applicable zoning and land use designa�on on the date the applica�on is deemed complete. The amount of the allowable density bonus shall be calculated as DocuSign Envelope ID: EE6C45F8-337A-4E16-A22D-84D0E45164B6
7.1 Attachment 6 - Planning Commission Resolution P-12-23
516
Resolution No. P-12-23
Chapter 17.86 Density Bonuses Updates
provided in State Density Bonus Law. The applicant may select from only one of the income categories iden�fied in State Density Bonus Law and may not combine density bonuses from different income categories to achieve a larger density bonus.
B. The body with approval authority for the planning approval sought will approve, deny or modify the request for a density bonus, incen�ve, waiver or use of density bonus parking standards in accordance with State Density Bonus Law and this chapter. Addi�onally, nothing herein prevents the city from gran�ng a greater density bonus and addi�onal incen�ves or waivers than that provided for herein, or from providing a lesser density bonus and fewer incen�ves and waivers than that provided for herein, when the housing development does not meet the minimum thresholds. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
17.86.060 Incen�ves.
A. Incen�ves and concessions are those defined by State Density Bonus Law.
B. The number of incen�ves granted shall be based upon the number the applicant is en�tled to pursuant to State Density Bonus Law.
C. A requested incen�ve may be denied only for those reasons provided in State Density Bonus Law.
Denial of an incen�ve is a separate and dis�nct act from a decision to deny or approve the en�rety of the project. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
17.86.070 Discre�onary approval authority retained.
The gran�ng of a density bonus or incen�ve(s) shall not be interpreted in and of itself to require a general plan amendment, zoning change or other discre�onary approval. If a density bonus or an incen�ve would otherwise trigger one of these approvals, when it is granted as a density bonus or an incen�ve, no general plan amendment, zoning change or other discre�onary approval is required.
However, if the base project without the density bonus or incen�ve requires a general plan amendment, zoning change or other discre�onary approval, the city retains discre�on to make or not make the required findings for approval of the base project. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
17.86.080 Waivers
A waiver is a modifica�on to a development standard that would otherwise physically preclude the construc�on of a housing project eligible for a density bonus at the densi�es or with the incen�ves or concessions permited by State Density Bonus Law. Development standards include, but are not limited to, a height limita�on, a setback requirement, minimum floor areas, an on-site open space requirement, or a parking ra�o that applies to a residen�al development. There is no limit on the number of waivers. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
17.86.090 Affordable housing agreement and senior housing agreement.
A. Except when a density bonus, waiver, or parking reduc�on is awarded for a market-rate senior housing development, the applicant shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the city to the sa�sfac�on of the city atorney guaranteeing the affordability of the rental or ownership units for a minimum of 55 years, iden�fying the type, size and loca�on of each affordable unit and containing requirements for administra�on, repor�ng and monitoring.
B. Where a density bonus, waiver, or parking reduc�on is provided for a market-rate senior housing development, the applicant shall enter into a restric�ve covenant with the city to the sa�sfac�on of the City Atorney to require that the housing development be operated as “housing for older persons” consistent with state and federal fair housing laws.
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE6C45F8-337A-4E16-A22D-84D0E45164B6
7.1 Attachment 6 - Planning Commission Resolution P-12-23
517
Resolution No. P-12-23
Chapter 17.86 Density Bonuses Updates
C. Such affordable housing agreement or senior housing agreement, as applicable, shall be recorded in the San Mateo County recorder’s office prior to issuance of the first building permit for the housing development. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
17.86.100 Design and quality.
A. Affordable units shall be constructed concurrently with market-rate units and shall be integrated into the project.
B. Affordable units shall be of equal design and quality as the market rate unit. Exteriors and interiors, including architecture, eleva�ons, floor plans, interior finishes and ameni�es of the affordable units shall be substan�ally similar to the market rate units.
C. The number of bedrooms in the affordable units shall be consistent with the mix of market rate units.
D. Parking standards may be modified as allowable under the State Density Bonus Law and anything beyond those standards shall be considered a request for an incen�ve. (Ord. 580 § 2 (part), 2013)
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE6C45F8-337A-4E16-A22D-84D0E45164B6
7.1 Attachment 6 - Planning Commission Resolution P-12-23
518
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2023
REGULAR MEETING OF THE FOSTER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
M I N U T E S
AUGUST 17, 2023
1. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:00 p.m. by Chair Jagtiani
This meeting was held as a hybrid meeting.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bronitsky, Haddad, Pedro, Venkat, and Chair Jagtiani
Staff Present: Sofia Mangalam, Community Development Director; Thai-Chau Le, Planning Manager; James Atkins, Senior Planner; Helen Gannon, Associate Planner; Leslie Carmichael, Consultant Planner; and Denise Bazzano, Assistant City Attorney
3. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
1. None
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. MINUTES OF JUNE 1, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION AND JOINT STUDY SESSION
BETWEEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND PARKS AND RECREATION
COMMITTEE MEETING
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Pedro, seconded by Commissioner Venkat to approve the Minutes of June 1, 2023 Planning Commission Regular Meeting & Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Committee Joint Study Sessi on Meeting, passed 4-0-1-0 (Abstain: Bronitsky)
2. MINUTES OF JUNE 15, 2023 REGULAR MEETING
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Pedro, seconded by Commissioner Haddad to approve the Minutes of June 15, 2023 Regular Meeting, passed 5-0-0-0
3. MINUTES OF JULY 20, 2023 REGULAR MEETING
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Haddad, seconded by Commissioner Pedro to approve the Minutes of July 20, 2023 Regular Meeting, passed 3- 0-2-0 (Abstain: Venkat and Chair Jagtiani)
5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
1. None
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF03A53D-3D53-4FDD-AC69-AD8D9354DEDC
7.1 Attachment 7 - Meeting Minutes for August 17, 2023 Planning Commission meeting
519
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2023
6. NEW PUBLIC HEARING
1. ADOPT RESOLUTIONS RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCES AMENDING TITLE 17, “ZONING” CHAPTERS 17.78 ACCESSORY DWELLING U NITS, AND 17.86 DENSITY BONUSES AND FINDING THE AMENDMENTS EXEMPT FRO M
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQ A GUIDELINE SECTION 15061(B)(3) – RZ2023-0006 & RZ2023-0007 ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Bronitsky to approve recommendin g the City Council adoption of Ordinances amending Title 17, “Zoning” Chapter 17.7 8 Accessory Dwelling Units with these two changes: 1) Exhibit A – Section 17.78.060 Standards applicable to Single-Family Residence Zoning Districts and 2) adding Options 1 and 2 from the existing Municipal Code, back into the proposed text amendments, and inc luding a definition for what is infeasible under the provisions of the municipal code, and finding the amendments exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA guideline Section 15061(b)(3) , seconded by Commissioner Haddad, to Adopt Resolution No. P-11-23, approving RZ2023-0006, passed 5-0-0-0
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Bronitsky to approve recommendin g the City Council adoption of Ordinances amending Title 17, “Zoning” Chapter 17.86 Density Bonuses and finding the amendments exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidel ine Section 15061 (b)(3), seconded by Commissioner Haddad, to Adopt Resolution No . P-12-23, approving RZ2023-0007, passed 5-0-0-0
7. OLD BUSINESS
1. None
8. NEW BUSINESS
1. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT OF ONE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMB ER
TO THE TRAFFIC REVIEW COMMITTEE
ACTION: Commissioner Bronitsky moved to appoint Chair Jagtiani, seconded by Commissioner Pedro, passed 5-0-0-0
9. STUDY SESSION
1. PROVIDE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE PUBLIC WITH AN UPDAT E ON
THE MULTI-FAMILY AND RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE OBJECTIVE DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (ODDS) EFFORTS AND PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY
TO PROVIDE COMMENTS AND TO RECEIVE DIRECTION ON THE DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR ODDS – RZ2021-0001
Consulting Planner Carmichael gave the presentation, including background and a summary of previous study sessions.
Staff asked whether the exception process should have more or less flexibility, and the consensus was that there should be more flexibility. For pedestrian walkway widths, the 5’ width is appropriate, bu t the consensus was that there should be different standards for a mixed-use developments.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF03A53D-3D53-4FDD-AC69-AD8D9354DEDC
7.1 Attachment 7 - Meeting Minutes for August 17, 2023 Planning Commission meeting
520
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2023
Regarding credit for private or public open space toward the O pen Green Area requirements, the consensus was that there should be at least 5 0% credit and perhaps 100% credit for raised courtyards and publicly accessible open space. Some Commissioners did not think a trellis should be included as a shade structure for shade structures.
Regarding a requirement for a Private Open Area, there was a m ix of opinions based on the impact of affordability and whether the required C ommon Open Space can satisfy the needs for open space. If the standard is included, the developer can propose an exception for an alternative.
Regarding landscaping, provisions should allow use of high-qua lity artificial turf. Regarding requiring internal downspouts for buildings four sto ries and taller, the consensus was to leave the requirement and consider exceptions. Corner treatments should be required for buildings with four o r more stories. For materials and colors, the proposed standard would limit th e use of a single color or material on more than 150’ of a façade or 2/3 of the f açade height.
Commissioners discussed limiting the use of stucco instead of t he proposed draft standard limiting the use of a single color or material because the concern seems to be a large façade of only stucco in one color. The consensus was to leave the proposed standard as is.
Regarding residential entries, the proposed standard is accepta ble, i.e., to not require stairs. For mixed use development entries, there should be a wider pedestrian walkway. Commercial use should require public acces s. If there is currently boat access, that should be continued.
Public Comments:
One public commenter, Evan Adams, made several comments. Comments include defining the term “feasible”, landscaping should not include gr ass, could be turf; Standard for trees should specify size; Window trims should be functional and shutters are not needed in the City; Materials should be modern ized and best as possible; Making design accessible to all ages; Mixed use shoul d be activated in all ways possible; Standards for boat docks are needed and Triton development is a good example; Update the City’s dock policy.
10. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REPORT
1. Director Mangalam updated the Commissioners about the receip t of a third comment letter from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the adopted Housing Element. Staff had a zoom meeting with HCD to go over t he comments in order to prepare the response accordingly.
11. STATEMENTS AND REQUESTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS
1. Commissioner Pedro expressed gratitude for the great meeting and appreciated the diverse viewpoints shared by the Commissioners and encouraged t he City Council to reconsider the owner occupancy deed restriction for ADUs.
2. Commissioner Venkat expressed gratitude to both the staff an d Commissioners for an engaging meeting and acknowledged Commissioner Pedro's request for the Council to seriously contemplate removing the owner occupancy restriction for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Commissioner Venkat attended the launch of the Sa n Mateo County AAPI and invited those interested to reach out for more details. Com missioner Venkat also DocuSign Envelope ID: FF03A53D-3D53-4FDD-AC69-AD8D9354DEDC
7.1 Attachment 7 - Meeting Minutes for August 17, 2023 Planning Commission meeting
521
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2023
mentioned the return to school and extended well wishes for a s afe and joyful academic year for everyone.
3. Commissioner Haddad thanked the City staff for their reports and efforts throughout the lengthy meeting.
4. Commissioner Bronitsky expressed gratitude towards the City staff for their comprehensive reports and acknowledged the effort put into the lengthy meeting.
Commissioner Bronitsky commended the staff for their excellent work, especially in managing diverse opinions and reaching a consensus. Commissione r Bronitsky mentioned the upcoming Summer Days event in Foster City, a mode rn version of the Art & Wine Festival, expressing anticipation for more enjoyment and excitement in the later part of the year. Commissioner Bronitsky highlighted that school has commenced, urging caution while driving due to increased pedestrian activity with children going to and from school.
5. Chair Jagtiani expressed gratitude to the staff for their ex cellent report and acknowledged the positive response to his suggestion of uploading the presen tation, which enhanced understanding through visual aids. Chair Jagtiani wished everyone a pleasant time during the Summer Days event.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned at 9:37 pm to September 7, 2023 Regular Meeting.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF03A53D-3D53-4FDD-AC69-AD8D9354DEDC
7.1 Attachment 7 - Meeting Minutes for August 17, 2023 Planning Commission meeting
522
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2023
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planni ng Commission of the City of F oster City at a Regular Meeting thereof held on September 7, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES, COMMISSIONERS: Haddad, Pedro, Venkat, and Chair Jagtiani
NOES, COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN, COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT, COMMISSIONERS: Bronitsky
___________________
RAVI JAGTIANI, CHAIR
ATTEST:
____________________________
SOFIA MANGALAM, SECRETARY
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF03A53D-3D53-4FDD-AC69-AD8D9354DEDC
7.1 Attachment 7 - Meeting Minutes for August 17, 2023 Planning Commission meeting
523
4 4
5 DATE: September 18, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
FROM: Priscilla Schaus, Communications Director/City Clerk Rob Lasky, IT Manager
DEPARTMENT: Communications/City Clerk
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF RECORDING ALL CITIZEN ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEETINGS
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review the information on resources needed to implement recording of all Citizen Advisory Committee meetings, and by Minute Order, provide policy direction on whether to proceed with implementing the recording of hybrid meetings for all Citizen Advisory Committee meetings.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City has six (6) active Citizen Advisory Committees. In April/May 2020, committee meetings transitioned to being held remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021 some committees moved to a hybrid in-person format, but most committees ultimately returned to in-person meetings in February 2023, when the Governor’s executive order and AB 361 ended. City Council, Planning Commission, and the Citizens Sustainability Advisory Committee (CSAC) currently hold hybrid meetings, and the other committees’ meetings are in-person only.
Councilmember Jimenez requested an agenda item to consider recording all Citizen Advisory Committee meetings and at the August 21, 2023, Regular City Council Meeting, the item received consensus from City Council to be agendized at a future meeting.
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
524
4 4
5 Staff identified that recording all committee meetings will have an ongoing cost of up to $8,469.60 per year, with an additional one-time cost of $8,000 for equipment purchases. The cost of recording each meeting will be $211.74. Staff time costs will be $517.30 for implementation, which includes training. Considering the administrative, technology, and implementation costs, staff is seeking City Council's direction on implementing recording of hybrid meetings for all Citizen Advisory Committees.
Prior to the Governor’s executive order and AB 361 ending in January 2023, staff had reached out to other cities in San Mateo County, and the general consensus was most cities would return to their previous practice of holding committee meetings in person only while continuing hybrid meetings for the City Council and Planning Commission.
Staff reached out again to San Mateo County Cities (see Attachment 2), 6 cities confirmed they were holding hybrid meetings and recording for City Council and Planning Commission (if applicable) meetings only. 7 cities held hybrid meetings and recorded some committee meetings but not all committees. 3 cities recorded all meetings and 2 cities only record City Council meetings.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Citizen Advisory Committee meetings were conducted under AB 361, which authorized teleconference meetings during certain proclaimed states of emergency. City Council and Planning Commission meetings were transitioned to remote meetings in March 2020, while committee meetings were initially cancelled and resumed in late April/early May 2020. Zoom-only meetings were held until July 19, 2021, when the Foster City was one of the first cities in San Mateo County to introduce hybrid in-person and teleconference meetings for the City Council and Planning Commission. Hybrid meetings meant that both the committee members and public could either join and participate in the meeting in-person or remotely via Zoom.
Some committees transitioned to hybrid meetings at a later date.
During the hybrid phase, some staff liaisons were able to manage the Zoom meetings and monitor for public speakers themselves, while others requested IT join the meeting to assist with these activities. For most meetings, staff liaisons also requested assistance from IT to help set up the laptop and Owl (video teleconferencing camera).
In October 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom announced that he would be issuing a proclamation terminating the state’s COVID-19 State of Emergency effective February 28, 2023, which would mean that local agencies could no longer meet fully remote, as provided under the governor’s execute order and AB 361. With the Brown Act and teleconferencing rules reverting to what they were prior to the pandemic, staff took into consideration the limited public participation, logistical complications, and the additional resources needed to implement hybrid meetings for committees and returned to the standard City practice for holding committee meetings in person. Staff reviewed Zoom meeting attendance (Attachment 1) from the last six months that committees held hybrid meetings (September 2022 through the end of January 2023), and of 17 committee meetings held, there were only 11 members of the public that joined via
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
525
4 4
5 Zoom (see image below). Upon this review, staff determined there may be minimal return on investment of resources needed to continue holding hybrid meetings for committee meetings that did not have active participation.
Committee Meeting attendance from 9/1/22 to 2/28/23 excluding City Council and Planning Commission meetings, which continue to be held in a hybrid format currently.
At the August 21, 2023 Council meeting, the City Council reviewed a request to place an item on a future agenda from Councilmember Jimenez to discuss the recording of all Citizen Advisory Committee meetings. The item received a consensus from the City Council to be agendized at a later meeting, and councilmembers requested additional data of the resources and costs involved with recording committee meetings be included with the report.
There are several costs associated with recording all the committee meetings, which include the administrative cost of staffing to record the meetings, purchasing of equipment, and staffing costs associated with implementation for recording of meetings.
In order to record all committee meetings, staff will need to ensure that all committee meetings are held as hybrid meetings and can be recorded via Zoom. Currently, the Audit, Parks and Recreation, Levee Bond Oversight, Traffic Review, and Youth Advisory committee meetings are held as in-person meetings.
The following chart outlines each task that is required for hybrid meetings and the time needed to complete each task. Although each task is not burdensome on its own, it does equate to an extra hour of staff time either preparing for the meeting or follow up.
Most of the staff members that assist with staffing committees are at the Management Analyst level so that salary level has been used to associate the dollar cost, which is $66.20/hour. If IT staff were to assist, the cost would be higher, as the hourly wage for the IT Manager is $92.50. All salary levels are calculated at Step 5. It’s also been noted that with hybrid meetings, it is likely to require more than just the staff liaison to attend the meeting to assist with hosting the Zoom meeting, so that has also been
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
526
4 4
5 incorporated in the below chart. Based on the below, it would cost up to $8,469.60 per year to record all committee meetings.
It should be noted that the Audit (2x/year), Parks and Recreation (monthly), Levee Bond Oversight (quarterly), Traffic Review (monthly), and Youth Advisory (monthly) committees would need to be moved to a hybrid format if all committees need to be recorded. CSAC is currently holding hybrid meetings. The City Council may also consider not recording the Youth Advisory Committee (YAC) meetings, as that committee consists of all minors. Without YAC meetings, the total cost would include up to 30 meetings a year and cost $6,352.20 and including YAC would include up to 40 meetings and cost $8,469.60. It can be noted that committees do cancel some meetings hence these costs are estimates based on the number of scheduled meetings in a year. The Levee Bond Oversight Committee is also a limited-term committee, which will be dissolved after the Levee Project completion and/or after the G.O. Bonds have been expended; and completion of the project is anticipated in January 2024.
Administrative Costs (per meeting)
Task Dept Time
(mins)
Cost
Dept staff requests a webinar link Dept 5 $5.51
Log into Zoom and create Webinar. Send public link to dept to include on agenda
IT 5 $7.70
Dept staff insert link on agenda in PrimeGov, verify it is the correct link
Dept 5 $5.51
Send email to dept staff on day of meeting to verify if any participant links need to be sent.
IT 5 $7.70
Reply to email regarding participants Dept 5 $5.51
Send invites via Zoom as needed. IT 5 $7.70
Prep room for meeting.
1. Power on laptop 1-2 hours early so updates are done
before meeting starts
2. Verify Owl is connected and functional
3. Power on projector and make sure laptop is
connected to projector via wireless
4. Log into Zoom so dept can start the meeting
(This step may be unnecessary if the City invests in more permanent Zoom equipment in the Council Chambers Conference Room)
IT 15 $23.12
1. Start meeting in Zoom at appropriate time (also starts recording).
2. Monitor Zoom during meeting and allow raised hands
to speak at the appropriate times.
Dept 120 $132.41
Post meeting video:
1. Log into Zoom and download meeting video file.
2. Log into Swagit, create a meeting record and upload
Zoom video file.
3. Download agenda pdf from Primegov pubic
portal. Upload agenda pdf to Swagit.
Clerk &
IT
10 &
5 Clerk $8.88
&
IT $7.70
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
527
4 4
5 4. Log into Primegov and copy/paste Swagit ID number
into Primegov meeting record.
5. Test video via public portal.
6. Clean up Zoom recording storage.
Total $211.74
Additionally, staff recommends that all committee meetings be held in the Council Chambers Conference Room if held as hybrid meetings because that location is currently the best fitted for holding hybrid meetings. The room is structured so that there is less audio feedback and there is already an Owl and projector in the room. In an effort to minimize IT involvement in meeting setup, IT suggests the following equipment purchases and upgrades to better equip the room for hybrid meetings and the recording of such meetings.
One Time Technology Costs
Item Cost
Replace projector with wall hung 75” TV. $1,000
Replace Owl with 2 wall-hung cameras $4,000
Add iPad, with table stand and dedicated PC to be used as the Zoom Room controller (this would allow any staff member to walk-up and start the Zoom meeting)
$1,000
Microphone system (in table or in ceiling) $1,000
Wiring, as needed $1,000
Total $8,000
There are also implementation costs for transitioning all committees to hybrid meetings and recording the meetings. Each committee’s meeting location is listed on the committee’s policy statement, and the majority of committees do not meet in the Council Chambers Conference Room. In order to change all the meeting locations, the committees’ policy statements need to be amended and brought to the City Council for approval at a Council meeting. IT staff would also need to provide training to the committee liaison's department support staff so they can monitor Zoom and let the public speak during public comment.
Implementation Costs
Task Time Cost
Changing the policy statements for all committees (writing the staff report and amending the policy statements, uploading of resolutions, updating the agenda templates, website) (Deputy City Clerk) 3 hours $160
Training support staff on monitoring Zoom and allowing the public to speak/Zoom host duties (IT Manager and staff liaisons)
1 hour $357.32
Total $517.32
Staff also reached out to all cities/towns in San Mateo County to further assess what board/commission/committee meetings are being offered in a hybrid format and are recorded. Out of the 19 other San Mateo County cities/towns, 12 responded and staff
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
528
4 4
5 reviewed the other 7 cities’ websites for meeting information (Attachment 2). Many cities (6) are offering a hybrid option for their City Council meetings and Planning Commissions (if applicable) and in person meetings for their other commissions/committees. Some cities (7) are offering a hybrid option for City Council meetings, Planning Commissions (if applicable), and for additional committees but not for all. There are also some cities that offer hybrid meetings for committees but do not provide the recordings after on their website. 3 cities are offering hybrid meetings and recordings for all their committee meetings. 2 cities only offer hybrid/recorded meetings for City Council.
