HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2016.05.02BURLI GAME
City of Burlingame EURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAIVE, CA 94010
Meeting Agenda - Final
City Council
Monday, May 2,2016 7:00 PM Council Chambers
STUDY SESSION - 5:30 p.m. - Council Chambers
a. Discussion of Devel opment of Lot E
Note: Public comment is permitted on all action items as noted on the agenda below and in the
non-agenda public comment provided for in item l.
speakers are asked to fill out a -request to speak' card located on the table by the door and
hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is
optional. speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Mayor may adjust the time timit in
light of the number of anticipated speakers.
All votes are unanimous urress sep arately noted for the record.
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Councit Chambers
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
6. PRESENTATIONS
a.Presentation bv Youth Advisorv eommittee
b. Presenlation bv Citize ns Environmental Council of "Cool C lifornia Citv" Award
Proclamation for av as Bike Month
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON.AGENDA
Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to
suggest an item for a future Council agenda may do so dudng this public comment period. The Ratph M.
Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any matter
that is not on the agenda.
c
City ol Burfingame P.inted on 12812016
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final May 2, 2016
8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
consent calendal items are usually approved in a single motion, unless pulled tor separa,e d,scusslon.
Anymemberofthepubticwishingtocommentonanitemtistedheremaydosobysubmiftingaspeaker
slii for that item in advance of the Councit's considention of the consent calendar'
a,Aooroval of Citv Coun cil Meetino Min utes Aoril 18 . 2016
Attachmenb: CiW Council iileetino Minutes
b. Ado ofa lution
the Burlin Down
nO nce R to nd
ift nan Title 2 Burli eMu
Ch of
Use
al Ca
dtoS ack R uirements within th eB r Mixed(Zoa inq Ordina nce) Rel
BMU Ie Mi Use M H rd Mi Use U a aliforni
ion of a Resolu Findinq that lm mentati of(CAR) Zonino Districts.and Ado
the Amend nts Not R ult in n lm U n Env nment
ration N D-555-P,Prepared Pursuant to the Cal rnraReported in Neqalive Decla
Envi ntal
attechments:
E
Staff ReDort
Resolution - CEQA
Resotution - Downtown Soecific Plan Amendmenl
Ordinanc€
Citv uncil Statf rt - Aoril 1 8 2016
c
Staff Report
SuopDrt Letter
Prooram Overview
blic fl for of th Planni Co ission's A
n and omm I Desi Rev
rod. Set
icati for iti ate N ati Decla
New,Four-Story Office Buildin q al22 5 California Drive
AltachI,ents:Staff Reoort
Aooeal Letter
a
tio lution A vtn a om rehen nt wit Peni laSeo
for the altrain El fication P roiect. and Authorizi theCorridor Joint P rs Boa
Citv M anaoer to Ex ute the Aqreement
attechments:Staff Report
Resolution
Comorehensive Aoreement
Exhibits A and B
Page 2 Printed on 4r2En016
F;;E;;l =;I-ar Butk Procu;-ment Prooram Coordinated bv the Business Councit on
Climate Chanqe
Attechfienls:
Meeting Agenda - Final May 2,2016
g AdoDtion of a Resolution n0 the 2015 Street Resurfacino Proiect bv Interstate
Gradino &Pavino. lnc.. Citv Pro No. 84160
Altachfients:Staff Reoort
Resolution
Final ss Pavment
Proiect Mao
AtTachments:Staff Reoort
Pordolio Holdinos 3-31-16
\, 9. PUBLIC HEARTNGS (pubtic Comment)
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements.