Meeting/Recording Option Number of Cities Cities
Hybrid/recording for City Council
and Planning Commission
6 Half Moon Bay, Millbrae, Pacifica,
San Carlos, South San Francisco,
Woodside
Hybrid/recording for City Council
and some committees
7 Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane,
Burlingame, Daly City, San Bruno,
San Mateo
Hybrid/recording for City Council
and all committees
3 East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Portola
Valley
Hybrid/recording for only City
Council
2 Colma, Hillsborough
*Redwood City held hybrid meetings for all committees but there were no recordings.
California Environmental Quality Act
Not Applicable
FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost of recording one hybrid meeting is $211.74, this includes the salary cost/minute of the committee staff liaison (Management Analysts), the IT Manager, and the Deputy City Clerk.
The total cost of recording 30 hybrid committee meetings for one year would be up to $6,352.20, this does not include recording the Youth Advisory Commitee meetings. The one-time technology cost of $8,000 and the one-time implementation cost of 517.30 would amount to a total of up to 14,869.52.
If including the YAC meetings, an additional 10 meetings, the cost would be up to $8,469.60, with the additional one-time technology cost and one-time implementation cost, the total would amount to $16,986.90.
CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
City Council Operations and Improved Community Engagement
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
529
4 4
5 ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Zoom Meeting Attendance (September 2022 – January 2023) Attachment 2 – Survey of San Mateo County Cities on Hybrid Meetings
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
530
All meetings 9/1/22 - 2/28/23 Without Council and Planning Comm Committee Date Attendees Committee Date Attendees
Levee Bond Oversight Committee 1/26/2023 2 Levee Bond Oversight Committee 1/26/2023 2 Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting 1/18/2023 0 Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting 1/18/2023 0 City Council 1/17/2023 14 CSAC 1/4/2023 1
City Council 1/9/2023 11 Traffic Review 2/23/2023 2
CSAC 1/4/2023 1 CSAC 2/8/2023 1
City Council 2/27/2023 1 Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting 2/7/2023 0 Traffic Review 2/23/2023 2 Audit Comm 12/15/2022 0
City Council 2/21/2023 9 CSAC 12/14/2022 2
Planning Comm 2/16/2023 2 Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting 12/6/2022 0 City Council 2/15/2023 1 CSAC 11/9/2022 1
CSAC 2/8/2023 1 Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting 11/1/2022 0 Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting 2/7/2023 0 Levee Bond Oversight Committee 10/27/2022 2 City Council 2/6/2023 23 Traffic Review 10/27/2022 0
City Council 12/19/2022 0 Transportation Comm 10/20/2022 0 Planning Comm 12/15/2022 1 CSAC 10/12/2022 0
Audit Comm 12/15/2022 0 CSAC 9/14/2022 0
CSAC 12/14/2022 2 Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting 9/13/2022 0 City Council 12/12/2022 29
Total 11
Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting 12/6/2022 0
City Council 12/5/2022 22
Planning Comm 12/1/2022 2
City Council 11/21/2022 10
Planning Comm 11/17/2022 4
Joint Council/Planning 11/15/2022 27
CSAC 11/9/2022 1
City Council 11/7/2022 14
Planning Comm 11/3/2022 3
Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting 11/1/2022 0
Levee Bond Oversight Committee 10/27/2022 2
Traffic Review 10/27/2022 0
Planning Comm 10/20/2022 5
Transportation Comm 10/20/2022 0
City Council 10/17/2022 20
CSAC 10/12/2022 0
City Council 10/3/2022 21
City Council 9/19/2022 30
CSAC 9/14/2022 0
Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting 9/13/2022 0
Planning Comm 9/1/2022 0
Total 260
8.1 Attachment 1 - Zoom Meeting Attendance (September 2022 - January 2023)
531
Survey of San Mateo County Cities on Hybrid Meetings
City/Town Responded? Hybrid/records All
Committee Meetings?
If no, which meetings are
Hybrid/Recorded?
Commission/Committees/Board
Meetings not Hybrid/Recorded
Atherton No (reviewed
website)
No (they are not
consistent with providing
videos for all meetings)
City Council
There are nine committees that record
some of the time. In 2023, 8 of 22
meetings had videos attached.
There are nine committees that record some
of the time. In 2023, 8 of 22 meetings had
videos attached.
Belmont No (reviewed
website)
No City Council, Planning Commission, Public
Safety, Parks and Recreation
Audit, Trees, Parking & Traffic Safety,
Measure I
Brisbane No (reviewed
website)
No City Council, Planning Commission,
Public Art, Parks and Recreation
Complete Streets Safety(some), Open
Space and Ecology, IDEA, Youth Advisory
Burlingame Yes No City Council, Planning Commission,
Traffic, Safety, and Parking Commission
Parks & Rec, Beautification (hybrid
capabilities but not fully used), Library
Board
Colma Yes No City Council No other committees, CC recordings are deleted once minutes are approved, no
recordings are posted online
Daly City Yes No City Council, Planning Commission,
Recreation Commission, Library Board,
Small Business Commission (posted on
Youtube page)
Arts & Culture Committee
East Palo Alto Yes Yes (posts all videos on
the EPA webpage)
N/A N/A
Half Moon Bay Yes No City Council, Planning Commission All other committees/commissions in person only
Hillsborough No (reviewed
website)
No City Council Administrative Hearing Panel, Architecture and Design Review, Citizens
Communications Advisory, Financial
Advisory
Menlo Park Yes Yes (posts all videos to
youtube page)
N/A N/A
Millbrae Yes No City Council, Planning Commission All other committee/commissions in person only - Community Enhancement, Cultural
Arts, Economic Vitality, Parks and
Recreation, Senior Advisory, Sister Cities,
Youth Advisory
Pacifica Yes No City Council, Planning Commission All other committee/commissions in person only - Beautification Advisory, Climate
Action and Adaptation Task Force,
Economic Development, Emergency
Preparedness & Safety, Library Advisory,
Open Space and Parkland, Parks, Beaches
and Recreation
Portola Valley Yes Yes (posts all videos to
youtube page)
N/A N/A
Redwood City No (reviewed
website)
No, there are hybrid
meetings but only City
Council meetings are
recorded
City Council. Most committee meetings
were held hybrid, not recorded
most committee meetings were held hybrid,
not recorded
San Bruno No (reviewed
website)
No – most meetings held
hybrid but only City
Council and Emergency
Preparedness are
recorded
City Council, Emergency Preparedness
Architectural Review, Bicycle &
Pedestrian, Culture & Arts,
Disaster Council, Parks & Recreation,
Planning Commission, Recreation &
Aquatic, Revenue Oversight, Community
Foundation, Traffic Safety & Parking
(hybrid, not recorded)
Architectural Review, Bicycle & Pedestrian,
Culture & Arts,
Disaster Council, Parks & Recreation,
Planning Commission, Recreation &
Aquatic, Revenue Oversight, Community
Foundation, Traffic Safety & Parking (hybrid,
not recorded)
San Carlos Yes No Planning and Transportation Commission, Council Meetings (Streamed Live)
Commission meetings are audibly
recorded only. Once minutes are approved,
recordings deleted
San Mateo Yes No Sustainability & Infrastructure
Commission, Planning Commission, Park
and Recreation Commission, General
Plan Subcommittee, Community
Relations Commission
Personnel Board, Library Board, Senior
Citizens Commission, Civic Arts
Committee, Measure S Oversight
South San Francisco Yes No City Council, Planning Commission All other committees/commissions in person only
Woodside No (reviewed
website)
No City Council, Architectural and Site
Review, Planning Commission (audio
recording only)
Hybrid meetings for other 11 committees,
but no recording
8.1 Attachment 2 - Survey of San Mateo County Cities on Hybrid Meetings
532
4 1
3 DATE: September 18, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City Manager
FROM: Derek Schweigart, Parks and Recreation Director
Tiffany Oren, Recreation Manager
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: RECREATION CENTER REBUILD PROJECT (CIP 301-678) –
SCHEMATIC DESIGN AND PROJECT BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council, by Minute Order, receive and accept the report by the project design team and provide policy direction on the Recreation Center Rebuild Project (RCRP/Project) schematic design and project budget prior to the final design development phase of the Project and find that the recommended action to receive and accept the report and provide direction to staff exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15262 and 150161(b)(3).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the regular City Council meeting on August 7, 2023, staff and the project design consultant presented an update to the City Council on the Project. The update included a summary of the work to date, an overview of the schematic design direction, and the status of the construction estimate. The City Council received the project update and directed the project team to return with a report and design exhibits showing how the proposed design addresses the unique character of Foster City and specifically the location of the building within Leo J. Ryan Park, and how the building addresses and looks from Shell Boulevard. A full presentation on the schematic design phase of the
8.2 8.2 Staff Report
533
4 1
3 project and budget is planned for the City Council meeting on September 18, 2023, and is included herein.
Over the past month since the last update to the City Council, the design team has focused on completing the schematic design documentation, project coordination, preparing the estimate of probable construction cost and updating the project budget.
Additionally, the CEQA documentation for the project has been completed in preparation for the Public Hearing to be scheduled at a future Planning Commission meeting. The Administrative Draft of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was published for public review, and the public comment period has closed.
The proposed design for the new Recreation Center builds upon the extensive input and direction received over the last seven (7) months from the Project Task Force, the Joint Committee (Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Committee), City staff, City Council, and the community. At the September 18th Council meeting, the City Council will receive a report that includes a full schematic design presentation which is a culmination of the work over the past several months while also addressing the recent feedback the design team received, a schematic design estimate of probable construction costs of the Project, and a list of bid alternates with cost information for the City Council’s consideration. Staff and the design team are seeking confirmation of Project’s schematic design and budget prior to starting the final design development phase of the Project.
BACKGROUND
On November 21, 2022, the City Council approved an agreement with Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. (“Group 4”) for professional design, bidding, and construction support services for the RCRP (CIP 301-678). During the first seven (7) months, Group 4 worked closely with staff to complete the conceptual design phase which included conducting extensive community outreach for feedback on key design layouts and features. The multilayered public participation in the conceptual design phase included input from over 1,000 community members, as well as from the Project Task Force, Parks and Recreation Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council.
At the regular City Council meeting on April 17, 2023, the City Council approved the first contract amendment with Group 4 for Boardwalk Master Planning Services as part of the Project to be completed concurrent with the schematic design for the new Recreation Center.
At the regular City Council meeting on May 15, 2023, the City Council confirmed: 1) the preferred conceptual two-story building design and site plan with the parking option that extended the exiting parking lot to the north, 2) confirmed alternates for consideration at end of schematic design, and 3) received an update on the conceptual design cost estimate and project budget.
8.2 8.2 Staff Report
534
4 1
3 During the schematic design phase, the City completed the second round of community outreach as part of a multilayered participation plan involving input from over 850 community members who attended various open houses, pop-ups, and intercept kiosks at community events, as well as an online survey. Also during the schematic design phase, there were two (2) Project Task Force meetings (6 total), one (1) Joint Study Session meeting with the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Committee (3 total), multiple project management and technical meetings with staff and department heads, and the second integrated design workshop which involved multiple city department representatives, design and engineering team members, the construction manager, and the construction cost estimator.
At the regular City Council meeting on August 7, 2023, the City Council received an update from staff and the consultant on the development of the schematic design and the status of the construction estimate. In preparation for the schematic design presentation to the City Council on September 18, 2023, the City Council directed the project team to return with a report and design exhibits showing how the proposed design addresses the unique character of Foster City and specifically the location of the building within Leo J. Ryan Park, and how the building addresses and looks from Shell Boulevard.
In addition, since the last City Council update on August 7, 2023, the public review period for the Project’s IS/MND has closed. The project management team has met (3) three times with one (1) technical meeting with the Planning Division in the Community Development Department. The Administrative Draft IS/MND including public comments received can be found by clicking here: Link
ANALYSIS
Schematic Design
The Project’s design builds on the extensive input received over the last seven (7) months from the Project Task Force, the Joint Committee of the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Committee, City Council, City staff and the Community.
Input was received on all aspects of the building design from its siting within the park, building massing, the overall design expression, and the fit and feel into its surroundings. The comprehensive impact of this input has not just informed, but shaped, a building that reflects the community’s values by seamlessly integrating into Leo J. Ryan Park and maximizing views of the central lagoon. Connecting to the meadow, amphitheater, Shell Boulevard, and the lagoon frontage, the new Recreation Center enhances, embraces, and reflects its surroundings, creating a landmark building that will become a beacon for the community.
8.2 8.2 Staff Report
535
IMAGE 1 – Recreation Center from Lagoon Terrace
The design of the new Recreation Center reflects the unique character of Foster City, and specifically its location within Leo J. Ryan Park, by interpreting both ecological, and man-made characteristics of the site in built form. The building's gently arcing wings and roof forms open along the length of the boardwalk and water’s edge, connecting its visitors to the lagoon. These naturally inspired forms play off the gentle curves of the Coastal Range in the distance, as well as Foster City's unique navigable waterways and the consistent winds on the lagoon itself. Additionally, these subtle arcs reference and further reinforce dynamic forms found in the body when one swims, rows, or sails.
Finally, this sail-like inspiration further extends to the gently arcing entry trellis that extends out to the Shell Boulevard entrance.
IMAGE 2 – Design Inspirations
8.2 8.2 Staff Report
536
The site plan and building design reflects the prominence of the location within Foster City as a community gathering hub and as a prominent landmark building in Leo J.
Ryan Park. The site design goals are multi-faceted and include enhancing and expanding Leo J. Ryan Park. This central location maximizes indoor/outdoor connections towards the street (ceramics studio and play-yard), to the meadow (multi- use terraces) and to the lagoon (entry, lagoon, and event terraces, as well as food truck opportunities). This building is sited adjacent to the lagoon with the events wing opening to Leo J. Ryan Park, the meadow and Hillsdale Blvd. beyond. The two-story recreation wing addresses both Shell Boulevard with a welcoming trellis and entry walk through the rose garden and is also directly connected to the new drop off and parking area. The entrance canopy provides visible, easy, and convenient access to both existing and new parking as well as a safe drop off location. The building’s angled footprint gently wraps the curve of the lagoon edge and responds to environmental conditions through careful orientation to maximize views, minimize glare and heat gain, and protect outdoor areas from harsh winter winds in order to create active, vibrant outdoor spaces and amenities that will attract and serve the community for generations to come.
Site Design and Pedestrian Circulation
The Recreation Center, which is located in Leo J. Ryan Park along the lagoon, is well connected to the park’s walkways and signature outdoor spaces. The Recreation Center’s main and event lobbies have wide walkways and social terraces that connect to the park’s boardwalk and views to the lagoon and hills beyond. The main lobby is also connected to the Shell Boulevard sidewalk and Shell Boulevard and Foster Square signalized intersection through a new rose garden. Additional walkways and social terraces connect the Recreation Center to the Vibe Teen Center, sports courts, and parking areas to the east, as well as to the Meadow and Amphitheater to the west.
Site Design and Vehicular Circulation
People arriving to the Recreation Center by car will turn into Leo J. Ryan Park at the Shell Boulevard and Foster Square signalized intersection, and park in the existing parking area or a new adjacent parking expansion. The expansion includes a drop-off zone near the Recreation Center’s lobby that also overlooks the lagoon and social terraces. Additional parking exists on-street along the park’s Shell frontage, and at the east end of the park.
Service Area with Trash and Emergency Generator
A tidy service area screened by trees, vegetation and walls is located adjacent to the building’s catering kitchen and utility rooms, in a zone away from the Recreation Center entrance, over 100 feet from Shell Boulevard, and away from the park meadow. The service area includes space for two catering vans and an enclosure for trash and an emergency generator. Access to the service area is via a modest-width curved drive
8.2 8.2 Staff Report
537
from Shell that looks like a walkway and blends into the park’s existing and proposed trees and vegetation.
Landscape Site Design
The landscape site design focuses on integrating the Recreation Center into beloved Leo J. Ryan Park and alongside the lagoon, with special focus on shaping outdoor people spaces that will make the Recreation Center the social hub for Foster City. A series of social terraces with outdoor furniture cascade from the Center towards the lagoon, with certain terraces serving and spilling out from the Center’s interior spaces, for example the Event Hall, and other terraces having a more public focus accommodating food trucks, markets, and festivals.
The Recreation Center’s design significantly increases the flow of the Park’s planting and walkways around the Center, including keeping many of the park’s existing trees and adding many more. The Park’s existing lawn around the Center is reconceived as shrub and groundcover planting, to provide more definition between outdoor people spaces, reduce the attractiveness to geese, and minimize water use.
IMAGE 3 – Site Plan
8.2 8.2 Staff Report
538
IMAGE 4 – Floor Plans (First Floor)
(Second Floor)
8.2 8.2 Staff Report
539
Based on input from the Task Force, the Joint Committee, and the Community, the building’s form, massing, siting, and materials have been designed to respond to the strong desire to have the building embrace its’ location on the Lagoon, to create strong connections to nature, and to embrace Foster City’s heritage and unique connection to water. On the building facades, exterior accent walls utilize wavy, windswept concrete accent panels to highlight entry/exit locations in contrast to a subtle, marine-inspired palette of blue walls that reinforces the harmony between built and natural environments present at the site. A building materials and colors board will be presented at the September 18th Council meeting.
IMAGE 5 – Exterior Materials
8.2 8.2 Staff Report
540
IMAGE 6 – Birds Eye View Shell Boulevard to Lagoon
IMAGE 7 – Recreation Center Events Wing from the Meadow
8.2 8.2 Staff Report
541
IMAGE 8 – Events Wing from the Boardwalk
IMAGE 9 – Birds Eye Perspective from Shell and E. Hillsdale Boulevards
8.2 8.2 Staff Report
542
IMAGE 10 – Recreation Center From Lagoon
Shell Boulevard Elevation
On August 7, 2023, during the City Council update, the City Council specifically requested that exhibits be developed that clearly show how the building will look from Shell Boulevard. The following images show how the building has been designed to address Shell Boulevard, with its arcing roofs reaching out to both the intersection of Shell and Hillsdale Boulevards, as well as towards Shell and Foster Square Lane.
Additionally, park outdoor areas including the ceramics yard and play area will activate the park side along Shell Boulevard between the two intersections, creating inviting pedestrian spaces within the park, and highly visible from the street itself.
IMAGE 11 – Existing and Proposed Site Plan
8.2 8.2 Staff Report
543
IMAGE 12 – View from E. Hillsdale and Shell Boulevard to Meadow IMAGE 13 – View from Shell Boulevard and Foster Square to Recreation Center IMAGE 14 – Shell Boulevard Façade with existing trees (new trees hidden) approaching Foster Square Lane
8.2 8.2 Staff Report
544
IMAGE 15 – Shell Boulevard Façade with existing trees (new trees hidden) passing Civic Center Drive IMAGE 16 – Shell Boulevard Façade with existing and new trees passing Civic Center Drive As indicated in the above views, even without the planting of new trees, the new Recreation Center will be set back within the park but still be visible from Shell Boulevard with park and trees in the foreground. The building’s massing and shape opens towards the southwest at the Shell Boulevard/parking lot entrance, and to the northwest to the meadow and Hillsdale/Shell Boulevard intersection. The park experience will become cohesive along the full frontage of Shell Boulevard from the meadow to the Shell Boulevard entrance, with indoor/outdoor spaces engaging the park along this façade including the children’s play yard, the staff patio, the ceramics yard, the screened service yard, as well as the Recreation Center’s Event Wing’s meadow patio.
The following exhibits are birds eye perspectives that show the massing of the building in relationship to Shell Boulevard and the pastoral setting of the building in Leo J. Ryan Park. The park now extends from the meadow at the corner of Hillsdale and Shell Boulevard, to the new Shell Boulevard entrance, which is in turn highlighted by the relocated rose garden and in the background is the new children’s play yard.
8.2 8.2 Staff Report
545
IMAGE 17 – Birds Eye Perspective from Shell Boulevard
Approaching the building from Hillsdale Boulevard, the community will be greeted with the meadow façade of the event wing. Here, the building’s massing and gently arcing roof reaches out and engages the park, creating a welcoming meadow patio with strong indoor/outdoor connections. In the evening, the glazed façade will become a glowing beacon across the park and the lagoon.
IMAGE 18 – Birds Eye View from Shell/Hillsdale Intersection Shell Boulevard Enhancements Options
At the August 7, 2023, City Council meeting, City Council members commented on the importance of the new Recreation Center’s Shell Boulevard elevation and requested that the design team further develop the façade in order to strengthen the presence of the building from the street. Options for enhancing the Shell Boulevard frontage presence and visibility will be included in the presentation at the City Council meeting on September 18, 2023. Building enhancement options for Council’s consideration will include adding a large building marquee signage graphics at the building entry and along the meadow, increasing glazing at the two-story entrance, increased glazing
8.2 8.2 Staff Report
546
along Shell Boulevard at the Fitness, Art, Ceramics, and Children’s areas, adding and significantly increasing the quantity of concrete composite accent material along Shell Boulevard at the two-story wing, and adding glazing on the single-story portion of the Shell Boulevard. Site enhancement options along Shell Boulevard will include upgrading the fence and screening material on the children’s play yard, the ceramics yard, and the service yard, curving the roof of the generator and trash enclosure to better match the overall building design, upgrading the mechanical screen to a perforated metal material, and adding two freestanding marquee signs along Shell Boulevard.
Sustainability
The project team’s disciplined approach to sustainable design has the building on track to achieve a LEED Silver rating with the goal of pushing into the Gold category. The following slide summarizes strategies that are being applied to each of the LEED categories.
IMAGE 19 – Schematic Design LEED Checklist
Project Budget and Estimate of Probable Construction
The Estimate of Probable Construction for the Schematic Design phase has been prepared by the design team and the project estimator and is included in a line item in the overall project budget as prepared by the Project’s Construction Manager. As presented at the August 7, 2023, City Council meeting, the project is trending higher than the current CIP budget based on several different factors including escalation, unforeseen conditions, and more detailed information being available. This does not
8.2 8.2 Staff Report
547
include any of the project options/alternatives listed in this report. The City’s Construction Manager Griffin Structures, Inc. has been working with staff and the design team to develop a comprehensive project budget. The projects that are potentially included in the scope of work for the RCRP include the following:
2023 City of Foster City Capital Improvement Projects Budgets •Recreation Center Rebuild Project (CIP 301-678): $55,375,000 •Bocce Courts (CIP 301-655): $925,000
•Playground Replacement (ERP Fund): $70,200
New Projects that have been identified through the development of the Schematic Design for the RCRP include:
New Projects and scope (no current funds allocated to these):
•Recreation Center Boardwalk Master Plan (cost estimate pending) •Park Restroom Building (cost estimate pending)
At the Schematic Design phase of the project, the design team and the Project estimator have developed more refined estimates that are based on actual site conditions, geotechnical report recommendations, current construction, and market conditions. The list below are the items that are included in the Project Budget:
Recreation Center Rebuild Project Budget Components
•Hard Cost
oNew Recreation Center Building
oSite
oTemporary Facilities
•Construction Contingency (Building and Site)
•Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment
•Soft Cost & Soft Cost Contingency
o2018 Study
oArchitectural and Engineering Fees
oConstruction Management
oSurveys, special inspections, testing
oUtility Connections
oFees and Administration
Two additional project budget components include the following:
•Escalation: Is the change in cost or price of specific goods or services in a given economy over a period. Inflationary trends in the economy are reflected through escalation in prices of units. It is the increase in cost of any construction elements of the original contract or base cost of a project due to passage of time.
8.2 8.2 Staff Report
548
Typical escalation is estimated in the 3-5% range, in the last 3 years escalation has ranged from 5-7% per year.
•Bid Alternates: Bid alternates are portions of a project that are bid separately. They help manage costs in a public bidding environment. They can be used for identifying separate funds for specific portions of a project and can provide flexibility and a buffer for the project during periods of economic fluctuations. Ideal bid alternates are standalone items that require minimal coordination between trades.
Schematic Design Estimate of Probable Construction Cost The following estimate was prepared based on the August 2023 Schematic Design Documents (drawings, outline specifications, system narratives, existing site survey, and the project geotechnical report). This estimate reflects the fair construction value for this project and should not be construed as a prediction of low bid. Prices are based on local prevailing wage construction costs at the time the estimate was prepared.
Pricing assumes a procurement process with competitive bidding for all sub-trades of the construction work.
As shown in Table 1 below, the RCRP Schematic Design estimate of probable construction cost is $4.7-$5.3 million over the $42 million November 2022 escalated construction budget. The escalation factor has been shown as a range to more accurately reflect current construction market conditions that have been in flux.
TABLE 1
Table 2 identifies the areas of the project budget and estimate that differ significantly from the City’s CIP budget developed for the project that was last updated in 2022.
8.2 8.2 Staff Report
549
TABLE 2
Schematic Design Project Budget
The following is the Schematic Design Project Budget utilizing the updated Schematic Design Estimate of Probable Construction Cost that uses the higher escalation factor (Tables 3a and 3b). In the Table it should be noted that the combined allowances for escalation, construction contingency, architectural and design fee contingency, and other soft cost contingency total ~$10.13 million, which is approximately 20% of the escalated estimated construction cost.
TABLE 3a
8.2 8.2 Staff Report
550
TABLE 3b
The following is the current list of Bid Alternates for Council’s consideration, of which the café, Bocce Court and Park Restroom alternates require Council’s direction at this phase of the project. The Shell Boulevard Enhancement options and cost are currently being developed and will be included in the Council presentation on September 18.
TABLE 4
The following is the list of additional projects that could be incorporated into the RCRP (Table 5). If the Council wishes to incorporate the Bocce Court Expansion and the Park
8.2 8.2 Staff Report
551
Restroom project into the RCRP, direction is needed at this time if these projects are to be incorporated in the project in order to avoid redesign fees. The Boardwalk Master Plan project is still being developed and will be brought back to Council for their direction at a future date.
TABLE 5
Project Schedule
Construction was anticipated to begin in July 2024, but now staff is projecting the start date will be sometime in September 2024. Originally it was anticipated that the City would be without a Recreation Center for two summers of programming, now it will only be one. If the construction of the project is ultimately approved, the goal is to have the new facility ready for programming starting in June 2026, but there are factors that could cause a late summer 2026 opening.
Council Action Items
Staff has provided a list of action items below for the City Council to consider and provide policy direction:
1. Schematic Design
a. Approve the schematic design concept for the new Recreation Center Rebuild Project (RCRP), a two-story building with curved (wing) roof lines, material, and color palette.
b. Approve design concept for RCRP site/landscape design (public terraces along lagoon and controlled access yards/patios on Shell Boulevard) c. Provide input and direction into design refinements:
i. Shell Boulevard and entry elevation and façade, material and accents enhancements, and entry façade articulation
ii. Shell Boulevard outdoor amenities enhanced screening.
2. Project budget estimate
8.2 8.2 Staff Report
552
a. Accept the schematic design project budget estimate update for the Recreation Center Rebuild (Table 3a)
b. Provide direction on the following program and budget alternatives to include or exclude from project scope (Table 4 & 5):
i. Café
ii. Bocce Court Expansion
iii. Park Restroom
c. Approve the following add alternates for the RCRP with the option to award after the project bids are received (Table 4):
i. Expanded Entry Trellis [first 10’ in base bid]
ii. Fitness Room Operable Partition
iii. Expanded Preschool Patio + Playground
iv. Terrace Wind Break
v. Photovoltaic Array Allowance
vi. Enhanced Sustainability LEED Gold
vii. Net Zero Performance
3. Authorization to Proceed: Authorize Staff to direct the consultant team to proceed with final design development and construction documents for the RCRP based on the direction provided.
California Environmental Quality Act
This update to receive and accept the report by the project design team and provide policy direction on the Recreation Center Rebuild Project (RCRP/Project) schematic design and project budget prior to the design development phase of the Project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15262 as it is being undertaken for the purposes of determining feasibility or as planning studies for future actions relating to the RCRP project, which the City Council has not yet approved. Additionally, it is exempt under the “common sense” exception pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this action to receive and accept the report and provide confirmation of direction to staff may be a significant effect on the environment. However, the City has prepared and issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) for Public Review of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the RCRP Project (File No. UP2023-0003/ CIP 301-678). The Administrative Draft of the IS/MND was published for public review on July 26, 2023, and ended on August 15, 2023 and the comment period has closed. The IS/MND will be considered at a future Planning Commission meeting as part of the consideration of the Use Permit to demolish the existing recreation center and construct the new Recreation Center.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City Council approved budget for the RCRP (CIP 301-678) is $55,375,250 which includes the previously approved study by Burks Toma Architects and Contract ($300,000) and Amendment No. 1 for $74,250 with Group 4 Architecture, Research +
8.2 8.2 Staff Report
553
Planning, Inc. for Boardwalk Master Planning Services in the RCRP (CIP 301-678) which Council approved at the regular City Council meeting on April 17, 2023.
The project budget as indicated in (Tables 3a and 3b) includes the budget estimate prepared by staff in 2022 which includes several line-item placeholders which needed to be adjusted to account for higher architecture and designer fees, contingency, and potential attorney fees related to the project. Staff’s projected budget estimate is $55,964,000 which was provided to the City’s Construction Manager Griffin Structures, Inc. who have been working with Group 4 in the development of the schematic design estimate of probable construction cost.
Prior to design the November 2022 escalated construction budget was approximately $42 million which includes hard costs for building and sitework. During the conceptual design presentation during the regular City Council meeting on May 15, 2023, the Council was informed that both conceptual design options were 5% over the budgeted $42 million for construction. The current schematic design estimate of probable construction cost based on August 2023 Schematic Design Documents is approximately $4.7 to $5.3 million over the $42 million budget based on projected 11-
12.5% escalation to the mid-point of construction in July 2025 (Construction September 2024 to June 2026).
The Schematic Design Project Budget as indicated in (Tables 3a and 3b) includes the combined allowances for escalation, construction contingency, architectural and design fee contingency, and other soft cost contingency which total approximately $10.13 million, which is approximately 20% of the escalated estimated construction cost. The current projected Schematic Design Project Budget is $63,356,000. This amount does not include any of the bid alternates or Shell Boulevard façade enhancements that will be presented for Council’s consideration.
CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
This item directly aligns with the City Council’s “Facilities and Infrastructure” Value/Priority Area.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Group 4 slide deck presentation
Source: Photos/Renderings in staff report were provided by Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc.
8.2 8.2 Staff Report
554
FOSTER CITY RECREATION
CENTER REBUILD
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
CITY COUNCIL
City of Foster City September 2023
City of Foster City
8.2 Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
555
AGENDA
1.Requested Action
2.Work Plan & Schedule Update
3.Project Budget Update
4.Schematic Design Overview
5.Next Steps
2 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
556
Requested Actions:
Receive summary presentation and provide
direction on:
1. The Schematic Design for the Foster City
Recreation Center Rebuild Project
(FCRCRP).
2. The project budget for the FCRCRP.
3. Authorization to proceed with
design development and construction
documents.
3 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
557
TODAY
08/24
TBD
4 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
558
8.2 Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
559
MEETINGS- Conceptual thru Schematic Design
Project Management Meetings (PMT)
20 PMT Meetings
Technical Meetings
11 Total Technical Meetings with Building,
Planning, Public Works, Park and recreation + Fire
Integrated Design Workshop (IDW)
2 IDW’s
Task Force Meetings
6 Task Force Meetings
Joint Park and Recreation Committee, +
Planning Commission Meetings
3 Joint Committee/Commission Meetings
Park and Recreation Committee Meetings
1 Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting:
Recreation Center Boardwalk Master Plan
City Council Meetings
3 Joint City Council Meetings
6 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
560
SCHEMATIC DESIGN WORK PLAN – AREAS OF FOCUS
PROGRAM & DESIGN
Site and Building Program
Site Plan
Site Elements + Amenities
Floor Plans
Massing
Exterior Colors and Materials
Interior Finishes- floor and ceiling
Lighting Exterior and Interior
BUILDING SYSTEMS
Site drainage strategy
Structural System
Mechanical System
Generator requirements
Security
Audiovisual
7 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
561
SCHEMATIC DESIGN WORK PLAN – AREAS OF FOCUS
CEQA
AB 52/ Historic Resources Tasks
Tribal
Historic Resource Evaluation
DPR 523 Forms
AB 52 Tribal Consultation Invitation
Trip Generation/Level of Service
Administrative Draft IS/MND
Publish Public Review Draft IS/MND-
Response to Comments (RTC) memo
Public Hearing to be scheduled during Desi
Development Phase (date TBD)
8 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
562
CEQA: Public Review period- comments
1. Jon Froomin- Mayor: 2. Greg Koss:
9 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
563
CEQA: Public Review period- comments
4. Melvin Lee:3. Khalaf Hirmina
10 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
564
SECTION B SECTION A
Foster Square Existing Rec Center to be
demolished (shown dashed)
SECTION A
New Rec Center
(shown in red)
Foster Square Foster City Library
(Shown in red dashed)
Existing Rec Center to be
demolished (shown dashed)
39° 59.5°
SECTION B
8.2 Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
565
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
2 Rounds
- Online Surveys
- Open House Drop-in
Meeting
- Pop up Kiosk
- Planning Commission and
Parks + Recreation
Committee
- Project Task Force
- Project website
- Advertised on city website
- Email blasts
- Social media posts
- News outlets
12 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
566
COMMUNITY OUTREACH ROUND 1
Project Task Force Meeting
Joint Planning Commission and
Parks & Recreation Committee
Meeting
Little League Opening Day
Open House
Little League Opening Day
Farmers Market
Holi Festival
OUTREACH RESULTS
Online survey (March 3 to March 19) – 488 responses as of 3/20 TOTAL PARTICIPANTS (in person + online) ~1009 responses 13 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
567
COMMUNITY OUTREACH ROUND 2
OUTREACH RESULTS- ROUND 2
Online survey (May 25 to June 11) – 402 responses
TOTAL PARTICIPANTS (in person + online) ~ 850 responses TOTAL ROUND 1+2 = ~1,852 responses 14
8.2 Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
568
15 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
569
JOINT PLANNING + PARK & REC; TASK FORCE MEETINGS
JOINT
COMMITTEE 9
7 1
1TASK FORCE
MEETING
JOINT
COMMITTEE 1
0 9
8TASK FORCE
MEETING 16
8.2 Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
570
JOINT PLANNING + PARK & REC, TASK FORCE MEETINGS, CITY COUNCIL SINGLE STORY: SAILS CONCEPT City Council confirmed 2-Story massing/plan and Gullwing design
concept per Task Force, and Joint
Planning and Park and Recreation
Committee’s selection
May 15, 2023, City Council Meeting
TWO STORY: GULLWING CONCEPT
17 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
571
COMMUNITY OUTREACH - Exterior Materials Palette
A B
C • Blues and lighter colors seem to
be preferred.
• Community positive reactions to C and
lighter, more “nautical” colors.
• Lots of support for concrete “wavy”
accent panels from B all-around.
18 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
572
REFINED MATERIALS PALETTE – Task Force
Base Building Colors (EIFS):
Nautical colors, blues and warm
grays
Accent Materials:
o Vertical Accent: “Wavy” concrete
composite material
o Trellis/porch soffit, and event
lobby wall: wood composite
“teak”
o Base: composite stone
8.2 Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
573
AGENDA
1.Requested Action
2.Work Plan & Schedule Update
3.Project Budget Update
4.Schematic Design Overview
5.Next Steps
20 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
574
SCHEMATIC DESIGN PROJECT BUDGET
2023 City of Foster City Capital Improvement Projects Budgets . Recreation Center Rebuild Project (CIP 301-678):
$55,375,000
. Bocce Courts (CIP 301-655): $925,000
. Playground Replacement (ERP Fund): $70,200
New Projects and scope (no current funds allocated to these):
. Recreation Center Boardwalk Master Plan
. Park Restroom Building
21 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
575
SCHEMATIC DESIGN PROJECT BUDGET
Recreation Center Rebuild Project Budget Components
. Hard Cost
o New Recreation Center Building
o Site
o Temporary Facilities
. Construction Contingency (Building + Site)
. Furniture, Fixtures, + Equipment
o Hard Cost
. Soft Cost & Soft Cost Contingency
o 2018 Study
o Architectural and Engineering Fees
o Construction Management
o Surveys, special inspections, testing
o Utility Connections
o Fees and Administration
22 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
576
SCHEMATIC DESIGN PROJECT BUDGET
Recreation Center Rebuild Project Estimate Components
Hard Cost:
Includes cost for General Contractors Overhead (site requirements, jobsite management, insurance, bonding, profit), and construction cost for the building and sitework.
Soft Cost:
Includes cost for purchasing the building and sites furnishings, fixtures, and equipment that are not “built-in” and included in the project hard costs above.
Escalation:
Is the change in cost or price of specific goods or services in a given economy over a period.
Inflationary trends in economy get reflected through escalation in prices of units. It is the increase in cost of any construction elements of the original contract or base cost of a project due to passage of time. Typical escalation is estimated in the 3-5% range, in the last 3 years escalation has ranged from 5-7% per year.
Bid Alternates:
Bid alternates are portions of a project that are bid separately. They help manage costs in a public bidding environment. They can be used for identifying separate funds for specific portions of a project and can provide flexibility and a buffer for the project during periods of economic fluctuations. Ideal bid alternates are standalone items that require minimal coordination between trades. 23
8.2 Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
577
SCHEMATIC DESIGN COST MODEL
• Schematic Design is $4.7-$5.3M over $42M November 2022 Escalated Construction Budget
FOSTER CITY RECREATION CENTER REBUILD
SCHEMATIC COST MODEL 8/24/2023
Hard Cost* +
Escalation**
11.0% 12.5%
Hard Cost* Escalation**
11.0% 12.5%
Building & Sitework
Building
Sitework
SUBTOTAL
RCRP CIP
$33,900,000 $3,729,000 $4,237,500
$8,150,000 $896,500 $1,018,800
$42,050,000 $4,625,500 $5,256,300
$37,629,000 $38,137,000
$9,046,000 $9,168,800
$46,675,500 $47,306,300
$42,000,000 $42,000,000
(delta) <$4,675,500><$5,306,300>
* Hard Costs includes direct costs, markups + design contingency **Escalated to mid-point of Construction July 2025 (Construction Sept. 2024 to June 2026) 24 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
578
SCHEMATIC DESIGN AREAS OF COST INCREASES
INCREASE / ADDEDITEM TOTALCOST
~ $1,300,000
~ $1,195,000
Escalation from longer schedule than
anticipated (additional 6 months)1)
2) Structural System Foundation (Auger Piles)
Fixtures, Furniture, and Equipment Budget
updated from $100K to $1,190,000.3)
4)
5)
$1,090,000
$470,000
$359,000
Special Inspections allowance increased from
$330,000 to $800,000.
Site Electrical: Food Truck Hookups & EV
Charging Stations + Future Chargers
TOTAL ~$4,414,000
25 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
579
FOSTER CITY RECREATION CENTER REBUILD – PROJECT BUDGET
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
2022 PROJECT ESTIMATE 2023 SCHEMATIC
$242,1721) 2018 Study + Outreach $242,172
$6,208,200
$0
2)
3)
Architecture + Engineering (incl. A+E contingency)
Surveys (included in 2)
$5,958,207
$0
4)
5)
6)
Environmental $0
$330,000
$70,000
$800,553Special Inspections + Testing
Direct Construction Cost $46,200,000 $52,026,875
a.
b.
c.
d.
Building $33,900,000
Site $8,150,000
$5,256,250
$4,730,625
Escalation
Construction Contingency
7) Temporary Facilities $210,000 $380,000
8) Fixtures, Furnishings, + Equipment (FF+E)
Electronic Systems and Special Equipment
Construction Management
$100,000
$0
$1,190,000
$115,0009)
10)
11)
12)
13)
$2,173,500
$100,000
$400,000
$0
$2,173,500
$135,000Utility Company Connections Services + Fees
City Fees + Administration $102,814
Soft Cost Contingency $151,777
26TOTAL $55,964,000 $63,356,000
8.2 Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
580
FOSTER CITY RECREATION CENTER REBUILD – PROJECT BUDGET
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
2022 PROJECT ESTIMATE 2023 SCHEMATIC
$242,1721) 2018 Study + Outreach $242,172
$6,208,200
$0
2)
3)
Architecture + Engineering (Incl. A+E contingency)
Surveys (included in 2)
$5,958,207
$0
4)
5)
6)
Environmental $0
$330,000
$70,000
$800,553Special Inspections + Testing
Direct Construction Cost $46,200,000 $52,026,875
a.
b.
c.
d.
Building $33,900,000
$8,150,000
$5,256,250
$4,730,625
Site Escalation + Contingencies= $10.13M
~20% Escalated Construction
Estimate
Escalation
Construction Contingency
7) Temporary Facilities $210,000 $380,000
8) Fixtures, Furnishings, + Equipment (FF+E)
Electronic Systems and Special Equipment
Construction Management
$100,000
$0
$1,190,000
$115,0009)
10)
11)
12)
13)
$2,173,500
$100,000
$400,000
$0
$2,173,500
$135,000Utility Company Connections Services + Fees
City Fees + Administration $102,177
Soft Cost Contingency $151,777
27TOTAL $55,964,000 $63,356,000
8.2 Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
581
FOSTER CITY RECREATION CENTER REBUILD
SCHEMATIC COST MODEL 8/24/2023
Hard Cost* Escalation**
11.0% 12.5%
Hard Cost* + Escalation**
11.0% 12.5%
Building & Sitework
Building $33,900,000 $3,729,000 $4,237,500 $37,629,000 $38,137,000 $9,046,000 $9,168,800
$46,675,500 $47,306,300
$42,000,000 $42,000,000
<$4,675,500> <$5,306,300>
Sitework $8,150,000 $896,500 $1,018,800
$4,625,500 $5,256,300SUBTOTAL
RCRP CIP
(delta)
$42,050,000
* Hard Costs includes direct costs, markups + design contingency **Escalated to mid-point of Construction July 2025 (Construction Sept. 2024 to June 2026)
ADD ALTERNATES
A1 Expanded Trellis $625,000
A2 Café (Equipment & Space)
A3 Fitness Room Operable Partition
L1 Expanded Preschool Patio + Playground
L2 Terrace Wind Break
$428,000
$128,000
$385,000
$154,000
E1 Photovoltaic Array Allowance
E2 Enhanced Sustainability LEED Gold
E3 Net Zero Performance
$1,500,000 to $1,745,000
$ TBD
$ TBD
ADDITIONAL PROJECTS
L3a Bocce Court Expansion and Improvement
L3b Park Restroom
$1,009,000
$ TBD
L4 Recreation Center Boardwalk Masterplan $ TBD
28 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
582
PROJECT COST MODEL – Add Alternates
Alternate Cost* Other
Funding
Direction
Required
Description
A1
A2
Expanded Entry Trellis
[first 10’ in base bid]
~$625,000
~$428,000
No At award of bid
Café (Equipment and
Space)
No At end of Because of complexity of kitchen
schematic
(now)
equipment and infrastructure too
complicated to carry as an alternate.
A3 Fitness Room Operable
Partition
~$128,000 No At award of bid Structure and track are in the base bid, partition can be installed at any
time when funding is available.or later
L1
L2
E1
Expanded Preschool
Patio + Playground
~$385,000 $70,200 At award of bid Equipment Replacement Fund <$314,800>.or later
Terrace Wind Break ~$154,000 No At award of bid
or later
Photovoltaic Array
Allowance
~$1,500,000 Possibly At award of bid Low interest loan from State Energy Commission, Purchase Power
Agreement, Grant Funding- or later
TBD
$1,745,000
E2
E3
Enhanced
Sustainability LEED
Gold
TBD
Net Zero Performance TBD TBD
*Including markup, contingency and 12.36% escalation
29 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
583
PROJECT COST MODEL – Additional Projects
Project Cost* Other
Funding
Direction
Required
Description
L3a Bocce Court Expansion $1,009,000
and Improvements
$925,000
CIP 301-
At end of If not included in recreation Center
schematic Rebuild project now this work could
be completed as a separate/future
project. <$84,000>.655 (now), if part of
RCRP.
L3b Park Restrooms ~TBD
~TBD
No
No
At end of If not included in Recreation Center
Rebuild project now this work could
be completed as a separate/future
project.
schematic
(now), if part of
RCRP.
Can provide stub outs for future
installation
L4 Recreation Center No
Boardwalk Master Plan
*Including markup, contingency and 12.36% escalation
31 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
584
SD COST MODEL – ALTERNATES FOR COUNCIL CONFIRMATION
• A1 Expanded Entry Trellis [first
10’ in base bid]
• L1 Kids’ Patio + Playground
• L2 Terrace Wind Break
L1
A1
• L3 Bocce Court Site + Park RR
• L4 Boardwalk/Waterfront
Improvements
L2
L4
L3
33 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
585
AGENDA
1.Requested Action
2.Work Plan & Schedule Update
3.Project Budget Update
4.Schematic Design Overview
5.Next Steps
37 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
586
AUGUST 8, 2023, CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
Comments and questions:
1) How does the design reflect the unique character of
Foster City and its location within Leo J. Ryan Park?
2) How does the building address Shell Boulevard?