Printe.l on 4/28/201 6
City Council
Adootion of a Resolution Approvinq a Professional Services Aoreement with Alta
Plannino + Desiqn for Enoineerino Services Related to the California Drive Bicvcle
Facilitv Feasabilitv Studv Proiect. and Authorizino the Citv Manaoer to Execute the
Aoreement
A,,achmeo.s, StaffReoort
Resolution
Professional Services Aoreement
Proiect Location Mao
h. Quarterlv lnvestment Report. Period Endinq March 31 . 2016
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNTCATTONS (pubtic Comment)
a. Authorize the citv Manaoer to send a Letter to the stale Lands commission
Conditionallv Withdra*ino the Citv's Aoolication for the State Lands Commission
Parcel on the Bawront vvhile the citv Neqotiates with H&e Asia pacific for a
HoteYPark Proiect on the Site
Attachments: StaffReoort
Draft letter
b' Adootion of a Resolution of lntent to Amend the citv of Burlinoame Master Fee
Schedule Effective Julv 1. 2016: and Set the Public Hearino for Such Amendment for
June 6. 20'16
Atlachmerrls: StaffReoort
Resolution
Master Fee Schedule
2015 Burlinoame Fee Studv Reoort
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final May 2,2016
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
14. ADJOURNMENT
Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations tor disaD,Tities please contact the city clerk at
(650)558-1|03 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy ol the Agenda Packet is available for
'pubiic review at the City Cletu's office, CW Ha , 501 Pim@se Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m-
before the meeting and at the meeting. visil the city's weDsite at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and
minutes are available at this site.
NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next City Council Meeting (Budget Study
Session)wednesday,Mayll,2016,NextregularlyscheduledCityCouncilMeeting
Monday, MaY 16, 2016
V|EwREGULARcoUNcILMEETINGoNLINEATWWW.BURLINGAME.oRG-GoTo.CITY COUNCIL VIDEOS"
Any witings or documents provided to a maiority of the CW Council regading any item on this
agLnda wit be made availabte for public inspection at the Water Office counter at City Hall at 501
Pimrose Road duing normal business hours.
CityolBudingane
Printed on 1na/2016
13. AGKNOWLEDGMENTS
a. commission Meetinq Minutes: March 10. 2016 Traffic. safetv & Parkino commission
z/a7fa"-
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Com mu nity Development Depa rtme nt
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Apil27,2016
Mayor and City Council
William Meeker, Community Development Director - (650) SSB-Z2S
At the request of Burlingame park square LLc (Bps), the city councir conducted a studysession on February 1, 2016 to permit a discussion of Bps,s interest in purchasing parking LotE from the city, to be combined with deveropment of the former post office site at 22o pafu
Road. To herp inform the councir of the deveroper's intent, conceptuar prans were reviewedwith the council and direction was provided to BPS to further refine the plans to enhance thepublic square aspect of the deveropment and to address concerns regarding parking for theamount of retail development proposed in the conceptual plan. Attached to this memirandumare revised conceptuar prans that wi be discussed at the upcoming May 2nd study session withBPS.
Attachment
TO;
May 2, 2016 Study Session Materials - Burlingame park Square
DevelopmenUParking Lot E
As a reminder' the orimarv oumgse of the uocomino studv session is to determine if the citv willbe willino to oermit BpS to acouire tifle to parkino Lot E, rath"r thaninto hio-lling"te,, r""s"with the city for the property. BPS has informed staff and the Council that tee acqisition of theparking lot is necessary to permit financing of the mixed-use development which will includeresidential condominiums rather than residential rental units. Though staff understands the Citycouncil's interest in having a good sense of the composition of the deveropment, particurarry
from a public amenities standpoint, ,, ,.
'roon.n,
ro r"."ro"r,n", rn" a,*
"orn",,
,; no, ,n ,n"position to aoprove the proiec{ devetopment at this point in tima-f th;;;;;;hes to
vettino orocess (since it includes. a Qrlv asset) and the normal devetoomeniliiiiEmliGro""""
and environmentar anarvsis required for anv deveroomenGroiect or;;;;l;;;;;.itv.
Conceptual Project plans - Burlingame park Square
Agrenda Iten 8a
Meeting DaEe: 5/2/16
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting on April 18, 2016
I. CALLTOORDER
A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall
Council Chambers.
2. PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCETOTH E FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by Pat Giomi.
3. ROLLCALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Ortiz
MEMBERSABSENT: Keighran
4. REPO RT OUT FR OM CLOSED S SSION
city Attorney reported that direction was given but no reportable action was taken
5. UPCONIINGEVEN TS
Vice Mayor ftiz reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City.
6. PRE TATIONS
There were no presentations
7. PUBLIC CONINIENTS
There were no public comments.