38 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
587
40 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
588
BUILDING EXTERIOR MATERIALITY
EIFS
WALL
SYSTEM
WOOD-LOOK
PHENOLIC
PANEL
PRECAST
CONCRETE
BASE PANEL
ALUMINUM
COMPOSITE
WALL PANELS
PRECAST
CONCRETE
ACCENT PANEL
8.2 Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
589
SITE PLAN
8.2 Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
590
OUTDOOR AMENITIES
8.2 Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
591
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
8.2 Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
592
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
45 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
593
SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIES- LEED CHECKLIST (8/2023)
Integrative Process Materials & Resources- Owner Project Requirements, Basis of Design - -
-
Prereq: Storage, Collection of
Recyclables
Prereq: Construction, Demolition
Waste Management
Building Product Disclosure and
Optimization
Location & Transportation
- Sensitive Land Protection- locate on previously
developed site
-
-
-
-
-
Surrounding Density and Diverse Uses
Access to Quality Transit
Bicycle Facilities
Reduce parking footprint
Electric Vehicles
.
.
.
Environmental Product Declarations
Sourcing of Raw Materials
Material Ingredients
- Construction Waste Management
-
-
-
-
-
Sustainable Sites
Prereq: Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
Open Space
Heat Island
Light Pollution Reduction
Indoor Environmental Quality
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Prereq: Min. Indoor Air Quality
Prereq: Environmental Tobacco Smoke control
Enhanced Indoor Air Quality Strategies
Low-emitting materials
Construction indoor air quality management plan
Indoor air quality assessment
Interior lighting
Daylight
Quality views
Acoustic performance
Water Efficiency
-
-
-
-
Prereq: Outdoor/Indoor water use reduction
Prereq: Building Level Water Metering
Outdoor/Indoor water use reduction
Water metering
ENERGY & Atmosphere
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Prereq: Fundamental Commissioning
Prereq: Min. Energy Performance
Prereq: Building-level energy metering
Prereq: Fundamental refrigerant management
Enhanced Commissioning
Optimize Energy Performance
Advanced Energy Metering
Renewable Energy Production (REQUIRES PV
ALTERNATE)
Innovation
LEED Accredited Professional
Regional Priority
(for Foster City)
Indoor Water Use
Optimize Energy
46 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
594
BIRDS EYE – VIEW FROM SHELL TO LAGOON
8.2 Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
595
RECREATION CENTER FROM ROSE GARDEN
8.2 Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
596
RECREATION CENTER WING FROM LAGOON TERRACE
8.2 Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
597
EVENTS WING FROM BOARDWALK
8.2 Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
598
EVENTS WING FROM MEADOW
DRAFT
8.2 Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
599
RECREATION CENTER FROM LAGOON
8.2 Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
600
DRAFT FLYTHROUGH ANIMATION
53 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
601
AUGUST 8, 2023 CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
Comments and questions:
1) How does the design reflect the unique character of
Foster City and its location within Leo J. Ryan Park?
2) How does the building address Shell Boulevard?
54 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
602
EXISTING SITE PLAN
55 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
603
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
8.2 Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
604
HILLSDALE + SHELL - VIEW FROM SIDEWALK TO MEADOW
8.2 Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
605
RECREATION CENTER FROM SHELL + FOSTER SQUARE LN
8.2 Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
606
SHELL BOULEVARD FAÇADE – WITH EXISTING TREES
8.2 Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
607
SHELL BOULEVARD FRONTAGE – TREES HIDDEN
60 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
608
SHELL BOULEVARD FAÇADE – WITH EXISTING TREES
8.2 Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
609
SHELL BOULEVARD FAÇADE – WITH EXISTING + PROPOSED TREES
8.2 Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
610
SHELL BOULEVARD FAÇADE – WITH EXISTING + PROPOSED TREES
8.2 Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
611
BIRDS EYE PERSPECTIVES FROM SHELL BOULEVARD
View from Shell @ Entry
64 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
612
BIRDS EYE PERSPECTIVES FROM SHELL BOULEVARD
View from Shell @ Hilldale Intersection
65 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
613
QUESTIONS/COMMENTS?
68 8.2
Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
614
FOSTER CITY RECREATION
CENTER REBUILD
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
CITY COUNCIL
City of Foster City
September 2023
8.2 Attachment 1 - Group 4 Slide Deck Presentation
615
DATE: September 18, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
FROM: Derek Schweigart, Parks and Recreation Director
Madeline Koval, Recreation Coordinator
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FOSTER CITY APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF FIFTEEN
MEMBERS TO THE YOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council approve the attached resolution appointing the following fifteen members to the Youth Advisory Committee to annual full terms on the Youth Advisory Committee for the 2023-2024 school year.
Name, School, Grade
Ming Doong, San Mateo High School, 12
*Kiana Gowdy, Hillsdale High School, 11
*Aanvi Gupta, Aragon High School, 11
Amperly Hom, San Mateo High School, 10
*Ellie Leo, Bowditch Middle School, 8
*Jayden Leo, San Mateo High School, 10
*Emily Liu, Hillsdale High School, 11
*John Liu, Aragon High School, 10
*Emily Meng, Burlingame High School, 10
*Isha Misra, San Mateo High School, 9
Nolan Quan, Hillsdale High School, 9
*Somya Singh, Hillsdale High School, 12
*Nicholas Thrugmorton, San Mateo High School, 12
*Lian Wang, Aragon High School, 11
*Francesca Wesley, San Mateo High School, 11
9.1 9.1 Staff Report
616
* denotes returning members
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff conducted interviews of all new and returning applicants. Staff reviewed 24 applicants for the Youth Advisory Committee (YAC) for the 2023-2024 school year. Based on the interview process and evaluation, staff recommends the above 15 applicants be appointed to the Youth Advisory Committee for the 2023-2024 school year.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The Youth Advisory Committee (YAC) was developed to encourage greater participation of youth within Foster City. The Committee’s goal is to explore teen issues and report recommendations and results to City Council.
YAC has been operating successfully with 15 members (down from 25), since 2011. The decrease in committee size was supported by City Council, feeling that this number would continue to effectively involve a large cross section of the Foster City youth community.
YAC is large enough to efficiently plan and implement activities; all members can actively participate and work as a team; and the Parks and Recreation Department staff liaison is able to spend more time guiding and advising each individual member.
Staff and YAC members saw a need to create the classification of ‘Member-at-Large’ positions due to the overwhelming interest in being involved in YAC activities. Members-at-Large do not sign the YAC commitment contract and do not have voting privileges. They do, however, attend meetings. The addition of Members-at-Large meets the needs of the Foster City youth when they cannot commit to attending eighty percent of the required committee meetings.
The process for choosing YAC committee members includes completing an application form with questions that focus on the applicant’s involvement in school and community activities. The following criteria are used to select applicants:
Outstanding level of commitment in previous years serving on the YAC School Representation
Grade Representation
Involvement in community activities
Interview
All applicants are expected to be able to express their interest in the committee’s goals and activities. Staff reviewed 24 applicants for the Youth Advisory Committee for the 2023-2024 school year:
15 YAC applications are recommended for approval
Upon City Council approval, YAC would consist of fifteen active members for the 2023-24
9.1 9.1 Staff Report
617
school year.
Staff recommends that the above applicants be appointed as outlined in this staff report.
California Environmental Quality Act
Not Applicable
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
City Council Operations and Improved Community Engagement ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Resolution
Attachment 2 - Contract
Attachment 3 - Application
9.1 9.1 Staff Report
618
1 1
7 9
RESOLUTION NO.____________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY
APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF FIFTEEN MEMBERS TO THE YOUTH
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, staff reviewed twenty four applicants for the Youth Advisory Committee for the 2023-2024 school year; and
WHEREAS, Fifteen applicants met the minimum requirements; and WHEREAS, staff conducted interviews of all new applicants; and WHEREAS, selections were made based on the following criteria:
• Outstanding level of commitment in previous years serving on the YAC • School Representation
• Grade Representation
• Involvement in community activities
• Interview
WHEREAS, it is recommended that the City Council appoint the following fifteen members to the Youth Advisory Committee: Ming Doong, Kiana Gowdy, Aanvi Gupta, Amperly Hom, Ellie Leo, Jayden Leo, Emily Liu, John Liu, Emily Meng, Isha Misra, Nolan Quan, Somya Singh, Nicholas Thrugmorton, Lian Wang, Francesca Wesley to full terms on the Youth Advisory Committee for the 2023-2024 school year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Foster City does hereby appoint the above named applicants for the full term on the Youth Advisory Committee for the 2023-2024 school year.
PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City at the regular meeting held on the 18th day of September, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
9.1 Attachment 1- Resolution
619
1 1
7 9
JON FROOMIN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK
9.1 Attachment 1- Resolution
620
The City of Foster City
2023 – 2024 Youth Advisory Committee
As a member of the Youth Advisory Committee, I agree to the following:
1. I commit to participate on the Youth Advisory Committee from September 2023 through June 2024.
2. I promise to miss no more than three regularly scheduled meetings.
3. I promise to serve on at least two sub-committees throughout the term.
4. I will observe policies and procedures of the City of Foster City and the Parks and Recreation Department.
I understand that if I fail to meet the above commitments, my continued service with the Foster City Youth Advisory Committee will be reviewed. If the committee members feel it is necessary, a recommendation for removal from the committee may be forwarded to the City Council for review.
YAC Member Signature: Date:
Parent/Guardian Signature: Date:
YAC Advisor Signature: Date:
9.1 Attachment 2 - Contract
621
/0□ /2 /3 /4 /5 /6 /7 /3 /8
/9 /10 /9 /11 /12 /9 /13 □/14 /15 /5 /16/17 □/18 /8 /19 /6/20 /15 /7/21 □/22 /15 /23 /23 /6/16/16/3 /3 □ /18 /24 /24 /25/6/26 /27 /16/6/15 /28
/29 /16 /27 /16 /3 /23 /3 /28 /16 □ /15 /30 □ /31 /5 /7 /24 /15 /20 /3 /32 /17 /3 □ /33 /15 /20 /16 /3 /7 □ /22 /6 /16 /21 □ /14 /15 /5 /16 /17 □ /18 /8 /19 /6 /20 /15 /7 /21 □ /22 /15 /23 /23 /6 /16 /16 /3 /3 □ /20 /17 /27 /25 /25 □ /17 /27 /19 /3□ /16 /17 /3 □ /30 /15 /25 /25 /15 /34 /6 /28 /35 □ /24 /5 /7 /24 /15 /20 /3 /36 □ /24 /15 /34 /3 /7 □ /27 /28 /8 □ /8 /5 /16 /6 /3 /20 /37 /38 /39 □ /33 /15 /20 /16 /3 /7 □ /35 /7 /3 /27 /16 /3 /7 □ /6 /28 /19 /15 /25 /19 /3 /23 /3 /28 /16 □ /15 /30 □ /21 /15 /5 /16 /17 □ /6 /28 □ /23 /5 /28 /6 /26 /6 /24 /27 /25□ /35 /15 /19 /3 /7 /28 /23 /3 /28 /16 □ /27 /28 /8 □ /26 /6 /19 /6 /26 □ /27 /30 /30 /27 /6 /7 /20 /39 /9 /39 □ /29 /16 /5 /8 /21 □ /24 /7 /15 /40 /25 /3 /23 /20 /36 □ /27 /26 /16 /6 /19 /6 /16 /6 /3 /20 /36 □ /27 /28 /8 □ /26 /15 /28 /26 /3 /7 /28 /20 □ /15 /30 □ /21 /15 /5 /16/17 /36 □ /3 /20 /24 /3 /26 /6 /27 /25 /25 /21 □ /27 /20 □ /16 /17 /3 /21 □ /7 /3 /25 /27 /16 /3 □ /16 /15 □ /23 /5 /28 /6 /26 /6 /24 /27 /25 □ /24 /7 /15 /35 /7 /27 /23 /20 □ /15 /7 □ /24 /7 /15 /41 /3 /26 /16 /20 □ /15 /30 □ /16 /17 /3 □ /22 /6 /16 /21 □ /15 /30 □ /33 /15 /20 /16 /3 /7 □ /22 /6 /16 /21 /39 /11 /39 □ /42 /15 /25 /8 □ /30 /15 /7 /5 /23 /20 □ /15 /28 □ /24 /7 /15 /40 /25 /3 /23 /20 /36 □ /27 /26 /16 /6 /19 /6 /16 /6 /3 /20 /36 □ /27 /28 /8 □ /26 /15 /28 /26 /3 /7 /28/20 □ /15 /30 □ /21 /15 /5 /16 /17 /36 □ /3 /6 /16 /17 /3 /7 □ /27 /25 /15 /28 /3 □ /15 /7 □ /6 /28 □ /26 /15 /28 /41 /5 /28 /26 /16 /6 /15 /28 □ /34 /6 /16 /17 □ /15 /16 /17 /3 /7 □ /35 /15 /19 /3 /7 /28 /23 /3 /28 /16 /27 /25 □ /27 /35 /3 /28 /26 /6 /3 /20 □ /27 /28 /8 □ /26 /15 /23 /23 /5 /28 /6 /16 /21 □ /15 /7 /35 /27 /28 /6 /43 /27 /16/6 /15 /28 /20 □ /27 /20 □ /16 /17 /3 □ /14 /15 /5 /16 /17 □ /18 /8 /19 /6 /20 /15 /7 /21 □ /22 /15 /23 /23 /6 /16 /16 /3 /3 □ /8 /3 /3 /23 /20 □ /8 /3 /20 /6 /7 /27 /40 /25 /3 /39
/13 /39 □ /2 /3 /26 /15 /23 /23 /3 /28 /8 □ /16 /17 /3 □ /6 /23 /24 /25 /3 /23 /3 /28 /16 /27 /16 /6 /15 /28 □ /15 /30 □ /26 /15 /23 /23 /5 /28 /6 /16 /21 □ /24 /7 /15 /35 /7 /27/23 /20 □ /34 /17 /6 /26 /17 □ /16 /17 /3 □ /14 /15 /5 /16 /17 □ /18 /8 /19 /6 /20 /15 /7 /21 □ /22 /15 /23 /23 /6 /16 /16 /3 /3 □ /8 /3 /3 /23 /20 □ /8 /3 /20 /6 /7 /27 /40 /25 /3 /39
/44 /39 □ /2 /3 /19 /6 /3 /34 □ /16 /17 /15 /20 /3 □ /23 /5 /28 /6 /26 /6 /24 /27 /25 □ /23 /27 /16 /16 /3 /7 /20 □ /7 /3 /30 /3 /7 /7 /3 /8 □ /16 /15 □ /14 /18 /22 □ /40/21 □ /16 /17 /3 □ /22 /6 /16 /21 □ /22 /15 /5 /28 /26 /6 /25 □ /15 /7 □ /15 /16 /17 /3 /7 □ /22 /6 /16 /21 □ /22 /15 /23 /23 /6 /16 /16 /3 /3 /20 □ /27 /28 /8 □ /23 /27 /45 /3 □ /7 /3 /26 /15 /23 /23 /3 /28 /8 /27 /16 /6 /15 /28 /20 □ /16 /15 □ /16 /17 /3 □ /22 /15 /5 /28 /26 /6 /25 □ /15 /7 □ /26 /15 /23 /23 /6 /16 /16 /3 /3 /20 □ /15/28 □ /16 /17 /15 /20 /3 □ /23 /27 /16 /16 /3 /7 /20 /39
9.1 Attachment 3 - 2023-24 Application
622
/0 /1 /2 /3 /4 /5 /1 /6 /1 /7 /8 /9
/10 /11 □ /13 /1 □ /14 □ /6 /1 /6 /13 /1 /5 □ /11 /15 □ /8 /16 /1 □ /17 /11 /3 /8 /16 □ /18 /19 /20 /4 /9 /11 /5 /21 □ /22 /11 /6 /6 /4 /8 /8 /1 /1 □ /21 /11 /3 □/6 /3 /9 /8 /23 □
/25 /26 □ /27 /1 □ /14 □ /5 /1 /9 /4 /19 /1 /7 /8 □ /11 /15 □ /28 /11 /9 /8 /1 /5 □ /22 /4 /8 /21 /26 /29 /26 □ /27 /1 □ /1 /7 /8 /1 /5 /4 /7 /30 □ /30 /5 /14 /19 /1 /9 □ /31 □ /8 /16 /11 /3 /30 /16 □ /25 /29 □ /4 /7 □ /28 /14 /32 /32 □ /11 /15 □ /29 /33 /29 /34 /26 /34 /26 □ /27 /1 □ /14 /20 /14 /4 /32 /14 /13 /32 /1 □ /15 /11 /5 □ /14 □ /8 /1 /14 /6 □ /13 /3 /4 /32 /19 /4 /7 /30 /35 □ /32 /1 /14 /19 /1 /5 /9 /16 /4 /36 □ /8 /5 /14/4 /7 /4 /7 /30 □ /4 /7 □ /18 /3 /30 /3 /9 /8 /26 /37 /26 □ /27 /1 □ /14 /20 /14 /4 /32 /14 /13 /32 /1 □ /15 /11 /5 □ /6 /1 /1 /8 /4 /7 /30 /9 □ /11 /7 □ /38 /1 /19 /7 /1 /9 /19 /14 /21 /9 □ /15 /5 /11 /6 □ /39 /23 /33/33 /40 /41 /23 /33 /33 /36 /6 □ /13 /1 /30 /4 /7 /7 /4 /7 /30 □ /4 /7 □ /42 /1 /36 /8 /1 /6 /13 /1 /5 □ /14 /7 /19 □ /1 /7 /19 /4 /7 /30 □ /4 /7 □ /43 /3 /7 /1 /26
/44 /26 □ /27 /1 □ /45 /4 /32 /32 /4 /7 /30 □ /8 /11 □ /14 /8 /8 /1 /7 /19 □ /14 /19 /19 /4 /8 /4 /11 /7 /14 /32 □ /6 /1 /1 /8 /4 /7 /30 /9 □ /14 /9 □ /7 /1 /46 /1/9 /9 /14 /5 /21 /26
9.1 Attachment 3 - 2023-24 Application
623
/0 /1 /2 /2 /3 /4 /2 /5 /6 /4
/7 /8 □ /10 □ /2 /5 /2 /11 /5 /12 □ /1 /13 □ /4 /14 /5 □ /15 /1 /16 /4 /14 □ /7 /17 /18 /3 /8 /1 /12 /19 □ /0 /1 /2 /2 /3 /4 /4 /5 /5 □ /19 /1 /16 □ /2 /16 /8/4 □ /8 /3 /20 /6 □ /10 □ /21 /1 /6 /4 /12 /10 /21 /4 □ /22 /14 /3 /21 /14 □ /8 /4 /10 /4 /5 /8 □ /19 /1 /16 □ /22 /3 /23 /23 /24 □
/26 /27 □ /28 /10 /12 /4 /3 /21 /3 /29 /10 /4 /5 □ /1 /6 □ /4 /14 /5 □ /0 /1 /2 /2 /3 /4 /4 /5 /5 □ /13 /12 /1 /2 □ /30 /5 /29 /4 /5 /2 /11 /5 /12 □ /31 /32 /31 /33□ /4 /14 /12 /1 /16 /20 /14 □ /34 /16 /6 /5 □ /31 /32 /31 /35 /27 /31 /27 □ /36 /3 /8 /8 □ /6 /1 □ /2 /1 /12 /5 □ /4 /14 /10 /6 □ /33 □ /12 /5 /20 /16 /23 /10 /12 /23 /19 □ /8 /21 /14 /5 /17 /16 /23 /5 /17 □ /2 /5 /5 /4 /3 /6 /20 /8/37 /5 /18 /5 /6 /4 /8 /27 /33 /27 □ /30 /5 /12 /18 /5 □ /1 /6 □ /10 /4 □ /23 /5 /10 /8 /4 □ /4 /22 /1 □ /8 /16 /11 /21 /1 /2 /2 /3 /4 /4 /5 /5 /8 □ /4 /14 /12 /1 /16 /20 /14 /1 /16 /4 □ /4/14 /5 □ /4 /5 /12 /2 /27 /35 /27 □ /38 /11 /8 /5 /12 /18 /5 □ /10 /23 /23 □ /29 /1 /23 /3 /21 /3 /5 /8 □ /10 /6 /17 □ /29 /12 /1 /21 /5 /17 /16 /12 /5 /8 □ /1 /13 □ /4 /14 /5 □ /0 /3 /4 /19 □/1 /13 □ /39 /1 /8 /4 /5 /12 □ /0 /3 /4 /19 □ /10 /6 /17 □ /4 /14 /5 □ /28 /10 /12 /40 /8 □ /10 /6 /17 □ /41 /5 /21 /12 /5 /10 /4 /3 /1 /6 □ /42 /5 /29 /10 /12 /4 /2 /5 /6 /4 /27
9.1 Attachment 3 - 2023-24 Application
624
/0 /1 /2 /3 /4 /2 □ /6 /7 /1 /1 □ /8 /9 /10 □ /10 /11 /2 □ /6 /8 /1 /1 /8 /12 /7 /13 /14 /15 /16 /3 /17 /2□ /18 □/19 /20
/21 /22 /22 /23 /2 /4 /4□ /18 □/24 /20
/0 /11 /8 /13 /2 □ /16 /9 /17 /25 /2 /23□ /18 □/26 /20
/27 /17 /3 /7 /1 □ /21 /22 /22 /23 /2 /4 /4□ /18 □/28 /20 /29 /7 /23 /10 /11 /22 /3 /10 /2□ /18 □/30 /20
9.1 Attachment 3 - 2023-24 Application
625
/0 /1 /2 /3 /3 /4 □ /6 /7 /8 □ /9 /10 /6 /8 /11 □ /12 /7 □ /13 /6 /4 /4 □ /14 /15 /14 /16□ /17 □/18 /19 /20 /21 /22 /10 /6 □ /23 /24 /10 /10 /12 /1 /24 /4 /6 /10 □ /25 /1 /22 /12 /26 /12 /22 /12 /11 /27□ /17 □/28 /19 /29/2 /30 □ /8 /3 □ /30 /3 /24 □ /31 /6 /7 /22 □ /22 /3 □ /32 /11 □ /6 □ /33 /11 /33 /32 /11 /10 □ /3 /34 □ /35 /25 /23 /36□ /17 □/37 /19 /29/2 /6 /22 □ /12 /27 /27 /24 /11 /27 □ /31 /3 /24 /4 /8 □ /30 /3 /24 □ /4 /12 /38 /11 □ /22 /3 □ /27 /11 /11 □ /6 /8 /8 /10 /11 /27 /27 /11 /8 □ /32 /30 □ /35 /25 /23 /36□ /17 □/39 /19 /29/2 /6 /22 □ /8 /3 □ /30 /3 /24 □ /34 /11 /11 /4 □ /30 /3 /24 □ /1 /6 /7 □ /3 /34 /34 /11 /10 □ /6 /27 □ /6 □ /33 /11 /33 /32 /11 /10 □ /3 /34 □ /22 /2 /12 /27 □/1 /3 /33 /33 /12 /22 /22 /11 /11 /36 □□ /17 □/41 /15 /19
9.1 Attachment 3 - 2023-24 Application
626
/0 /1 /2 /3 □ /5 /6 /7 /8 /9 /7 /8 □ /2 /3 □ /7 /9 /2 /8 /1 /9 /10 □ /5 /10 /9 /11 /8 /9 /12 □ /7 /6 /10 □ /9 /7 /12 /6 /10 /3 /9 /12 □ /13 /14 □ /15 /2 /5/10 /6 /3 /6 /16 /8 /17 □ /0 /1 /9 □ /12 /11 /8 /11 □ /14 /6 /18 □ /3 /18 /13 /19 /2 /8 □ /20 /2 /21 /21 □ /13 /9 □ /3 /9 /7 /8 □ /8 /6 □ /8 /1 /9 □ /16 /6 /10/19 □ /6 /20 /7 /9 /10 /17 /15 /2 /5 /10 /6 /3 /6 /16 /8 □ /22 /6 /10 /19 /3
9.1 Attachment 3 - 2023-24 Application
627
DATE: September 18, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
FROM: Kevin Ortiz, Management Analyst
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION
GRANTING CONSENT TO THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO
INCLUDE THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY IN THE SAN FRANCISCO
PENINSULA TOURISM MARKETING DISTRICT
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution granting consent to the City of Burlingame to include the City of Foster City in future modifications and renewals of the San Francisco Peninsula Tourism Marketing District (SFPTMD).
Adoption of the attached resolution will enable the City of Burlingame and the San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau dba The San Francisco Peninsula (SFP) to include Foster City in any future modifications and renewals of the SFPTMD. The SFPTMD will be governed by the SFP and the Management District Plan, and will be facilitated by the Burlingame City Council.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2001, the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District (SMCTBID) was formed pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (89 Law) by City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 1648. At the January 2, 2001 City Council meeting, the City of Foster City City Council adopted Resolution No. 2001-6, which granted consent to the City of Burlingame to form the SMCTBID and for Foster City to be included within the boundaries of the SMCTBID. In an effort to modernize the SMCTBID, the SFP and San Mateo County lodging businesses have formed a new
10.1 10.1 Staff Report
628
District, the SFPTMD, pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994.
The SFPTMD is a benefit assessment district proposed to create a revenue source to help fund marketing and sales promotion efforts for San Francisco Peninsula area lodging businesses. This approach has been used successfully in other destination areas throughout the state to improve tourism and drive additional room nights to assessed lodging businesses. The SFPTMD includes all lodging businesses located within the boundaries of the cities of Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Millbrae, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco, and the unincorporated area of San Mateo County. The City of Burlingame wishes to receive consent from Foster City to be included in the SFPTMD in future modifications and renewals.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
At its February 21, 2023 Regular Meeting, the City Council adopted a Policy for Requesting to Add Items to a Future Agenda. In accordance with the Policy, staff received a completed Request to Place Item on Future Agenda Form from Mayor Froomin requesting that the Council reconsider this item (the item was originally considered at the June 20, 2023 Council meeting). At the August 21, 2023 Regular Meeting, the City Council directed staff to place the item on the September 18, 2023 Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for consideration.
On May 15, 2023, the City of Burlingame City Council adopted Resolution No. 050- 2023 (Attachment 2) requesting the consent of cities in San Mateo County, including the City of Foster City, to form the SFPTMD.
The SFP and lodging business owners decided to pursue formation of the SFPTMD in order to create a revenue source devoted to marketing the San Francisco Peninsula area as a tourist, meeting and event destination. The SFPTMD is estimated to generate approximately $10,336,711 on an annual basis for promotion of travel and tourism specific to the San Francisco Peninsula area.
Tourism Marketing Districts
Tourism Marketing Districts (TMDs) utilize the efficiencies of private sector operation in the market-based promotion of tourism. These special assessment districts allow lodging business owners to organize their efforts to increase tourism. Lodging business owners within the TMD fund the TMD, and those funds are used to provide services that are desired by and benefit the lodging businesses within the TMD.
TMD benefits:
➢Funds cannot be diverted for other government programs; ➢They are customized to fit the needs of each destination;
10.1 10.1 Staff Report
629
➢They allow for a wide range of services; including: destination marketing, tourism promotion, and sales lead generation;
➢They are designed, created, and governed by those who will pay the assessment; and
➢They provide a stable funding source for tourism promotion.
In California, TMDs are primarily formed pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (94 Law). This law allows for the creation of a special benefit assessment districts to raise funds within a specific geographic area. The key difference between TMDs and other special benefit assessment districts is that funds raised are returned to the private non-profit corporation governing the TMD.
Management District Plan
The Management District Plan (Attachment 3) includes the boundary of the SFPTMD, a service plan and budget and means of governance. The SFPTMD includes all lodging businesses located within the boundaries of the cities of Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Millbrae, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco, and the unincorporated area of San Mateo County.
The annual assessment rate is one- and one-half percent (1.5%) of gross short-term sleeping room rental revenue for lodging businesses with 5,000 square feet or more of dedicated meeting space, and 0.75% for all other lodging businesses within the SFPTMD’s boundaries. Based on the benefit received, assessments will not be collected on stays of more than thirty (30) consecutive days; stays provided to airline cockpit and/or cabin crews pursuant to an agreement between a hotel and an airline, which is in furtherance of or to facilitate such crews’ performance of their jobs for the airline, including layovers between flights; employees of the state or federal government if room charges are paid directly by their employing agency and copies of official travel orders are submitted as applicable; and any properly credentialed officer or employee of a foreign government who is exempt by reason of express provision of federal law or international treaty.
The SFPTMD will have a five (5) year life, beginning January 1, 2024, or as soon as possible thereafter, and ending five (5) years from its start date. The assessment will be implemented beginning January 1, 2024, or as soon as possible thereafter. Once per year, beginning on the anniversary of SFPTMD formation, there is a thirty (30) day period in which business owners paying fifty percent (50%) or more of the assessment may protest and begin proceedings to terminate the SFPTMD.
The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for collecting the assessments on a monthly basis (including any delinquencies, penalties, and interest) from each lodging business located in the boundaries of the SFPTMD. The City of Burlingame shall take all reasonable efforts to collect the assessments from each lodging business. The City of Burlingame shall be paid a fee equal to one percent (1%) of the amount of
10.1 10.1 Staff Report
630
assessment collected or a flat fee of $60,000, whichever is greater each year to cover its costs of collection and administration.
California Environmental Quality Act
Not Applicable
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with the adoption of the attached resolution. Because the SFPTMD programs are intended to increase room night sales for assessed lodging businesses within the SFPTMD, there may be an increase in tax collections.
CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Smart Planning, Development, and the Local Economy
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Resolution
Attachment 2 – Adopted Resolution from the City of Burlingame Requesting Consent from Cities in San Mateo County, including the City of Foster City, to form the SFPTMD Attachment 3 – SFPTMD Management District Plan
10.1 10.1 Staff Report
631
RESOLUTION NO.____________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONSENT TO THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO INCLUDE
THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY IN THE SAN FRANCISCO PENINSULA TOURISM
MARKETING DISTRICT (SFPTMD)
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, in 2001, the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District (SMCTBID) was formed pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (89 Law) by City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 1648; and WHEREAS, the City of Foster City granted consent to the City of Burlingame to be included within the boundaries of the SMCTBID by Foster City City Council Resolution No. 2001-6; and
WHEREAS, in an effort to modernize the SMCTBID, the City of Burlingame, San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau dba The San Francisco Peninsula (SFP), and San Mateo County lodging businesses have formed a new District, the San Francisco Peninsula Tourism Marketing District (SFPTMD), pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994; and WHEREAS, the Property and Business Improvement Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code § 36600 et seq., authorizes the City of Burlingame to establish business improvement districts for the purposes of driving increased business sales directly to payors; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Burlingame has requested consent to include the City of Foster City within the SFPTMD with adoption of Burlingame City Council Resolution No. 050-2023, dated May 15, 2023.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Foster City, that:
Section 1: The above recitals are true and correct.
Section 2: The City of Burlingame is hereby granted consent to include the City of Foster City in any future modifications and renewals of the SFPTMD.
Section 3: The Clerk of the City of Foster City is hereby directed to transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the Clerk of the City of Burlingame.
Section 4: This Resolution is effective upon its adoption.
10.1 Attachment 1 - Resolution
632
PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City at the regular meeting held on the 18th day of September, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JON FROOMIN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK
10.1 Attachment 1 - Resolution
633
1 RESOLUTION NO. 050- 2023
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME REQUESTING
CONSENT OF THE CITIES OF BELMONT, BRISBANE, EAST PALO ALTO, FOSTER CITY,
HALF MOON BAY, MENLO PARK, MILLBRAE, PACIFICA, REDWOOD CITY, SAN BRUNO,
SAN CARLOS, SAN MATEO, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, AND THE UNINCORPORATED
AREA OF SAN MATEO COUNTY TO FORM THE SAN FRANCISCO PENINSULA TOURISM
MARKETING DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Burlingame ( the Council) desires to begin proceedings to form the San Francisco Peninsula Tourism Marketing District ( SFPTMD); and WHEREAS, certain lodging business owners have requested that the Council form the SFPTMD; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the territory proposed to be included in the SFPTMD lies within the boundaries of the cities of Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco, and the unincorporated area of San Mateo County ( the Cities and County), as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by such attachment; and
WHEREAS, the area of the Cities and County that lies within the boundaries of the proposed SFPTMD will, in the opinion of the Council, be benefited by the improvements and activities, and the purpose sought to be accomplished by the work can best be accomplished by a single comprehensive scheme of work.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME that:
Section 1: The above recitals are true and correct.
Section 2: Consent of the cities of Belmont, Brisbane, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco, and the unincorporated area of San Mateo County, through their City Councils and Board of Supervisors, is hereby requested to form the SFPTMD, and to grant to the Council of the City of Burlingame jurisdiction for all the purposes in connection with the creation, operation, and future renewals of the proposed SFPTMD.
Section 3: The Burlingame City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the clerks of the Granting Cities and County.
Michael Brownrigg, Mayor
DocuSign Envelope ID: 72BCEE96- 8B4D- 43A3- 8C06- E6F3ED870850
10.1 Attachment 2 - Adopted Resolution from the City of Burlingame Requesting Consent from Cities in San Mateo County, including Foster City, to form the SFPTMD
634
2 I, Meaghan Hassel- Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 15th day of May, 2023, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: BEACH, BROWNRIGG, COLSON, ORTIZ, STEVENSON NOES: Councilmembers: NONE
ABSENT: Councilmembers: NONE
Meaghan Hassel- Shearer, City Clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: 72BCEE96- 8B4D- 43A3- 8C06- E6F3ED870850
10.1 Attachment 2 - Adopted Resolution from the City of Burlingame Requesting Consent from Cities in San Mateo County, including Foster City, to form the SFPTMD
635
3 Exhibit A
Boundary Map
DocuSign Envelope ID: 72BCEE96- 8B4D- 43A3- 8C06- E6F3ED870850
10.1 Attachment 2 - Adopted Resolution from the City of Burlingame Requesting Consent from Cities in San Mateo County, including Foster City, to form the SFPTMD
636
SAN FRANCISCO PENINSULA TOURISM MARKETING DISTRICT MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Prepared pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code section 36600 et seq. August 14, 2023 2024-2028
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
637
Table of Contents I. OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................... 3 II. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................ 5 III. BOUNDARY .............................................................................................................................................. 6 IV. ASSESSMENT BUDGET AND SERVICES ............................................................................................. 7 A. ANNUAL SERVICE PLAN .................................................................................................................................. 7 B. ANNUAL BUDGET ............................................................................................................................................ 9 C. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONAL COMPLIANCE ................................................................................................. 9 D. ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................................................. 11 E. PENALTIES AND INTEREST ............................................................................................................................ 12 F. TIME AND MANNER FOR COLLECTING ASSESSMENTS .................................................................................... 13 V. GOVERNANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 14 A. OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION ................................................................................................................................. 14 B. BROWN ACT AND CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT COMPLIANCE ............................................................. 14 C. ANNUAL REPORT .......................................................................................................................................... 14 APPENDIX 1 – LAW ........................................................................................................................................ 15 APPENDIX 2 – ASSESSED BUSINESSES ...................................................................................................... 26 APPENDIX 3 – BENEFITS BY BUSINESS CATEGORY .............................................................................. 30 APPENDIX 4 – SMG CONSULTING ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 32 Prepared by Civitas
(800)999-7781 www.civitasadvisors.com
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
638
SFPTMD Management District Plan 3 August 14, 2023
I. OVERVIEW Developed by the San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau dba The San Francisco Peninsula (SFP) and San Mateo County lodging businesses, the San Francisco Peninsula Tourism Marketing District (SFPTMD) is an assessment district proposed to provide specific benefits to payors, by funding marketing and sales promotion efforts for assessed businesses. This approach has been used successfully in other destination areas throughout the country to provide the benefit of additional room night sales directly to payors. In 2001, the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District (SMCTBID) was formed pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (89 Law). This effort seeks to modernize the SMCTBID by disestablishing the 89 Law District and forming a new District, the SFPTMD, pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (94 Law). Location: The SFPTMD includes all lodging businesses, existing and in the future, located within the boundaries of the cities of Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Millbrae, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco, and the unincorporated area of San Mateo County, as shown on the map in Section III. Services: The SFPTMD is designed to provide specific benefits directly to payors by increasing awareness and demand for room night sales, meetings, and conventions. Sales and marketing programs will increase demand for overnight tourism and market payors as tourist, meeting and event destinations, thereby increasing demand for room night sales, meetings, and conventions. Budget: The total SFPTMD annual assessment budget for the initial year of its five (5) year operation is anticipated to be approximately $10,336,711. A similar budget is expected to apply to subsequent years, but this budget is expected to fluctuate as room sales do. Cost: The annual assessment rate is one- and one-half percent (1.5%) of gross short-term sleeping room rental revenue for lodging businesses with 5,000 square feet or more of dedicated meeting space, and 0.75% for all other lodging businesses within the SFPTMD’s boundaries. Based on the benefit received, assessments will not be collected on stays of more than thirty (30) consecutive days; stays provided to airline cockpit and/or cabin crews pursuant to an agreement between a hotel and an airline, which is in furtherance of or to facilitate such crews’ performance of their jobs for the airline, including layovers between flights; employees of the state or federal government if room charges are paid directly by their employing agency and copies of official travel orders are submitted as applicable; and any properly credentialed officer or employee of a foreign government who is exempt by reason of express provision of federal law or international treaty. Collection: The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for collecting the assessments on a monthly basis (including any delinquencies, penalties and interest) from each lodging business located in the boundaries of the SFPTMD. The City shall take all reasonable efforts to collect the assessments from each lodging business.
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
639
SFPTMD Management District Plan 4 August 14, 2023
Duration: The SFPTMD will have a five (5) year life, beginning January 1, 2024, or as soon as possible thereafter, and ending five (5) years from its start date. After five (5) years, the SFPTMD may be renewed pursuant to the 94 Law if business owners support continuing the SFPTMD programs. Once per year, beginning on the anniversary of SFPTMD formation, there is a thirty (30) day period in which owners paying fifty percent (50%) or more of the assessment may protest and initiate a hearing on SFPTMD termination. Management: The San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau dba The San Francisco Peninsula (SFP) shall serve as the SFPTMD’s Owners’ Association. The Owners’ Association is charged with managing funds and implementing programs in accordance with this Plan, and must provide annual reports to the Burlingame City Council. The SFP shall create a SFPTMD Committee tasked with determining how SFPTMD funds are spent, within the designated programs in this Plan, subject to final approval by the SFP Board. The SFPTMD Committee shall include lodging business owners or representatives paying the SFPTMD assessment.
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
640
SFPTMD Management District Plan 5 August 14, 2023
II. BACKGROUND TMDs are an evolution of the traditional Business Improvement District. The first TMD was formed in West Hollywood, California in 1989. Since then, over 100 California destinations have followed suit. In recent years, other states have begun adopting the California model – Massachusetts, Montana, South Dakota, Washington, Colorado, Texas and Louisiana have adopted TMD laws. Several other states are in the process of adopting their own legislation. The cities of Wichita, Kansas and Newark, New Jersey used an existing business improvement district law to form a TMD. And, some cities, like Portland, Oregon and Memphis, Tennessee have utilized their home rule powers to create TMDs without a state law. California’s TMDs collectively raise over $300 million annually for local destination marketing. With competitors raising their budgets, and increasing rivalry for visitor dollars, it is important that San Francisco Peninsula tourism businesses invest in stable, commerce-specific marketing programs. TMDs utilize the efficiencies of private sector operation in the market-based promotion of tourism districts. TMDs allow tourism business owners to organize their efforts to increase commerce. Tourism business owners within the TMD pay an assessment and those funds are used to provide services that increase commerce. In California, most TMDs are formed pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994. This law allows for the creation of a benefit assessment district to raise funds within a specific geographic area. The key difference between TMDs and other benefit assessment districts is that funds raised are returned to the private non-profit corporation governing the district. There are many benefits to TMDs: • Funds must be spent on services and improvements that provide a specific benefit only to those who pay; • Funds cannot be diverted to general government programs; • They are customized to fit the needs of payors in each destination; • They allow for a wide range of services; • They are designed, created and governed by those who will pay the assessment; and • They provide a stable, long-term funding source for tourism promotion.
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
641
SFPTMD Management District Plan 6 August 14, 2023
III. BOUNDARY The SFPTMD includes all lodging businesses, existing and in the future, located within the boundaries of the cities of Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Millbrae, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco, and the unincorporated area of San Mateo County, illustrated by the map below. “Lodging business” means: any hotel, motel, inn, bed and breakfast, or other similar structure or portion thereof that is rented for dwelling, lodging, or sleeping purposes on a transient basis. Tourist home or house, studio hotel, bachelor hotel, lodginghouse, roominghouse, apartment house, dormitory, public or private club, mobile home or house trailer at a fixed location, are not included in the definition of “lodging business.” The boundary is shown on the map below. A list of lodging businesses proposed to be assessed in the SFPTMD can be found in Appendix 2.
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
642
SFPTMD Management District Plan 7 August 14, 2023
IV. ASSESSMENT BUDGET AND SERVICES A. Annual Service Plan Assessment funds will be spent to provide specific benefits conferred or privileges granted directly to the payors that are not provided to those not charged, and which do not exceed the reasonable cost to the City of conferring the benefits or granting the privileges. The privileges and services provided with the SFPTMD funds are sales and marketing programs available only to assessed businesses. A service plan assessment budget has been developed to deliver services that benefit the assessed businesses. A detailed annual assessment budget will be developed and approved by the SFP. The table below illustrates the initial annual assessment budget allocations. These activities and allocations will also apply in subsequent years. The total initial assessment budget is $10,336,711.
Although actual revenues will fluctuate due to market conditions, the proportional allocations of the budget shall remain the same. However, the City and the SFP board shall have the authority to adjust budget allocations between the categories by no more than twenty (20%) of the total budget per year. A description of the proposed improvements and activities for the initial year of operation is below. The same activities are proposed for subsequent years. In the event of a legal challenge against the SFPTMD, any and all assessment funds may be used for the costs of defending the SFPTMD. In the first year of operation, the costs of creating the SFPTMD may be repaid by deducting repayment funds proportionally from budget categories. Each budget category includes all costs related to providing that service. For example, the sales and marketing budget includes the cost of staff time dedicated to overseeing and implementing the sales and marketing program. Staff time dedicated purely to administrative tasks is allocated to the administrative portion of the budget. The costs of an individual staff member may be allocated to multiple budget categories. The staffing levels necessary to provide the services below will be determined by the SFP Board on an as- needed basis.
Sales, Marketing, & Advocacy, $9,303,040 , 90%
Administration & Operations, $826,937 , 8%Contingency/Reserve, $103,367 , 1%City Collection Fee,$103,367 , 1% Initial Annual Assessment Budget: $10,336,711
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
643
SFPTMD Management District Plan 8 August 14, 2023
Sales, Marketing, & Advocacy A sales and marketing program will promote assessed businesses as tourist, meeting, and event destinations. The sales and marketing program will have a central theme of promoting San Francisco Peninsula as a desirable place for overnight visits. The program will have the goal of increasing overnight visitation and room night sales at assessed businesses, and may include the following activities: • Funds to support group business to offset costs within the destination, thereby generating room nights for assessed businesses; • Payment of bid fees, incentives or other costs associated with bringing large scale events to the destination that generate room nights for assessed businesses; • Funds to support events and/or local partnerships that increase the public notoriety of the destination as a tourist, meetings, or event destination – thereby increasing consumer demand for assessed businesses; • Support of public relation strategies that increase the profile of the destination as a tourist, meetings, or event destination – thereby increasing consumer demand for assessed businesses; • Strategic partnerships, sponsorships, or other alliances that reinforce the destination within the travel marketplace and position the San Francisco Peninsula as a destination of choice for meetings, events, and leisure travel to assessed businesses; • Internet marketing efforts to increase awareness and optimize internet presence to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses; • Print ads in magazines and newspapers, television ads, and radio ads targeted at potential visitors to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses; • Attendance of trade shows to promote assessed businesses; • Familiarization tours of the destination and assessed businesses; • Preparation and production of collateral promotional materials such as brochures, flyers and maps featuring assessed businesses; • Attendance of professional industry conferences and affiliation events to promote assessed businesses; • Lead generation activities designed to attract tourists and group events to assessed businesses; • Director of Sales and General Manager meetings to plan and coordinate tourism promotion efforts for assessed businesses; • Education of hospitality staff on service and safety (related to alcohol and food) designed to create a visitor experience that will bring repeat visits to assessed businesses; • Education of lodging business management and the Owners’ Association on advocacy and marketing strategies best suited to meet assessed businesses’ needs; and • Other activities that increase the profile and notoriety of The San Francisco Peninsula as an overnight travel destination and promote greater room night sales for assessed businesses. Administration & Operations The administration and operations portion of the budget shall be utilized for administrative staffing costs, office costs, and other general administrative costs such as insurance, legal, and accounting fees. Contingency/Reserve The budget includes a contingency line item to account for uncollected assessments, if any. If there are contingency funds collected, they may be held in a reserve fund or utilized for other program, administration or renewal costs at the discretion of the SFP Board. Policies relating to contributions to the reserve fund, the target amount of the reserve fund, and expenditure of monies from the reserve
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
644
SFPTMD Management District Plan 9 August 14, 2023
fund shall be set by the SFP Board. Contingency/reserve funds may be spent on SFPTMD programs or administrative and renewal costs in such proportions as determined by the SFP Board. The reserve fund may be used for the costs of renewing the SFPTMD. City Collection Fee As lead agency, the City of Burlingame shall retain a fee equal to one percent (1%) of the amount of assessment collected or a flat fee of $60,000, whichever is greater each year, to cover their costs of collection and administration. B. Annual Budget The total five (5) year improvement and service plan budget is projected at approximately $10,336,711 annually, or $60,838,553 through 2028. A similar budget is expected to apply to subsequent years, but this budget is expected to fluctuate as room sales do. The following chart has been prepared based on a five-year projection developed by SMG Consulting. The full report can be found in Appendix 4.