8. CONSENTCALENDAR
Vice Mayor Ortiz asked the Councilrnembers and the public if they wished to remove any items from the
consent calendar. councilmember colson removed item 8g from the consent calendar.
councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt items 8a, 8b, gc, gd, ge, gf, sh, gi, gj and gk; seconded
by Councilmember Beach. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0.
-
1
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 18,2016
Agenda I ten 8a
Meeting Date: 5/2/76
a. APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING IIIINUTES OF APRIL 4.2016
CC Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes of April 4,2016.
b. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINAN CE ANIEND ING CHAPTER 13.36.020 OF THE
BURLINGANIE NIUNIC IPAL CO DE TO ESTABLISH A'NO PARKING'RESTRICTION
FRON{ 5:00 P.Nl. TO 7:00 P.llI.. I\IONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.ALONG THE WEST SIDE
OF THE 17OO BLOCK OF CALIFORNIA DRIVE
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Ordinance Number 1925.
c. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMEND IN G CHAPTER 13.36.040 OF THE
BURLINGANIE N{UNICIPAL CODE T O ESTABLISH A 2-HO UR PARKING LIMIT ON
THE ISOO BLOCK OF CAROL A VENUE AND THE IOO BLOCK OF EAST CAROL
AI'ENUE
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Ordinance Number 1926.
d. ADOPTIONOFARESOL UT ION AUTHORIZIN G THE CITY NIAN AGER TO
NEGOT IATE AND EXE CUTE AN AGRE ENIENT \\'TTH HE BROADWAY AREA
BUSINESS I]\TP ROVENIENT DISTRICT TO INSTALL IN-GROUND LIGHTS AS NEW
TRE ES ARE PLANT ED ON BRO WAY
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council approve Resolution Numb er 25-2016.
e. ADOPTION OF A RE SO LUTION AUT HORIZING THE CITY I\IANA GER TO EXECUTE
AMENDNIENT N O.4 TO THE A GRE ENIENT BETWE EN THE CITY OF BURLINGANIE
AND VB GOLF II FOR COND UCT OF GOLF OPE RATIONS AT THE BURLINGAN{E
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council approve Resolution Number 26-2016.
f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTI ON APPROVING THE PROCUREM ENT OF MUSCO LED
LIGHTING FIXTURES.ASSOCI ATED HARDW ARE AND CONT ROLLER FOR THE
1\IURRA Y FIELD LIGHT ING PROJECT.AND AUTHORIZIN G THE CITY I\TANAGER TO
EXECUTE THE PURC HASE CONTRACT
Parks and Recreation Director Clomstad requestd Council approve Resolution Numb er 27-2016.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
2
April 18,2016
GOLF CENTER
Human Resources Director Loomis requested Council approve Resolution Number 28-2016.
Councilmernber Colson thanked staff for their hard work and efforts in acquiring a new deferred
compensation program for City employees.
Councilmernber Colson asked SST Benefit Consulting representative Paul Hackleman the following three
questions: (l) to highlight the features of the new agreements with MassMutual to provide deferred
compensation services to City employees; (2) outline the final process for implementation and timing of the
new agreements; and (3) outline how the ongoing monitoring of this program will work.
Mr. Hackleman stated that under the MassMutual deferred compensation program, City employees could be
assured that their money would be placed in funds with a 4 or5 moming star rating. As well, he explained
that the fees and expenses that city ernployees had paid would dramatically decrease by 30-50%.
Additionally, he stated that the website would be easier to use and City employees whether or not enrolled in
the deferred compensation program would have access to financial planners at no charge.
Mr. Hackleman stated that it would take about 3-4 months to roll City ernployees' deferred compensation
plans into the new program. He added that City employees would be kept abreast of the timelini and given
information about new opportunities under the MassMutual deferred compensation program.
Lastly, Mr. Hacklernan stated that under the MassMutual deferred compensation program there would be
arurual fund and performance reviews.
Vice Mayor Ortiz opened up the item for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmernber Brownrigg asked how many employees are currently enrolled in the City's deferred
compensation program. HR Loomis stated that almost all ernployees in the City have a deferred
compensation plan.
Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 28-2016; seconded by Councilmember
Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 4-0.
h. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF INT ENTION TO LEVY BROADWAY AVENUE
BUSINESS IMPROVE NI ENT DISTRICT ASSE SSMENTS FOR FISC AL YEAR 2016-17 AND
SETTING A PUBLIC HE A RING FOR MAY 16.2016:AND APPRO VING THE DISTRICT'S
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2 015-16
Finance Director Augustine requested Council approve Resolution Numb er 29-2016.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
3
April 18, 2016
Agenda I tem 8a
Meeting Darue: 5/2/L6
g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT AND AN INVESTMENT AGREEMENT
WITH MASSMUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE TO PROVIDE DEFERRED COMPENSATION
PROGRAM SERVICES TO CITY EMPLOYEES AND TO AUTIIORIZE THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREENIENT WITH RELIANCE TRUST COMPANY TO
PROVIDE TRUSTEE CUSTODIAL SERVICES FOR THE DEFERR.ED COMPENSATION
PLAN ASSETS
Finance Director Augustine reported the notification to SBWMA of the City of Burlingame's commitment to
participate in the franchise agreement extension negotiations with Recology San Mateo County.
Assistant to the City Manager Blackbum requested Council approve the Revised FY2016-2017 Goal Seuing
Implementation Action Plan.
K. ADO PTION OF A RSOLUTION APPROVING AND AUT HORIZINGTHE CITY
I\IANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREENIENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
INCLUDING WEBSITE DESIGN. DEVE LOPNTENT. INIPLENIE NTATION AND HOSTING
SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY O F BURI-INGANIE AND RELIANCE
CONIN{UN ICATIONS. LLC
Assistant to the City Manager Blackbum requested Council approve Resolution Number 30-2016.
9. PUBLICHEARINGS
a. CONSIDERATION OF ANIEN D}IENTS TO CHAPTER 3(LAN D-USE) OF THE
BURLINGANIE D OWNT OWN SPECIFIC PLAN.ANIEND NIENTS TO SETBACK
STANDARDS IN THE HOWARD NII XE D USE (HNIU. N1YRTLE IIII XED USE (NINIU).
BAYSWAT ER NIIXED USE GNIU). AND CLAI FO RNIA DRIVE A UTO ROW (CAR)
ZONING DISTRICTS AS REFERENCED IN CHA PTERS 2s.33. 25.34. 25.3s.AND 2s.38
(RESPE CTIYELY) OF TIT LE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME IUUNICIPAL C ODE ZONING(
ORDINANCE)
Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner presented the staffreport requesting Council consider amendments to
setback standards in the Howard Mixed Use (HMU), Myrtle Mixed use (MMU), Bayswater Mixed use
(BMU), and Califomia Drive Auto Row (CAR) Zoning Districts as referenced in Chapters 25.33,25.34,
25.35, and 25.38 (respectively) of Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance).
Mr. Gardiner gave a briefoverview of the history of the Downtown Specific Plan. He explained that at the
time the Downtown Specific Plan was created that HMU, MMU, BMU and cAR had residential and
commercial properties. Accordingly, the City created mixed use zones and drafted regulations for these
zones. Under the Downtown Specific Plan there were no specified side setback standards for the mixed use
zones. Therefore, new developments could be built up to the property line with a zero setback. Mr. Gardiner
explained that the expectation with the zero-setback standard was that ifthere were potential conflicts with
adjacent existing uses, the matter could be reconciled through the Planning Commisiion's design review
process.
However, Mr. Gardiner explained that staffhas found that there is a need for fine tuning the development
regulations to ensure compatibility and predictability between residential and commercial propertiei in these
4
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 18,2016
Agenda I ten 8a
Meeting Datue: 5/2/LG
i. NOTIFICATION TO SBWMA OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME'S COMMITMENT TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT EXTENSION NEGOTIATIONS
WITH RECOLOGY SAN MATEO COUNTY
j. ADOPITON OF THE REVISED Fy 2016-2017 GOAL SETTING IMPLEMENTATTON
ACTION PLAN
Agenda Iten 8a
Meeting Datue: 5/2/16
mixed zones. He gave examples of empty lots next to residential properties and explained that staff was
seeing a need to establish side setback requirements as to allow the residential property owner full enjoyment
of their lot. He stated that in reviewing this issue, staff discussed using R-3/R-4 side setback standards in
HMU, MMU, BMU and CAR. He explained that side setbacks in the R-3/R-4 zones vary from 3 feet to 7
feet depending on lot width, and increase one foot for each floor above the first floor.