Year Sales, Marketing, & Advocacy Administration & Operations Contingency / Reserve City Collection Fee Total 2024 $7,752,533 $826,937 $103,367 $103,367 $10,336,711 2025 $10,065,889 $894,746 $111,843 $111,843 $11,184,321 2026 $10,851,029 $964,536 $120,567 $120,567 $12,056,698 2027 $11,784,217 $1,047,486 $130,936 $130,936 $13,093,574 2028 $12,750,523 $1,133,380 $141,672 $141,672 $14,167,248 Total $53,204,191 $4,867,084 $608,386 $608,386 $60,838,553 C. California Constitutional Compliance The SFPTMD assessment is not a property-based assessment subject to the requirements of Proposition 218. Courts have found Proposition 218 limited the term ‘assessments’ to levies on real property.1 Rather, the SFPTMD assessment is a business-based assessment, and is subject to Proposition 26. Pursuant to Proposition 26 all levies are a tax unless they fit one of seven exceptions. Two of these exceptions apply to the SFPTMD, a “specific benefit” and a “specific government service.” Both require that the costs of benefits or services do not exceed the reasonable costs to the City of conferring the benefits or providing the services. 1. Specific Benefit Proposition 26 requires that assessment funds be expended on, “a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the 1 Jarvis v. the City of San Diego 72 Cal App. 4th 230
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
645
SFPTMD Management District Plan 10 August 14, 2023
privilege.”2 The services in this Plan are designed to provide targeted benefits directly to assessed businesses, and are intended only to provide benefits and services directly to those businesses paying the assessment. These services are tailored not to serve the general public, businesses in general, or parcels of land, but rather to serve the specific businesses within the SFPTMD. The activities described in this Plan are specifically targeted to increase demand for room night sales for assessed lodging businesses within the boundaries of the SFPTMD, and are narrowly tailored. SFPTMD funds will be used exclusively to provide the specific benefit of increased demand for room night sales directly to the assessees. Assessment funds shall not be used to feature non-assessed lodging businesses in SFPTMD programs, or to directly generate sales for non-assessed businesses. The activities paid for from assessment revenues are business services constituting and providing specific benefits to the assessed businesses. Nothing in this Plan limits the ability of the SFP Corporation to enter into private contracts with non-assessed lodging businesses for the provision of services to those businesses. The assessment imposed by this SFPTMD is for a specific benefit conferred directly to the payors that is not provided to those not charged. The specific benefit conferred directly to the payors is an increase in demand for room night sales. The specific benefit of an increase in demand for room night sales for assessed lodging businesses will be provided only to lodging businesses paying the district assessment, with marketing and sales programs promoting lodging businesses paying the SFPTMD assessment. The marketing and sales programs will be designed to increase room night sales at each assessed lodging businesses. Because they are necessary to provide the marketing and sales programs that specifically benefit the assessed lodging businesses, the administration and contingency services also provide the specific benefit of increased demand for room night sales to the assessed lodging businesses. Although the SFPTMD, in providing specific benefits to payors, may produce incidental benefits to non-paying businesses, the incidental benefit does not preclude the services from being considered a specific benefit. The legislature has found that, “A specific benefit is not excluded from classification as a ‘specific benefit’ merely because an indirect benefit to a non-payor occurs incidentally and without cost to the payor as a consequence of providing the specific benefit to the payor.”3 2. Specific Government Service The assessment may also be utilized to provide, “a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product.”4 The legislature has recognized that marketing and promotions services like those to be provided by the SFPTMD are government services within the meaning of Proposition 265. Further, the legislature has determined that “a specific government service is not excluded from classification as a ‘specific government service’ merely because an indirect benefit to a nonpayor occurs incidentally and without cost to the payor as a consequence of providing the specific government service to the payor.”6 3. Reasonable Cost SFPTMD services will be implemented carefully to ensure they do not exceed the reasonable cost of such services. The full amount assessed will be used to provide the services described herein. Funds will be managed by the SFP, and reports submitted on an annual basis to the City. Only assessed 2 Cal. Const. art XIII C § 1(e)(1) 3 Government Code § 53758(a) 4 Cal. Const. art XIII C § 1(e)(2) 5 Government Code § 53758(b) 6 Government Code § 53758(b)
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
646
SFPTMD Management District Plan 11 August 14, 2023
lodging businesses will be featured in marketing materials, receive sales leads generated from SFPTMD-funded activities, be featured in advertising campaigns, and benefit from other SFPTMD-funded services. Non-assessed lodging businesses will not receive these, nor any other, SFPTMD-funded services and benefits. The SFPTMD-funded programs are all targeted directly at and feature only assessed businesses. It is, however, possible that there will be a spill-over benefit to non-assessed businesses. If non-assessed lodging businesses receive incremental room nights, that portion of the promotion or program generating those room nights shall be paid with non-SFPTMD funds. SFPTMD funds shall only be spent to benefit the assessed businesses, and shall not be spent on that portion of any program which directly generates incidental room nights for non-assessed businesses. D. Assessment The annual assessment rate is one- and one-half percent (1.5%) of gross short-term sleeping room rental revenue for lodging businesses with 5,000 square feet or more of dedicated meeting space, and 0.75% for all other lodging businesses within the SFPTMD’s boundaries. Based on the benefit received, assessments will not be collected on stays of more than thirty (30) consecutive days; stays provided to airline cockpit and/or cabin crews pursuant to an agreement between a hotel and an airline, which is in furtherance of or to facilitate such crews’ performance of their jobs for the airline, including layovers between flights; employees of the state or federal government if room charges are paid directly by their employing agency and copies of official travel orders are submitted as applicable; and any properly credentialed officer or employee of a foreign government who is exempt by reason of express provision of federal law or international treaty. The services provided in the SFPTMD are all targeted to benefit payors, however, not all programs benefit payors equally. The determination of the assessment rates of one- and one-half percent (1.5%) of gross short-term sleeping room rental revenue for lodging businesses with 5,000 square feet or more of dedicated meeting space, and 0.75% for all other lodging businesses within the SFPTMD’s boundaries, was calculated based on benefit received by payors. SMG Consulting was engaged to conduct a Hotel Revenue Proportionality Estimate analysis to quantify the estimated benefit the lodging business types will receive from SFPTMD services. By analyzing the projected number of rooms sold and the total amount of revenue estimated to be generated from sales and marketing programs, SMG Consulting found that properties with 5,000 square feet or more of dedicated meeting space will receive approximately double the amount of benefit to all other lodging businesses. The SFPTMD Sales, Marketing, and Advocacy program included in the budget has services that are intended to drive convention and meetings to the SFPTMD. Since lodging businesses with 5,000 square feet or more of dedicated meeting space are uniquely suited to accommodate large conventions and will benefit from overnight stays as a result of SFPTMD services intended to bring such business activity to the SFPTMD, they are assessed at a higher rate than other lodging businesses in the SFPTMD. The term “dedicated meeting space” as used herein means: a permanent room or space whose primary use is dedicated for group and social meetings, meals, and/or functions. The space has been designed for and is marketed and sold as group or event function space. The term “gross sleeping room rental revenue” as used herein means: the consideration charged, whether or not received, for the occupancy of space in a lodging business valued in money, whether to be received in money, goods, labor or otherwise, including all receipts, cash, credits and property and services of any kind or nature, without any deduction therefrom whatsoever. Gross sleeping room rental revenue shall not include any federal, state, or local taxes collected, including but not
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
647
SFPTMD Management District Plan 12 August 14, 2023
limited to transient occupancy taxes. Based on the benefit received, assessments will not be collected on stays of more than thirty (30) consecutive days; stays provided to airline cockpit and/or cabin crews pursuant to an agreement between a hotel and an airline, which is in furtherance of or to facilitate such crews’ performance of their jobs for the airline, including layovers between flights; employees of the state or federal government if room charges are paid directly by their employing agency and copies of official travel orders are submitted as applicable; and any properly credentialed officer or employee of a foreign government who is exempt by reason of express provision of federal law or international treaty. The assessment is levied upon and a direct obligation of the assessed lodging business. However, the assessed lodging business may, at its discretion, pass the assessment on to transients. The amount of assessment, if passed on to each transient, shall be disclosed in advance and separately stated from the amount of rent charged and any other applicable taxes, and each transient shall receive a receipt for payment from the business. If the SFPTMD assessment is identified separately it shall be disclosed as the “SFPTMD Assessment.” As an alternative, the disclosure may include the amount of the SFPTMD assessment and the amount of the assessment imposed pursuant to the California Tourism Marketing Act, Government Code §13995 et seq. and shall be disclosed as the “Tourism Assessment.” The assessment is imposed solely upon, and is the sole obligation of the assessed lodging business even if it is passed on to transients. The assessment shall not be considered revenue for any purpose, including calculation of transient occupancy taxes. Bonds shall not be issued. E. Penalties and Interest The SFPTMD shall reimburse the City of Burlingame for any costs associated with collecting unpaid assessments. If sums in excess of the delinquent SFPTMD assessment are sought to be recovered in the same collection action by the City, the SFPTMD shall bear its pro rata share of such collection costs. Assessed businesses which are delinquent in paying the assessment shall be responsible for paying: 1. Original Delinquency: Any lodging business that fails to remit any assessment imposed within the time required shall pay a penalty of five percent (5%) of the amount of the assessment in addition to the amount of the assessment. 2. Continued Delinquency: Any lodging business that fails to remit any delinquent remittance on or before a period of fifteen (15) days following the date on which the remittance first became delinquent shall pay a second delinquency penalty of five percent (5%) of the amount of the assessment in addition to the amount of the assessment and the five percent (5%) penalty first imposed. An additional penalty of five percent (5%) shall be paid for each fifteen (15) days thereafter which the remittance is delinquent. 3. Fraud: If the City determines that the nonpayment of any remittance due under this chapter is due to fraud, a penalty of twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the assessment shall be added thereto in addition to the penalties stated in subsections (1) and (2) of this section. 4. Interest: In addition to the penalties imposed, any lodging business that fails to remit any assessment imposed shall pay interest at the rate of one percent (1%) per month or fraction thereof on the amount of the assessment, exclusive of penalties, from the date on which the remittance first became delinquent until paid.
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
648
SFPTMD Management District Plan 13 August 14, 2023
F. Time and Manner for Collecting Assessments The SFPTMD assessment will be implemented beginning January 1, 2024, or as soon as possible thereafter, and ending five (5) years from its start date. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for collecting the assessment on a monthly basis, (including any delinquencies, penalties and interest) from each lodging business located in the boundaries of the SFPTMD. The City shall take all reasonable efforts to collect the assessments from each lodging business. The City shall forward the assessments collected to the Owners’ Association.
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
649
SFPTMD Management District Plan 14 August 14, 2023
V. GOVERNANCE A. Owners’ Association The Burlingame City Council, through adoption of this Management District Plan, has the right, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §36651, to identify the body that shall implement the proposed program, which shall be the Owners’ Association of the SFPTMD as defined in Streets and Highways Code §36612. The San Francisco Peninsula (SFP) will serve as the SFPTMD’s Owners’ Association. The Owners’ Association is charged with managing funds and implementing programs in accordance with the Management District Plan, and must provide annual reports to Burlingame City Council. The SFP shall create a SFPTMD Committee tasked with determining how SFPTMD funds are spent, within the designated programs in this Plan, subject to final approval by the SFP Board. The SFPTMD Committee shall include lodging business owners or representatives paying the SFPTMD assessment. B. Brown Act and California Public Records Act Compliance An Owners’ Association is a private entity and may not be considered a public entity for any purpose, nor may its board members or staff be considered to be public officials for any purpose. The Owners’ Association is, however, subject to government regulations relating to transparency, namely the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act. These regulations are designed to promote public accountability. The Owners’ Association acts as a legislative body under the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code §54950 et seq.). Thus, meetings of the SFP board and certain committees must be held in compliance with the public notice and other requirements of the Brown Act. The Owners’ Association is also subject to the record keeping and disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. Accordingly, the Owners’ Association shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action. C. Annual Report The SFP shall present an annual report at the end of each year of operation to the City Council pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §36650 (see Appendix 1). The annual report shall include: • Any proposed changes in the boundaries of the improvement district or in any benefit zones or classification of businesses within the district. • The improvements and activities to be provided for that fiscal year. • An estimate of the cost of providing the improvements and the activities for that fiscal year. • The method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each business owner to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her business for that fiscal year. • The estimated amount of any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from a previous fiscal year. • The estimated amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than assessments levied pursuant to this part.
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
650
SFPTMD Management District Plan 15 August 14, 2023
APPENDIX 1 – LAW *** THIS DOCUMENT IS CURRENT THROUGH THE 2022 SUPPLEMENT *** (ALL 2021 LEGISLATION) STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE DIVISION 18. PARKING PART 7. PROPERTY AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT LAW OF 1994 CHAPTER 1. General Provisions ARTICLE 1. Declarations 36600. Citation of part This part shall be known and may be cited as the “Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994.” 36601. Legislative findings and declarations; Legislative guidance The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a) Businesses located and operating within business districts in some of this state’s communities are economically disadvantaged, are underutilized, and are unable to attract customers due to inadequate facilities, services, and activities in the business districts. (b) It is in the public interest to promote the economic revitalization and physical maintenance of business districts in order to create jobs, attract new businesses, and prevent the erosion of the business districts. (c) It is of particular local benefit to allow business districts to fund business related improvements, maintenance, and activities through the levy of assessments upon the businesses or real property that receive benefits from those improvements. (d) Assessments levied for the purpose of conferring special benefit upon the real property or a specific benefit upon the businesses in a business district are not taxes for the general benefit of a city, even if property, businesses, or persons not assessed receive incidental or collateral effects that benefit them. (e) Property and business improvement districts formed throughout this state have conferred special benefits upon properties and businesses within their districts and have made those properties and businesses more useful by providing the following benefits: (1) Crime reduction. A study by the Rand Corporation has confirmed a 12-percent reduction in the incidence of robbery and an 8-percent reduction in the total incidence of violent crimes within the 30 districts studied. (2) Job creation. (3) Business attraction. (4) Business retention. (5) Economic growth. (6) New investments. (f) With the dissolution of redevelopment agencies throughout the state, property and business improvement districts have become even more important tools with which communities can combat blight, promote economic opportunities, and create a clean and safe environment. (g) Since the enactment of this act, the people of California have adopted Proposition 218, which added Article XIII D to the Constitution in order to place certain requirements and restrictions on the formation of, and activities, expenditures, and assessments by property-based districts. Article XIII D of the Constitution provides that property-based districts may only levy assessments for special benefits. (h) The act amending this section is intended to provide the Legislature’s guidance with regard to this act, its interaction with the provisions of Article XIII D of the Constitution, and the determination of special benefits in property-based districts. (1) The lack of legislative guidance has resulted in uncertainty and inconsistent application of this act, which discourages the use of assessments to fund needed improvements, maintenance, and activities in property-based districts, contributing to blight and other underutilization of property. (2) Activities undertaken for the purpose of conferring special benefits upon property to be assessed inherently produce incidental or collateral effects that benefit property or persons not assessed. Therefore, for special benefits to exist as a separate and distinct category from general benefits, the incidental or collateral effects of those special benefits are inherently part of those special benefits. The
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
651
SFPTMD Management District Plan 16 August 14, 2023
mere fact that special benefits produce incidental or collateral effects that benefit property or persons not assessed does not convert any portion of those special benefits or their incidental or collateral effects into general benefits. (3) It is of the utmost importance that property-based districts created under this act have clarity regarding restrictions on assessments they may levy and the proper determination of special benefits. Legislative clarity with regard to this act will provide districts with clear instructions and courts with legislative intent regarding restrictions on property-based assessments, and the manner in which special benefits should be determined. 36602. Purpose of part The purpose of this part is to supplement previously enacted provisions of law that authorize cities to levy assessments within property and business improvement districts, to ensure that those assessments conform to all constitutional requirements and are determined and assessed in accordance with the guidance set forth in this act. This part does not affect or limit any other provisions of law authorizing or providing for the furnishing of improvements or activities or the raising of revenue for these purposes. 36603. Preemption of authority or charter city to adopt ordinances levying assessments Nothing in this part is intended to preempt the authority of a charter city to adopt ordinances providing for a different method of levying assessments for similar or additional purposes from those set forth in this part. A property and business improvement district created pursuant to this part is expressly exempt from the provisions of the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931 (Division 4 (commencing with Section 2800)). 36603.5. Part prevails over conflicting provisions Any provision of this part that conflicts with any other provision of law shall prevail over the other provision of law, as to districts created under this part. 36604. Severability This part is intended to be construed liberally and, if any provision is held invalid, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. Assessments levied under this part are not special taxes. ARTICLE 2. Definitions 36606. “Activities” “Activities” means, but is not limited to, all of the following that benefit businesses or real property in the district: (a) Promotion of public events. (b) Furnishing of music in any public place. (c) Promotion of tourism within the district. (d) Marketing and economic development, including retail retention and recruitment. (e) Providing security, sanitation, graffiti removal, street and sidewalk cleaning, and other municipal services supplemental to those normally provided by the municipality. (f) Other services provided for the purpose of conferring special benefit upon assessed real property or specific benefits upon assessed businesses located in the district. 36606.5. “Assessment” “Assessment” means a levy for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, installing, or maintaining improvements and providing activities that will provide certain benefits to properties or businesses located within a property and business improvement district. 36607. “Business” “Business” means all types of businesses and includes financial institutions and professions. 36608. “City”
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
652
SFPTMD Management District Plan 17 August 14, 2023
“City” means a city, county, city and county, or an agency or entity created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, the public member agencies of which includes only cities, counties, or a city and county, or the State of California. 36609. “City council” “City council” means the city council of a city or the board of supervisors of a county, or the agency, commission, or board created pursuant to a joint powers agreement and which is a city within the meaning of this part. 36609.4. “Clerk” “Clerk” means the clerk of the legislative body. 36609.5. “General benefit” “General benefit” means, for purposes of a property-based district, any benefit that is not a “special benefit” as defined in Section 36615.5. 36610. “Improvement” “Improvement” means the acquisition, construction, installation, or maintenance of any tangible property with an estimated useful life of five years or more including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Parking facilities. (b) Benches, booths, kiosks, display cases, pedestrian shelters and signs. (c) Trash receptacles and public restrooms. (d) Lighting and heating facilities. (e) Decorations. (f) Parks. (g) Fountains. (h) Planting areas. (i) Closing, opening, widening, or narrowing of existing streets. (j) Facilities or equipment, or both, to enhance security of persons and property within the district. (k) Ramps, sidewalks, plazas, and pedestrian malls. (l) Rehabilitation or removal of existing structures. 36611. “Management district plan”; “Plan” “Management district plan” or “plan” means a proposal as defined in Section 36622. 36612. “Owners’ association” “Owners’ association” means a private nonprofit entity that is under contract with a city to administer or implement improvements, maintenance, and activities specified in the management district plan. An owners’ association may be an existing nonprofit entity or a newly formed nonprofit entity. An owners’ association is a private entity and may not be considered a public entity for any purpose, nor may its board members or staff be considered to be public officials for any purpose. Notwithstanding this section, an owners’ association shall comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code), at all times when matters within the subject matter of the district are heard, discussed, or deliberated, and with the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code), for all records relating to activities of the district. 36614. “Property” “Property” means real property situated within a district. 36614.5. “Property and business improvement district”; “District” “Property and business improvement district,” or “district,” means a property and business improvement district established pursuant to this part.