Councilmernber Brownrigg asked what happens for residences that are also offices like the law offrce on
Park Avenue. Mr. Gardiner stated that the Planning Commission went back and forth on this one and
ultimately decided that it is the land use not the building form, which rules.
Councilmernber Brownrigg gave a hypothetical that the City could be put in a situation where an individual
developing a commercial property is told they need to abide by side setback rules because they are next to a
residential property. However, if the next year the residential property is bought and developid into a
commercial lot, it would not have to abide by side setbacks. Therefore, Councilmember Brownrigg asked if
consideration was given to just mirror the setbacks on both sides ofa new development that way iven if the
residential property is tom down a year later the same setbacks would apply. Mr. Gardiner stated that this
was not discussed.
Vice Mayor Ortiz asked City Clerk Hassel-shearer to read the title of the proposed ordinance.
Councilmernber Beach made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the proposed ordinance;
seconded by councilmember colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote,4-0.
Vice Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment.
Burlingame resident Steve Kraus spoke about his concems on the amendments.
Vice Mayor Ortiz closed the public hearing.
Vice Mayor Ortiz directed City Clerk Hassel-shearer to publish notice at least five days before the next
meeting.
b. PUBLIC HEARIN G AND RESOLUTI ON OFTHE CI TY COUNCII,OF THE CITY OF
BURLINGA}I E ADJUSTING THE ST ORNI DRAINAGE FEE FOR FISCAL YEAR 20I6.I7
BY 2.OOA BASED O N THE CPI FOR T H E SAN FRANCI SCO-OAKLAND .SAN JOSE. CA
AREA AS PUBLISHED NIA RCH 16.2016
Finance Director Augustine presented her staff report asking for the adoption ofResolution Number 31-
2016. She explained that in any year, the square footage rate for impervious area can increase by an amount
equal to the change in CPI, not to except 2o/o per year. Finance Director Augustine stated that the Bureau of
5
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 18, 2016
Mr. Gardiner explained that stafftook the proposal of using R-3/R-4 standards in HMU, MMU, BMU and
CAR to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission decided that their main concem was looking
at side setbacks between new developments and existing residential properties within these four zones.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends that Council adopt this ordinance which will set R-3/R-
4 side setback standards for new developments next to existing residential properties in HMU, MMU, BMU
and CAR.
Agrenda I teu 8a
Meeting Date:. 5/2/16
Labor Statistics reported a CPI increase of 37o. Therefore, the rate increase for storm drainage fee would be
capped, al2%o.
Councilmember Colson asked how the City monitors and tracks the amount of impervious areas existing in a
parcel. DPW Murtuza stated that staff reviews these areas when Foperty development occurs.
Councilmember Colson asked about private home owners who do work that does not need to be permitted
but decreases the amount of impervious area on their property. DPW Murtuza explained that the home
owner would need to come to Public Works to petition for their fee to be decreased.
Councilmernber Beach asked if there was any history ofnot raisin gthe feeby 2oh when CPI increased.
Finance Director Augustine stated in FY 2011-12, the CPI was 1.5% so that was the cap. Councilmember
Beach clarified that Council always goes to the cap. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach discussed who the stakeholders are in the storm drainage fee (Council, City and the
residents of Burlingame) and asked ifthere were any other stakeholders Council should consider. Finance
Director Augustine replied that the bond rating agencies look at the willingness ofCouncil to increase rates
as needed. Councilmernber Beach asked if the Council didn't approve the increase the fee would the City
need to pay the difference from the general fund. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Ortiz opened the public hearing for public comment.
Burlingame resident Pat Giomi voiced her support for the increase.
Vice Mayor Ortiz closed the public hearing.
councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 31.2016; seconded by
Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 4-0.