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
653
SFPTMD Management District Plan 18 August 14, 2023
36614.6. “Property-based assessment” “Property-based assessment” means any assessment made pursuant to this part upon real property. 36614.7. “Property-based district” “Property-based district” means any district in which a city levies a property-based assessment. 36615. “Property owner”; “Business owner”; “Owner” “Property owner” means any person shown as the owner of land on the last equalized assessment roll or otherwise known to be the owner of land by the city council. “Business owner” means any person recognized by the city as the owner of the business. “Owner” means either a business owner or a property owner. The city council has no obligation to obtain other information as to the ownership of land or businesses, and its determination of ownership shall be final and conclusive for the purposes of this part. Wherever this part requires the signature of the property owner, the signature of the authorized agent of the property owner shall be sufficient. Wherever this part requires the signature of the business owner, the signature of the authorized agent of the business owner shall be sufficient. 36615.5. “Special benefit” “Special benefit” means, for purposes of a property-based district, a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in a district or to the public at large. Special benefit includes incidental or collateral effects that arise from the improvements, maintenance, or activities of property-based districts even if those incidental or collateral effects benefit property or persons not assessed. Special benefit excludes general enhancement of property value. 36616. “Tenant” “Tenant” means an occupant pursuant to a lease of commercial space or a dwelling unit, other than an owner. ARTICLE 3. Prior Law 36617. Alternate method of financing certain improvements and activities; Effect on other provisions This part provides an alternative method of financing certain improvements and activities. The provisions of this part shall not affect or limit any other provisions of law authorizing or providing for the furnishing of improvements or activities or the raising of revenue for these purposes. Every improvement area established pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Part 6 (commencing with Section 36500) of this division) is valid and effective and is unaffected by this part. CHAPTER 2. Establishment 36620. Establishment of property and business improvement district A property and business improvement district may be established as provided in this chapter. 36620.5. Requirement of consent of city council A county may not form a district within the territorial jurisdiction of a city without the consent of the city council of that city. A city may not form a district within the unincorporated territory of a county without the consent of the board of supervisors of that county. A city may not form a district within the territorial jurisdiction of another city without the consent of the city council of the other city. 36621. Initiation of proceedings; Petition of property or business owners in proposed district (a) Upon the submission of a written petition, signed by the property or business owners in the proposed district who will pay more than 50 percent of the assessments proposed to be levied, the city council may initiate proceedings to form a district by the adoption of a resolution expressing its intention to form a district. The amount of assessment attributable to property or a business owned by the same property or business owner that is in excess of 40 percent of the amount of all assessments proposed to be levied, shall not be included in
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
654
SFPTMD Management District Plan 19 August 14, 2023
determining whether the petition is signed by property or business owners who will pay more than 50 percent of the total amount of assessments proposed to be levied. (b) The petition of property or business owners required under subdivision (a) shall include a summary of the management district plan. That summary shall include all of the following: (1) A map showing the boundaries of the district. (2) Information specifying where the complete management district plan can be obtained. (3) Information specifying that the complete management district plan shall be furnished upon request. (c) The resolution of intention described in subdivision (a) shall contain all of the following: (1) A brief description of the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities, the amount of the proposed assessment, a statement as to whether the assessment will be levied on property or businesses within the district, a statement as to whether bonds will be issued, and a description of the exterior boundaries of the proposed district, which may be made by reference to any plan or map that is on file with the clerk. The descriptions and statements do not need to be detailed and shall be sufficient if they enable an owner to generally identify the nature and extent of the improvements, maintenance, and activities, and the location and extent of the proposed district. (2) A time and place for a public hearing on the establishment of the property and business improvement district and the levy of assessments, which shall be consistent with the requirements of Section 36623. 36622. Contents of management district plan The management district plan shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following: (a) If the assessment will be levied on property, a map of the district in sufficient detail to locate each parcel of property and, if businesses are to be assessed, each business within the district. If the assessment will be levied on businesses, a map that identifies the district boundaries in sufficient detail to allow a business owner to reasonably determine whether a business is located within the district boundaries. If the assessment will be levied on property and businesses, a map of the district in sufficient detail to locate each parcel of property and to allow a business owner to reasonably determine whether a business is located within the district boundaries. (b) The name of the proposed district. (c) A description of the boundaries of the district, including the boundaries of benefit zones, proposed for establishment or extension in a manner sufficient to identify the affected property and businesses included, which may be made by reference to any plan or map that is on file with the clerk. The boundaries of a proposed property assessment district shall not overlap with the boundaries of another existing property assessment district created pursuant to this part. This part does not prohibit the boundaries of a district created pursuant to this part to overlap with other assessment districts established pursuant to other provisions of law, including, but not limited to, the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Part 6 (commencing with Section 36500)). This part does not prohibit the boundaries of a business assessment district created pursuant to this part to overlap with another business assessment district created pursuant to this part. This part does not prohibit the boundaries of a business assessment district created pursuant to this part to overlap with a property assessment district created pursuant to this part. (d) The improvements, maintenance, and activities proposed for each year of operation of the district and the maximum cost thereof. If the improvements, maintenance, and activities proposed for each year of operation are the same, a description of the first year’s proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities and a statement that the same improvements, maintenance, and activities are proposed for subsequent years shall satisfy the requirements of this subdivision. (e) The total annual amount proposed to be expended for improvements, maintenance, or activities, and debt service in each year of operation of the district. If the assessment is levied on businesses, this amount may be estimated based upon the assessment rate. If the total annual amount proposed to be expended in each year of operation of the district is not significantly different, the amount proposed to be expended in the initial year and a statement that a similar amount applies to subsequent years shall satisfy the requirements of this subdivision. (f) The proposed source or sources of financing, including the proposed method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each property or business owner to calculate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her property or business. The plan also shall state whether bonds will be issued to finance improvements. (g) The time and manner of collecting the assessments. (h) The specific number of years in which assessments will be levied. In a new district, the maximum number of years shall be five. Upon renewal, a district shall have a term not to exceed 10 years. Notwithstanding these limitations, a district created pursuant to this part to finance capital improvements with bonds may levy assessments until the maximum maturity of the bonds. The management district plan may set forth specific increases in assessments for each year of operation of the district.
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
655
SFPTMD Management District Plan 20 August 14, 2023
(i) The proposed time for implementation and completion of the management district plan. (j) Any proposed rules and regulations to be applicable to the district. (k) (1) A list of the properties or businesses to be assessed, including the assessor’s parcel numbers for properties to be assessed, and a statement of the method or methods by which the expenses of a district will be imposed upon benefited real property or businesses, in proportion to the benefit received by the property or business, to defray the cost thereof. (2) In a property-based district, the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined exclusively in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the activities. An assessment shall not be imposed on any parcel that exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. Only special benefits are assessable, and a property-based district shall separate the general benefits, if any, from the special benefits conferred on a parcel. Parcels within a property-based district that are owned or used by any city, public agency, the State of California, or the United States shall not be exempt from assessment unless the governmental entity can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that those publicly owned parcels in fact receive no special benefit. The value of any incidental, secondary, or collateral effects that arise from the improvements, maintenance, or activities of a property-based district and that benefit property or persons not assessed shall not be deducted from the entirety of the cost of any special benefit or affect the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel. (l) In a property-based district, the total amount of all special benefits to be conferred upon the properties located within the property-based district. (m) In a property-based district, the total amount of general benefits, if any. (n) In a property-based district, a detailed engineer’s report prepared by a registered professional engineer certified by the State of California supporting all assessments contemplated by the management district plan. (o) Any other item or matter required to be incorporated therein by the city council. 36623. Procedure to levy assessment (a) If a city council proposes to levy a new or increased property assessment, the notice and protest and hearing procedure shall comply with Section 53753 of the Government Code. (b) If a city council proposes to levy a new or increased business assessment, the notice and protest and hearing procedure shall comply with Section 54954.6 of the Government Code, except that notice shall be mailed to the owners of the businesses proposed to be assessed. A protest may be made orally or in writing by any interested person. Every written protest shall be filed with the clerk at or before the time fixed for the public hearing. The city council may waive any irregularity in the form or content of any written protest. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. Each written protest shall contain a description of the business in which the person subscribing the protest is interested sufficient to identify the business and, if a person subscribing is not shown on the official records of the city as the owner of the business, the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person subscribing is the owner of the business or the authorized representative. A written protest that does not comply with this section shall not be counted in determining a majority protest. If written protests are received from the owners or authorized representatives of businesses in the proposed district that will pay 50 percent or more of the assessments proposed to be levied and protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than 50 percent, no further proceedings to levy the proposed assessment against such businesses, as contained in the resolution of intention, shall be taken for a period of one year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the city council. (c) If a city council proposes to conduct a single proceeding to levy both a new or increased property assessment and a new or increased business assessment, the notice and protest and hearing procedure for the property assessment shall comply with subdivision (a), and the notice and protest and hearing procedure for the business assessment shall comply with subdivision (b). If a majority protest is received from either the property or business owners, that respective portion of the assessment shall not be levied. The remaining portion of the assessment may be levied unless the improvement or other special benefit was proposed to be funded by assessing both property and business owners. 36624. Changes to proposed assessments At the conclusion of the public hearing to establish the district, the city council may adopt, revise, change, reduce, or modify the proposed assessment or the type or types of improvements, maintenance, and activities to be funded with the
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
656
SFPTMD Management District Plan 21 August 14, 2023
revenues from the assessments. Proposed assessments may only be revised by reducing any or all of them. At the public hearing, the city council may only make changes in, to, or from the boundaries of the proposed property and business improvement district that will exclude territory that will not benefit from the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities. Any modifications, revisions, reductions, or changes to the proposed assessment district shall be reflected in the notice and map recorded pursuant to Section 36627. 36625. Resolution of formation (a) If the city council, following the public hearing, decides to establish a proposed property and business improvement district, the city council shall adopt a resolution of formation that shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following: (1) A brief description of the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities, the amount of the proposed assessment, a statement as to whether the assessment will be levied on property, businesses, or both within the district, a statement on whether bonds will be issued, and a description of the exterior boundaries of the proposed district, which may be made by reference to any plan or map that is on file with the clerk. The descriptions and statements need not be detailed and shall be sufficient if they enable an owner to generally identify the nature and extent of the improvements, maintenance, and activities and the location and extent of the proposed district. (2) The number, date of adoption, and title of the resolution of intention. (3) The time and place where the public hearing was held concerning the establishment of the district. (4) A determination regarding any protests received. The city shall not establish the district or levy assessments if a majority protest was received. (5) A statement that the properties, businesses, or properties and businesses in the district established by the resolution shall be subject to any amendments to this part. (6) A statement that the improvements, maintenance, and activities to be conferred on businesses and properties in the district will be funded by the levy of the assessments. The revenue from the levy of assessments within a district shall not be used to provide improvements, maintenance, or activities outside the district or for any purpose other than the purposes specified in the resolution of intention, as modified by the city council at the hearing concerning establishment of the district. Notwithstanding the foregoing, improvements and activities that must be provided outside the district boundaries to create a special or specific benefit to the assessed parcels or businesses may be provided, but shall be limited to marketing or signage pointing to the district. (7) A finding that the property or businesses within the area of the property and business improvement district will be benefited by the improvements, maintenance, and activities funded by the proposed assessments, and, for a property-based district, that property within the district will receive a special benefit. (8) In a property-based district, the total amount of all special benefits to be conferred on the properties within the property-based district. (b) The adoption of the resolution of formation and, if required, recordation of the notice and map pursuant to Section 36627 shall constitute the levy of an assessment in each of the fiscal years referred to in the management district plan. 36627. Notice and assessment diagram Following adoption of the resolution establishing district assessments on properties pursuant to Section 36625, the clerk shall record a notice and an assessment diagram pursuant to Section 3114. No other provision of Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 3100) applies to an assessment district created pursuant to this part. 36628. Establishment of separate benefit zones within district; Categories of businesses The city council may establish one or more separate benefit zones within the district based upon the degree of benefit derived from the improvements or activities to be provided within the benefit zone and may impose a different assessment within each benefit zone. If the assessment is to be levied on businesses, the city council may also define categories of businesses based upon the degree of benefit that each will derive from the improvements or activities to be provided within the district and may impose a different assessment or rate of assessment on each category of business, or on each category of business within each zone. 36628.5. Assessments on businesses or property owners
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
657
SFPTMD Management District Plan 22 August 14, 2023
The city council may levy assessments on businesses or on property owners, or a combination of the two, pursuant to this part. The city council shall structure the assessments in whatever manner it determines corresponds with the distribution of benefits from the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities, provided that any property-based assessment conforms with the requirements set forth in paragraph (2) of subdivision (k) of Section 36622. 36629. Provisions and procedures applicable to benefit zones and business categories All provisions of this part applicable to the establishment, modification, or disestablishment of a property and business improvement district apply to the establishment, modification, or disestablishment of benefit zones or categories of business. The city council shall, to establish, modify, or disestablish a benefit zone or category of business, follow the procedure to establish, modify, or disestablish a property and business improvement district. 36630. Expiration of district; Creation of new district If a property and business improvement district expires due to the time limit set pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 36622, a new management district plan may be created and the district may be renewed pursuant to this part. CHAPTER 3. Assessments 36631. Time and manner of collection of assessments; Delinquent payments The collection of the assessments levied pursuant to this part shall be made at the time and in the manner set forth by the city council in the resolution levying the assessment. Assessments levied on real property may be collected at the same time and in the same manner as for the ad valorem property tax, and may provide for the same lien priority and penalties for delinquent payment. All delinquent payments for assessments levied pursuant to this part may be charged interest and penalties. 36632. Assessments to be based on estimated benefit; Classification of real property and businesses; Exclusion of residential and agricultural property (a) The assessments levied on real property pursuant to this part shall be levied on the basis of the estimated benefit to the real property within the property and business improvement district. The city council may classify properties for purposes of determining the benefit to property of the improvements and activities provided pursuant to this part. (b) Assessments levied on businesses pursuant to this part shall be levied on the basis of the estimated benefit to the businesses within the property and business improvement district. The city council may classify businesses for purposes of determining the benefit to the businesses of the improvements and activities provided pursuant to this part. (c) Properties zoned solely for residential use, or that are zoned for agricultural use, are conclusively presumed not to benefit from the improvements and service funded through these assessments, and shall not be subject to any assessment pursuant to this part. 36633. Time for contesting validity of assessment The validity of an assessment levied under this part shall not be contested in an action or proceeding unless the action or proceeding is commenced within 30 days after the resolution levying the assessment is adopted pursuant to Section 36625. An appeal from a final judgment in an action or proceeding shall be perfected within 30 days after the entry of judgment. 36634. Service contracts authorized to establish levels of city services The city council may execute baseline service contracts that would establish levels of city services that would continue after a property and business improvement district has been formed. 36635. Request to modify management district plan The owners’ association may, at any time, request that the city council modify the management district plan. Any modification of the management district plan shall be made pursuant to this chapter. 36636. Modification of plan by resolution after public hearing; Adoption of resolution of intention
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
658
SFPTMD Management District Plan 23 August 14, 2023
(a) Upon the written request of the owners’ association, the city council may modify the management district plan after conducting one public hearing on the proposed modifications. The city council may modify the improvements and activities to be funded with the revenue derived from the levy of the assessments by adopting a resolution determining to make the modifications after holding a public hearing on the proposed modifications. If the modification includes the levy of a new or increased assessment, the city council shall comply with Section 36623. Notice of all other public hearings pursuant to this section shall comply with both of the following: (1) The resolution of intention shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city once at least seven days before the public hearing. (2) A complete copy of the resolution of intention shall be mailed by first class mail, at least 10 days before the public hearing, to each business owner or property owner affected by the proposed modification. (b) The city council shall adopt a resolution of intention which states the proposed modification prior to the public hearing required by this section. The public hearing shall be held not more than 90 days after the adoption of the resolution of intention. 36637. Reflection of modification in notices recorded and maps Any subsequent modification of the resolution shall be reflected in subsequent notices and maps recorded pursuant to Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 3100), in a manner consistent with the provisions of Section 36627. CHAPTER 3.5. Financing 36640. Bonds authorized; Procedure; Restriction on reduction or termination of assessments (a)The city council may, by resolution, determine and declare that bonds shall be issued to finance the estimated cost of some or all of the proposed improvements described in the resolution of formation adopted pursuant to Section 36625, if the resolution of formation adopted pursuant to that section provides for the issuance of bonds, under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Division 10 (commencing with Section 8500)) or in conjunction with Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985 (Article 4 (commencing with Section 6584) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code). Either act, as the case may be, shall govern the proceedings relating to the issuance of bonds, although proceedings under the Bond Act of 1915 may be modified by the city council as necessary to accommodate assessments levied upon business pursuant to this part. (b) The resolution adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) shall generally describe the proposed improvements specified in the resolution of formation adopted pursuant to Section 36625, set forth the estimated cost of those improvements, specify the number of annual installments and the fiscal years during which they are to be collected. The amount of debt service to retire the bonds shall not exceed the amount of revenue estimated to be raised from assessments over 30 years. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, assessments levied to pay the principal and interest on any bond issued pursuant to this section shall not be reduced or terminated if doing so would interfere with the timely retirement of the debt. CHAPTER 4. Governance 36650. Report by owners’ association; Approval or modification by city council (a) The owners’ association shall cause to be prepared a report for each fiscal year, except the first year, for which assessments are to be levied and collected to pay the costs of the improvements, maintenance, and activities described in the report. The owners’ association’s first report shall be due after the first year of operation of the district. The report may propose changes, including, but not limited to, the boundaries of the property and business improvement district or any benefit zones within the district, the basis and method of levying the assessments, and any changes in the classification of property, including any categories of business, if a classification is used. (b) The report shall be filed with the clerk and shall refer to the property and business improvement district by name, specify the fiscal year to which the report applies, and, with respect to that fiscal year, shall contain all of the following information: (1) Any proposed changes in the boundaries of the property and business improvement district or in any benefit zones or classification of property or businesses within the district. (2) The improvements, maintenance, and activities to be provided for that fiscal year.
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
659
SFPTMD Management District Plan 24 August 14, 2023
(3) An estimate of the cost of providing the improvements, maintenance, and activities for that fiscal year. (4) The method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each real property or business owner, as appropriate, to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her property or business for that fiscal year. (5) The estimated amount of any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from a previous fiscal year. (6) The estimated amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than assessments levied pursuant to this part. (c) The city council may approve the report as filed by the owners’ association or may modify any particular contained in the report and approve it as modified. Any modification shall be made pursuant to Sections 36635 and 36636. The city council shall not approve a change in the basis and method of levying assessments that would impair an authorized or executed contract to be paid from the revenues derived from the levy of assessments, including any commitment to pay principal and interest on any bonds issued on behalf of the district. 36651. Designation of owners’ association to provide improvements, maintenance, and activities The management district plan may, but is not required to, state that an owners’ association will provide the improvements, maintenance, and activities described in the management district plan. If the management district plan designates an owners’ association, the city shall contract with the designated nonprofit corporation to provide services. CHAPTER 5. Renewal 36660. Renewal of district; Transfer or refund of remaining revenues; District term limit (a) Any district previously established whose term has expired, or will expire, may be renewed by following the procedures for establishment as provided in this chapter. (b) Upon renewal, any remaining revenues derived from the levy of assessments, or any revenues derived from the sale of assets acquired with the revenues, shall be transferred to the renewed district. If the renewed district includes additional parcels or businesses not included in the prior district, the remaining revenues shall be spent to benefit only the parcels or businesses in the prior district. If the renewed district does not include parcels or businesses included in the prior district, the remaining revenues attributable to these parcels shall be refunded to the owners of these parcels or businesses. (c) Upon renewal, a district shall have a term not to exceed 10 years, or, if the district is authorized to issue bonds, until the maximum maturity of those bonds. There is no requirement that the boundaries, assessments, improvements, or activities of a renewed district be the same as the original or prior district. CHAPTER 6. Disestablishment 36670. Circumstances permitting disestablishment of district; Procedure (a) Any district established or extended pursuant to the provisions of this part, where there is no indebtedness, outstanding and unpaid, incurred to accomplish any of the purposes of the district, may be disestablished by resolution by the city council in either of the following circumstances: (1) If the city council finds there has been misappropriation of funds, malfeasance, or a violation of law in connection with the management of the district, it shall notice a hearing on disestablishment. (2) During the operation of the district, there shall be a 30-day period each year in which assessees may request disestablishment of the district. The first such period shall begin one year after the date of establishment of the district and shall continue for 30 days. The next such 30-day period shall begin two years after the date of the establishment of the district. Each successive year of operation of the district shall have such a 30-day period. Upon the written petition of the owners or authorized representatives of real property or the owners or authorized representatives of businesses in the district who pay 50 percent or more of the assessments levied, the city council shall pass a resolution of intention to disestablish the district. The city council shall notice a hearing on disestablishment. (b) The city council shall adopt a resolution of intention to disestablish the district prior to the public hearing required by this section. The resolution shall state the reason for the disestablishment, shall state the time and place of the public hearing, and shall contain a proposal to dispose of any assets acquired with the revenues of the assessments levied within the property and business improvement district. The notice of the hearing on disestablishment required by this section shall be given by mail to the property owner of each parcel or to the
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
660
SFPTMD Management District Plan 25 August 14, 2023
owner of each business subject to assessment in the district, as appropriate. The city shall conduct the public hearing not less than 30 days after mailing the notice to the property or business owners. The public hearing shall be held not more than 60 days after the adoption of the resolution of intention. 36671. Refund of remaining revenues upon disestablishment or expiration without renewal of district; Calculation of refund; Use of outstanding revenue collected after disestablishment of district (a) Upon the disestablishment or expiration without renewal of a district, any remaining revenues, after all outstanding debts are paid, derived from the levy of assessments, or derived from the sale of assets acquired with the revenues, or from bond reserve or construction funds, shall be refunded to the owners of the property or businesses then located and operating within the district in which assessments were levied by applying the same method and basis that was used to calculate the assessments levied in the fiscal year in which the district is disestablished or expires. All outstanding assessment revenue collected after disestablishment shall be spent on improvements and activities specified in the management district plan. (b) If the disestablishment occurs before an assessment is levied for the fiscal year, the method and basis that was used to calculate the assessments levied in the immediate prior fiscal year shall be used to calculate the amount of any refund.
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
661
SFPTMD Management District Plan 26 August 14, 2023
APPENDIX 2 – ASSESSED BUSINESSES HOTEL NAME SITE ADDRESS CITY ST ZIP AC HOTEL SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT/OYSTER POINT WATERFRONT 1333 Veterans Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 AIRPORT INN 751 Airport Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 ALL SEASONS LODGE 800 El Camino Real So. San Francisco CA 94080 ALOFT SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT 401 E. Millbrae Ave Millbrae CA 94030 AMERICANA INN MOTEL 760 El Camino Real So. San Francisco CA 94080 AMERICAS BEST VALUE INN - PACIFICA 2160 Francisco Blvd Pacifica CA 94044 ANCHOR INN PACIFICA 500 San Pedro Ave Pacifica CA 94044 ARISTOCRAT HOTEL, BW SIGNATURE COLLECTION 1410 Cabrillo Hwy S Half Moon Bay CA 94019 ATHERTON INN 1201 W Selby Lane Redwood City CA 94061 ATHERTON PARK INN & SUITES 2834 El Camino Real Redwood City CA 94061 BAY LANDING HOTEL 1550 Bayshore Hwy Burlingame CA 94010 BAYHILL INN 950 El Camino Real San Bruno CA 94066 BEACH HOUSE HOTEL 4100 Cabrillo Hwy N Half Moon Bay CA 94019 BELMONT PALMS 700 El Camino Real Belmont CA 94002 BEST WESTERN COYOTE POINT 480 N Bayshore Blvd San Mateo CA 94401 BEST WESTERN INN 316 El Camino Real Redwood City CA 94062 BEST WESTERN PLUS EXECUTIVE SUITES 25 5th Ave Redwood City CA 94063 BEST WESTERN PLUS GROSVENOR HOTEL 380 S Airport Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 BUDGET INN 2526 El Camino Real Redwood City CA 94061 CANYON RANCH WELLNESS RETREAT 16350 Skyline Blvd Woodside CA 94062 CAPRI MOTEL 2380 El Camino Real Redwood City CA 94063 THE CATRINA HOTEL 2110 S El Camino Real San Mateo CA 94403 COMFORT INN & SUITES - SAN BRUNO 611 San Bruno Ave E San Bruno CA 94066 COMFORT INN & SUITES SFO NORTH 121 E. Grand Ave So. San Francisco CA 94080 COSTANOA LODGE+CAMP+RESORT 2001 Rossi Rd Pescadero CA 94060 COUNTRY INN & SUITES BY RADISSON 251 El Camino Real San Carlos CA 94070 COURTYARD REDWOOD CITY 600 Bair Island Rd Redwood City CA 94063 COURTYARD SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT 1050 Bayhill Dr San Bruno CA 94066 CROWNE PLAZA S.F. AIRPORT 1177 Airport Blvd Burlingame CA 94010 CYPRESS INN ON MIRAMAR BEACH 407 Mirada Rd Half Moon Bay CA 94019 DAYS INN - REDWOOD CITY 2650 El Camino Real Redwood City CA 94061 DAYS INN S.F. AIRPORT-OYSTER POINT - SSF 1113 Airport Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 DELUXE INN - REDWOOD CITY 1402 Stafford St Redwood City CA 94062 DELUXE INN - SSF 920 El Camino Real So. San Francisco CA 94080 DOUBLETREE BY HILTON S.F. AIRPORT 835 Airport Blvd Burlingame CA 94010
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
662
SFPTMD Management District Plan 27 August 14, 2023
DOUBLETREE BY HILTON S.F. AIRPORT NORTH 5000 Sierra Point Parkway Brisbane CA 94005 DOUBLETREE BY HILTON SF / SOUTH AIRPORT BLVD 275 S Airport Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 THE DYLAN HOTEL AT SFO 110 S El Camino Real Millbrae CA 94030 EMBASSY SUITES S.F. AIRPORT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 250 Gateway Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 EMBASSY SUITES S.F. AIRPORT - WATERFRONT 150 Anza Blvd Burlingame CA 94010 EXTENDED STAY AMERICA - BELMONT 120 Sem Lane Belmont CA 94002 EXTENDED STAY AMERICA - SAN CARLOS 3 Circle Star Way San Carlos CA 94070 EXTENDED STAY AMERICA - SAN MATEO 1830 Gateway Dr San Mateo CA 94404 FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES SAN FRANCISCO PACIFICA 500 Old County Rd Pacifica CA 94044 FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES SAN FRANCISCO SAN CARLOS 555 Skyway Rd San Carlos CA 94070 FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES SFO OYSTER POINT AREA 127 W. Harris Avenue So. San Francisco CA 94080 FOUR POINTS BY SHERATON HOTEL & SUITES 264 S Airport Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 FOUR SEASONS HOTEL SILICON VALLEY 2050 University Ave East Palo Alto CA 94303 GARDEN MOTEL 1690 Broadway Redwood City CA 94063 GATEWAY INN & SUITES 516 El Camino Real San Bruno CA 94066 GOOD LIVING INN 1562 El Camino Real San Carlos CA 94070 GOOD NITE INN 485 Veterans Blvd Redwood City CA 94063 GRAND BAY SAN FRANCISCO 223 Twin Dolphin Dr Redwood City CA 94065 GRAND HYATT AT SFO 55 S. McDonnell Road San Francisco CA 94128 HALF MOON BAY INN 401 Main St Half Moon Bay CA 94019 HALF MOON BAY LODGE 2400 Cabrillo Hwy S Half Moon Bay CA 94019 HAMPTON INN & SUITES SFO SOUTH - BURLINGAME 1755 Bayshore Hwy Burlingame CA 94010 HAMPTON INN & SUITES - SAN MATEO 2940 S. Norfolk St. San Mateo CA 94403 HAMPTON INN SFO NORTH - SSF 300 Gateway Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 HARBOR VIEW INN 51 Ave Alhambra El Granada CA 94018 HILTON GARDEN INN SAN MATEO 2000 Bridgepoint Circle San Mateo CA 94404 HILTON GARDEN INN SFO - BURLINGAME 765 Airport Blvd Burlingame CA 94010 HILTON GARDEN INN - SFO NORTH - SSF 670 Gateway Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 HILTON S.F. AIRPORT BAYFRONT 600 Airport Blvd Burlingame CA 94010 HOLIDAY INN & SUITES SAN MATEO-SF SFO 330 N Bayshore Blvd San Mateo CA 94401 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS & SUITES BELMONT 1650 El Camino Real Belmont CA 94002 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS REDWOOD CITY CENTRAL 1836 El Camino Real Redwood City CA 94063 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS SFO NORTH - SSF 373 S Airport Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS SFO SOUTH - BURLINGAME 1250 Bayshore Hwy Burlingame CA 94010
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
663
SFPTMD Management District Plan 28 August 14, 2023
HOME2 SUITES BY HILTON SFO NORTH 550 Gateway Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 HOMEWOOD SUITES BY HILTON BELMONT 1201 Shoreway Road Belmont CA 94002 HOMEWOOD SUITES BY HILTON SFO AIRPORT NORTH 2000 Shoreline Court Brisbane CA 94005 HOTEL 1550 1550 El Camino Real San Bruno CA 94066 HOTEL ALUXOR 500 El Camino Real San Bruno CA 94066 HOTEL AURA SFO 190 El Camino Real San Bruno CA 94066 HOTEL BELMONT 560 El Camino Real Belmont CA 94002 HOTEL FOCUS SFO 111 Mitchell Ave So. San Francisco CA 94080 HOTEL NOVA SFO BY FAIRBRIDGE 410 S Airport Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 HOTEL V 222 S Airport Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 HYATT HOUSE BELMONT/REDWOOD SHORES 400 Concourse Dr Belmont CA 94002 HYATT PLACE SAN CARLOS 26 El Camino Real San Carlos CA 94070 HYATT REGENCY SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT 1333 Bayshore Hwy Burlingame CA 94010 INN @ BAYSHORE 140 N Bayshore Blvd San Mateo CA 94401 INN AT MAVERICKS 346 Princeton Ave El Granada CA 94018 INN AT ROCKAWAY 200 Rockaway Beach Ave Pacifica CA 94044 INN BY THE SFO 701 Airport Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 LA QUINTA INN & SUITES S.F. AIRPORT WEST 1390 El Camino Real Millbrae CA 94030 LA QUINTA INN S.F. AIRPORT NORTH 20 Airport Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 LARKSPUR LANDING HOTEL SSF 690 Gateway Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 LIA HOTEL 950 El Camino Real San Carlos CA 94070 LIGHTHOUSE HOTEL 105 Rockaway Beach Ave Pacifica CA 94044 MARRIOTT FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES SFO 250 El Camino Real Millbrae CA 94030 MILL ROSE INN 615 Mill St Half Moon Bay CA 94019 MILLWOOD INN & SUITES 1375 El Camino Real Millbrae CA 94030 THE MIRAMAR INN & SUITES 3020 Cabrillo Hwy N Half Moon Bay CA 94019 MOTEL 6 - BELMONT 1101 Shoreway Rd Belmont CA 94002 NANTUCKET WHALE INN 779 Main St Half Moon Bay CA 94019 NICHE HOTEL 868 Main St Redwood City CA 94063 OCEAN VIEW INN 8425 Cabrillo Hwy Montara CA 94037 THE OCEANFRONT HOTEL 211 Mirada Rd Half Moon Bay CA 94019 OCEANO HOTEL & SPA 280 Capistrano Rd Half Moon Bay CA 94019 PACIFICA BEACH HOTEL 525 Crespi Dr Pacifica CA 94044 PARK POINTE HOTEL 245 S. Airport Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 PESCADERO CREEK INN 393 Stage Rd Pescadero CA 94060 QUALITY INN HALF MOON BAY 2930 Cabrillo Hwy N Half Moon Bay CA 94019
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
664
SFPTMD Management District Plan 29 August 14, 2023
RAMADA LIMITED SUITES 721 Airport Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 REDWOOD CREEK INN 1090 El Camino Real Redwood City CA 94063 REDWOOD MOTOR COURT 3706 Rolison Rd Redwood City CA 94063 REGENCY INN SFO 411 San Bruno Ave E San Bruno CA 94066 RESIDENCE INN SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT/MILLBRAE 161 N. Rollins Road Millbrae CA 94030 RESIDENCE INN REDWOOD CITY SAN CARLOS 800 E. San Carlos Ave San Carlos CA 94070 RESIDENCE INN SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT/SAN MATEO 2000 Winward Way San Mateo CA 94404 THE RITZ-CARLTON, HALF MOON BAY One Miramontes Point Rd Half Moon Bay CA 94019 RITZ INN 151 El Camino Real San Bruno CA 94066 ROYAL INN 120 Hickey Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 SAN BENITO HOUSE 356 Main St Half Moon Bay CA 94019 SAN CARLOS INN 1140 Morse Blvd San Carlos CA 94070 SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT MARRIOTT WATERFRONT 1800 Old Bayshore Hwy Burlingame CA 94010 SAN MATEO MARRIOTT 1770 So. Amphlett Blvd San Mateo CA 94402 SEA BREEZE MOTEL 100 Rockaway Beach Ave Pacifica CA 94044 SEAL COVE INN 221 Cypress Ave Moss Beach CA 94038 SEQUOIA INN 526 El Camino Real Redwood City CA 94063 SFO AIRPORT HOTEL, EL RANCHO INN 1100 El Camino Real Millbrae CA 94030 SILICON VALLEY INN 630 El Camino Real Belmont CA 94002 SONESTA ES SUITES SFO SAN BRUNO 1350 Huntington San Bruno CA 94066 SONESTA ES SUITES SFO OYSTER POINT WATERFRONT 1350 Veterans Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 SONESTA SELECT SFO OYSTER POINT WATERFRONT 1300 Veterans Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 SPRINGHILL SUITES BELMONT REDWOOD SHORES 1401 Shoreway Rd Belmont CA 94002 SUPER 8 S.F. AIRPORT - SAN BRUNO 421 El Camino Real San Bruno CA 94066 TRAVELERS INN 100 Hickey Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 TRAVELODGE SFO NORTH 326 S Airport Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 VAGABOND INN EXECUTIVE S.F. AIRPORT BAYFRONT 1640 Old Bayshore Hwy Burlingame CA 94010 VILLA MONTES HOTEL, ASCEND HOTEL COLLECTION 620 El Camino Real San Bruno CA 94066 THE WESTIN S.F. AIRPORT 1 Old Bayshore Hwy Millbrae CA 94030 ZABALLA HOUSE BED & BREAKFAST 324 Main St Half Moon Bay CA 94019
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
665
SFPTMD Management District Plan 30 August 14, 2023
APPENDIX 3 – BENEFITS BY BUSINESS CATEGORY Program Service Tier 1 (1.5%) Tier 2 (0.75%) General Listing on www.thesanfranciscopeninsula.com with link to hotel booking page X X General Inclusion in Sales, Marketing and Promotional Opportunities X X General Inclusion in SFP's Consumer Brochures X X General Access to SFP's research reports and insights X X General Represented by SFP at industry conferences and events X X General Access to California Hotel Lodging Association's industry advocacy efforts and training materials X X Consumer Opportunity to participate in Consumer Marketing Campaigns X X Consumer Public Relations participation opportunities X X Consumer Familiarization Tour (Press and Influencer) Opportunities X X Consumer Inclusion Opportunity in Social Media Efforts X X Consumer Inclusion Opportunity in Destination Video and Photo Shoots X X Consumer New project and special event opportunities X X Travel Trade Trade Show Opportunities X X Travel Trade Sales Mission Opportunities X X Travel Trade Lead Opportunities X X Travel Trade Familiarization Tour Leads (Press and Travel Trade) Opportunities X X Meetings Lead Distribution X Meetings Site Inspections X Meetings Convention Services Support X Meetings Opportunity to participate in Sales Missions X Meetings Opportunity to participate in Client Events X Meetings Industry tradeshow participation X Meetings Participation in local industry chapter meetings and events X Meetings Familiarization Tours X Meetings Marketing Campaigns X Meetings Inclusion in Meetings Market Brochures X Meetings Opportunity for Sponsorship of Group Events X Meetings Custom Event Landing Page for Groups: Things To Do Nearby With Your Selected Venue (Itinerary) X
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
666
SFPTMD Management District Plan 31 August 14, 2023
Meetings Distribution of hot rates and dates to planners X Meetings Co-op advertising opportunities in key meeting publications X Meetings Social media mentions/posts promoting groups space X Meetings Inclusion on Meeting Planner section of website X Meetings Opportunity to be highlighted in meeting planner newsletter X Meetings Access to SF Travel group leads via our alliance with SFT X
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
667
SFPTMD Management District Plan 32 August 14, 2023
APPENDIX 4 – SMG CONSULTING ANALYSIS
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
668
SFPTMD Management District Plan 33 August 14, 2023
SF Peninsula Tourism Business Improvement District Pro Forma Review
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
669
SFPTMD Management District Plan 34 August 14, 2023
Overview In 2001, the Organization established a Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) under the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (’89 Law) and now wishes to convert to a Tourism Marketing District (TMD) under the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (’94 Law). The organization is moving forward with a Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) transition that will increase its funding above $6 million annually to be available for tourism promotion efforts. The TBID contribution is a significant budget increase for the organization. In developing the proposal for the TBID renewal and the subsequent approval of the lodging industry, the organization staff has prepared a TMD Benefits Proforma to estimate the potential return on investment from the new TBID funds. This staff assessment includes the proposed allocation and use of new funds for different tourism promotion efforts (sales, advertising, public relations, social media, etc.) and the projected return on investment for those funds. Proforma Review The TMD Benefits Proforma review includes a review of the staff proforma to check the assumptions and estimates and make suggestions and recommendations. Scope of Work The following is a review of the proforma developed for the TBID renewal. The analysis was done using the information supplied by The San Francisco Peninsula CVB. Project elements include the following: I. DEVELOP SMITH TRAVEL RESEARCH TRENDLINE AND ANNUAL GROWTH RATE FOR LODGING REVENUE. DEVELOP MULTI-YEAR FORECAST. Ø DETERMINE THE PROJECTABLE RATE OF GROWTH. • REVIEW STAFF DRAFT PROFORMA, INCLUDING ASSUMPTIONS AND FINAL ESTIMATES. I. COMPARE PROFORMA ESTIMATES WITH TRENDLINE AND ASSESS WITH POTENTIALLY DIFFERENT SCENARIOS (HIGH, MEDIUM, AND LOW ESTIMATES). Limiting Conditions The following analysis and estimates are based on the best information and time available. The results and opinions provided are a guide for consideration, and we do not claim as to the accuracy of the final results.
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
670
SFPTMD Management District Plan 35 August 14, 2023
Model Development We developed an SF Peninsula Tourism Economic Model to develop lodging revenue and room night projections with the addition of new properties and the potential of Menlo Park Inclusion. The model was developed utilizing the past ten years of monthly lodging data from Smith Travel Research. The model measures a variety of economic activities, including the following: II. LODGING REVENUE PROJECTIONS THROUGH 2027 III. ROOM NIGHT PROJECTION THROUGH 2027 IV. TBID REVENUE WITHOUT MENLO PARK V. TBID REVENUE WITH MENLO PARK VI. TBIB REVENUE WITH NEW PROPERTIES VII. TBID REVENUE WITHOUT NEW PROPERTIES. The SF Peninsula Tourism Economic Model can be adjusted to test or consider different scenarios. Model Methodology The future growth of ADR and room nights is using a Bayesian Structural Times Series (BSTS) model, a technique for fitting historical data and forecasting future trends (Scott and Varian, Predicting the Present with Bayesian Structural Time Series 2013). BSTS was chosen for its ability to forecast future trends, including seasonal variation, using robust time series data. In this case, data is available in monthly intervals from July 2012. This model was fit by specifying a semi-local linear trend. Confidence intervals bound a mean forecast to quantify the degree of uncertainty in the future (Scott, Fitting Bayesian structural time series with the bsts R package 2017). Rather than having the pandemic disruption influence the forecasts, only data from July 2012 through December 2019 was taken as input. Revenue is simply forecast as the product of ADR and room nights. Given the fact that the STR reports track all cities in San Mateo County, the revenue forecast is reduced in proportion to the number of room nights in the TMD (15,699/17,190) or 91.3 percent. TMD fee revenue is also forecast in proportion to available rooms, with 42 percent A-level property rooms paying 1.5 percent of gross room revenue. The balance is paid by B-level property rooms at 0.75 percent. Construction of three new B-level properties is underway and will bring 451 rooms online. These rooms are assumed to be available from January 2023. There are 533 A-level property rooms and 338 B-level property rooms in Menlo Park. Potential gross room and TMD fee revenue is forecast on the basis of room count proportionality. Model Assumptions The model forecasts mean values of ADR and room nights along with 2.5 percent confidence intervals. This report is based on mean values. By constructing the model in this manner, we are
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
671
SFPTMD Management District Plan 36 August 14, 2023
assuming that the conditions supporting ADR and room night growth prior to the pandemic will continue from 2023 forward. Sources of variation include the impact of macroeconomic conditions, actual timing of new construction (planned and unplanned), promotions and policies such as airline crew waivers. Model Limitations The baseline SF Peninsula Tourism Economic Model provides a static look based on a given set of assumptions. Forecasts of future events are inherently uncertain as the recent pandemic reminded us. As noted above, the model can be adjusted to estimate specific scenarios in detail in which case the relative differences generally provide the most value. Findings Table 1 below summarizes Room Nights, Revenue, and Average Daily Rate (ADR) projections. Table 1: Room Night, Revenue, and Average Daily Rate Projections 2021-2027 A. THE MODEL INCLUDES GROWTH RATE PROJECTIONS FOR EACH OF THOSE CATEGORIES. NOTE THE SIGNIFICANT REVENUE GROWTH PROJECTION IN 2022 AND 2023, AFTER WHICH THE GROWTH SLOWS DOWN INTO A MORE CONSISTENT PATTERN AFTER 2023. (SEE TABLE 1 ABOVE) B. THE TMD BENEFITS PROFORMA DEVELOPED BY STAFF HAS LODGING RATES BETWEEN $200 AND $293, WHICH IS WITHIN ESTIMATES OR THE PROJECTED AVERAGE DAILY RATE OF THE SF PENINSULA TOURISM ECONOMIC MODEL. (SEE TABLE 2) A. REGARDING TBID REVENUE PROJECTION, THE TMD BENEFITS PROFORMA ANTICIPATES TBID REVENUE OF APPROXIMATELY $6M. BASED ON THE SF PENINSULA TOURISM ECONOMIC MODEL'S ASSUMPTIONS, TBID COLLECTIONS COULD BE HIGHER STARTING IN 2022 (APPROXIMATELY $8M). (SEE TABLE 2) B. THE MODEL CONSIDERS THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OF HOTELS (451 UNITS) WHICH INCREASES THE POTENTIAL TBID REVENUE GENERATION BY APPROXIMATELY $207,000. (SEE TABLE 2) C. ADDITIONALLY, THE MODEL CONSIDERS THE POTENTIAL ADDITION OF MENLO PARK HOTELS BEING A PART OF THE TBID. THE ADDITION OF MENLO PARK HOTELS WOULD INCREASE TBID CONTRIBUTIONS BY APPROXIMATELY $638,000 STARTING IN 2023. (SEE TABLE 2) 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Room nights 3,201,6723,273,8943,356,7843,470,1923,592,1483,720,5753,824,263 RN annual growth 2.3% 2.5% 3.4% 3.5% 3.6% 2.8%
Revenue (thousands) $430,563$784,357$1,053,955$1,140,669$1,229,371$1,335,188$1,444,536 Rev annual growth 82.2% 34.4% 8.2% 7.8% 8.6% 8.2%
ADR $134 $240 $314 $329 $342 $359 $378
ADR annual growth 78.2% 31.1% 4.7% 4.1% 4.9% 5.3%
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
672
SFPTMD Management District Plan 37 August 14, 2023
Table 2: TMD Room Revenue and Fee Projections
Inventory Notes: Changes in Hotel Inventory 318 rooms lost to Project Home Key (housing the un-housed) during 2020/2021 Possibly December 15, 2022 or early 2023 Red Roof Inn, Burlingame 213 Rooms Possibly in 2023 El Rancho Inn, Millbrae 219 Rooms 2023 (Buyer is getting financing together, no set month for demolishing.) Holiday Inn Express, Burlingame 148 Rooms Possibly 2023 (Entitlements approved Sept 2022. No word when developer will start work.) Comfort Inn & Suites, South San Francisco 166 Rooms 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
A rooms 6607 Base Year
Total available 15699 TBID Projection
B rooms 9092
A Revenue $101,204,557 $330,100,605$405,089,050$438,417,832$472,510,240$513,181,465$555,203,395
1.50% $2,718,068 $4,951,509$6,076,336$6,576,267$7,087,654$7,697,722$8,328,141 B Revenue $249,358,533 $454,256,803$557,449,620$603,313,899$650,229,026$706,197,349$764,032,666
0.75%
Total TBID/TMD $4,588,257 $8,358,435$10,257,208$11,101,122$11,964,371$12,994,202$14,058,366 New Construction
New rooms 2023 (B) 451 Total w/new hotels $10,464,596$11,325,573$12,206,276$13,256,929$14,342,629 % increase in B 5.0%
Menlo Park
New rooms 2023 (A) 533
% increase in A 8.1%
New rooms 2023 (B) 338
% increase in B 3.5%
Total w/Menlo $10,895,479$11,791,907$12,708,873$13,802,787$14,933,191
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
673
SFPTMD Management District Plan 38 August 14, 2023
Appendix
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
674
SFPTMD Management District Plan 39 August 14, 2023
Appendix 1: San Mateo County Room Revenue
Source: STR Reports and Consulting Team.
$0
$200,000,000
$400,000,000
$600,000,000
$800,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$1,200,000,000
$1,400,000,000
$1,600,000,000
201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027 Annual San Mateo County Room RevenueHistoric STR Report Values through October 2022 and Forecast to 2027
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
675
SFPTMD Management District Plan 40 August 14, 2023
Appendix 2: San Mateo County ADR
Source: STR Reports and Consulting Team.
$0$100$200$300$400$500$600$700$800$900
Jul-12Apr-13Jan-14Oct-14Jul-15Apr-16Jan-17Oct-17Jul-18Apr-19Jan-20Oct-20Jul-21Apr-22Jan-23Oct-23Jul-24Apr-25Jan-26Oct-26Jul-27Apr-28Jan-29Oct-29Jul-30Apr-31Jan-32Oct-32Jul-33Apr-34 Monthly San Mateo County ADR Forecast to 2034
Historical97.5% quantileForecast mean2.5% quantile
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
676
SFPTMD Management District Plan 41 August 14, 2023
Appendix 3: San Mateo County Room Nights
Source: STR Reports and Consulting Team.
0 200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
Jul-12Apr-13Jan-14Oct-14Jul-15Apr-16Jan-17Oct-17Jul-18Apr-19Jan-20Oct-20Jul-21Apr-22Jan-23Oct-23Jul-24Apr-25Jan-26Oct-26Jul-27Apr-28Jan-29Oct-29Jul-30Apr-31Jan-32Oct-32Jul-33Apr-34 Monthly San Mateo County Room Night Forecast to 2034
Historical97.5% quantileForecast mean2.5% quantile
10.1 Attachment 3 - SFPTMD Management District Plan
677
Prepared Date 8/15/2023 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register