IO. STAFFREPORTSANDCOMM UNICATIONS
a. HOOVE R SCHOOL TRAFFIC AND PEDES TRIAN SAFETY I]II PROVENIENTS UPDATE
DPW Murtuza presented his staff report on the Hoover School traffic and pedestrian safety improvements
update. He stated that since receiving Council's direction to pursue the short term improvements, staff
retained a consultant firm to perform the feasibility study for sidewalk improvements on Easton Drive and
Summit Drive. As well, staff has been meeting with residents in the Hoover School area to seek their input
and address their concems. He stated that staffis also coordinating with the School District and the Town of
Hillsborough.
DPW Murtuza explained the following three proposals for traffic circulation around the Hoover School: (l)
prohibition of tums onto Summit Drive from either southbound Canyon Road or westbound Easton Drive
during drop-off and pick-up periods, effectively making Summit Drive one-way during school drop-off and
pick-up periods; (2) prohibition of westbound vehicles along Easton Drive, starting at Easton CircG during
drop-off and pick-up periods, effectively making Easton Drive one-way at these times; and (3) no left-tum
from Summit Drive to Easton Drive at the new traffic island, during drop-off and pick-up periods, which
forces vehicles to head west down Easton Drive after exiting the school. He explained to Council where the
siglage would be posted to alert individuals of the changes and stated that the signage would be put up in
6
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 18,2016
Agenda f ten 8a
Meeting Date: 5/2/L6
advance of the opening of the school. DPW Murtuza explained that message boards and police would also be
used at first to ensure the public's awareness ofthe changes in traffic.
DPW Murtuza explained that all the parking and access restrictions discussed above are recommended to be
implemented as a pilot project. He stated that by issuing these changes through a pilot project the City and
School District will have flexibility to make adjustments while monitoring the circulation and traffic when
the school opens.
DPW Murtuza discussed stafPs public outreach efforts. He stated that staffis working with the School
District to conduct outreach to the affected neighborhoods and parents. As well, the school will be noti$ing
parents regarding school routes, drop-offand pick-up locations. The School District's notifications will be
done on a continued basis before school opens and during the new session. He explained that the school, city,
police department and PTA will be meeting before school opens to discuss the restrictions, routes, drop-off
and pick-up procedures. DPW Murtuza stated that staffwill continue to monitor the situation after the
school opens and make recommendations for modifications as needed. Additionally, staffwill be conducting
a feasibility study to explore sidewalk improvonents along Easton Drive and Summit Drive to encourage
walking to school.
Councilmernber Beach asked how the recommendations would affect the police department. Police Chief
Wollman stated that it would be about educating the public on the new regulations, and also about training
drivers in the beginning through wamings and outreach. Councilmember Beach followed up by asking iflhe
police department would have officers helping to direct traffic at the beginning of the school year. Police
Chief Wollman replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Colson asked if anyone talked to the trash collectors to ensure that the City's plan is not in
conflict with their routes. DPW Murtuza replied that staffwas working on this.
Councilmernber Colson asked about the individuals who live on Benito Drive and ifthey had been noticed in
this matter. DPW Murtuza stated that staffwould make sure that Benito Drive residents received notification
ofthe project.
Councilmember Colson asked if the pilot program would be enforced in the summer. DPW Murtuza stated
that the pilot program would only be enforced Monday-Friday when school is in session.
Councilmember Colson asked about when the pilot program would start. DPW Murtuza stated that the
signage would be in place along with message boards 2-3 weeks before school starts to get people adjusted
to the changes.
Councilmernber Colson asked if the City considered offering the residential permit parking program to areas
around Hoover School. DPW Murtuza stated that the residential permit parking pro$am was originally
envisioned for neighborhoods around downtown. However, there has been discussion about whether this
program should be expanded.
7
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 18,2016
Next, DPW Murtuza discussed the proposed parking restrictions. He stated that there would be no parking
along the 2100 block of Summit Drive from Hillside Circle to Canyon Road, during school drop-off and
pick-up periods. As well, there would be no parking along the north side of Easton Drive from the Easton
Circle to the bridge east of 2812 Easton Drive.
Agenda Iten 8a
Meeting Dai'e: 5/2/L6
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the sigrs would be specific to state that they are in effect only when
school is in session. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if there was a way to make the no right tum sigrage in lights. DPW
Murtuza stated that staffwas looking at a variety of ways to address signage. However, he stated that
residents had voiced their concem about lights in the neighborhood.
Vice Mayor Ortiz asked if the City had a count of the number of cars they are expecting every moming.
DPW Murtuza stated that there are approximately 170 students that will be attending Hoover School but the
school may have staggered schedules. Vice Mayor Ortiz stated that with carpooling, students walking to
school that he is hoping the problem will be a lot smaller than what the City is expecting.
Councilmember Beach stated that she would be in favor of less signage and more temporary signage as the
Hoover School neighborhood is a beautiful part of the City and she believes habits will form. She rerninded
staff and council that what is important is what the city does next for long term improvements.
Vice Mayor Ortiz opened the itern for public comment.
Burlingame resident Pat Giomi suggested the City paint a stripe on the pavement to mark the route to the
school.
b. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN AD VIS ORY CONINIITTEE GPAC)UPDATE
DPW Murtuza presented his staff report on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) update.
He stated that the purpose of this report was to provide feedback about the BPAC and propose its structure
for the future.
He explained the background of the BPAC. He stated that it is an ad-hoc committee that was formed over 10
years ago as part of the Transportation Development Act grant application process. He stated that originally
the primary purpose of the committee was to provide input and support for potential grant-funded bicycle
and pedestrian improvement projects.
Currently, he explained the committee's format is informal and casual. He stated that the committee has
become difficult to manage as there aren't clearly defined rules and subject matter for the committee to
cover. He stated that this has resulted in a blurring of the original purpose ofBPAC and has increased staffs
difficulty in managing agenda iterns, deliverables, and the implementation of outcomes. Moreover, DpW
Murtuza explained that over time the committee has become a venue seeking input from the public about
needed improvements for bicycles and pedesaians with less focus on its original intent ofgranrfunded
proj ects.
DPW Murtuza explained that as a result, staff is looking at how to restructure the committee so that it: (1)
fosters a flexible working environment; (2) encourages public comment; (3) provides guidance to the Traffic,
Safety and Parking Commission; and (4) has defined roles and responsibilities. Therefore, he explained that
staffhad reached out to other cities and the Silicon Valley Bicycle Association to gather informaiion and a
better understanding of the needs of the community. Accordingly, DPW Murtuza presented the draft charter
to the Council for their approval.
8
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
April 18, 2016
Agenda I ten 8a
li[eeting Date:. 5/2/16
He explained that the proposed BPAC will have increased duties including input on the City's Capital
Improvernent Projects where pedestrian and bicycle facilities may be impacted, participation in promotional
events to increase bicycle and pedestrian awareness, input on Safe Routes to Schools, Safe Routes to Transit,
and Complete Streets programs and projects. He went to explain that the proposed structure of BPAC will
be a five-member committee comprised of two Traffic, Safety and Parking Commissioners and three public
members. The committee will report to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission. He explained that
initially staffis proposing that the committee will meet on a bi-monthly basis, with dates and times set by the
Chair and staff.
Councilmember Colson asked if BPAC would be subject to the Brown Act. DPW Murnrza replied in the
affirmative. Councilmember Colson stated that she was worried that the free-flowing collaborative feel that
BPAC currently had would go away if they were subject to the Brown Act. City Attomey Kane stated that
the issue was because this wasn't a short-term (ad hoc) committee with limited focus the BPAC would be
subject to the Brown Act. City Attomey Kane added that the benefit of this committee being subject to the
Brown Act would be that meetings would have agendas so that the public would be aware ofissues and
mafters and could comment on those of interest. Councilmember Colson agreed.
Councilmember Beach asked if the formation of the committee would preclude the committee fiom holding
study sessions to allow for a more open collaborative format. She explained further stating that the study
sessions could be held to have more ofa back and forth communication between individuals who are
interested and passionate about biking and walking in the community. City Attomey Kane replied in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Beach read the mission statement out loud and then stated that what was missing from the
mission statement was the why. She asked staff and Council to consider rewriting the vision as:;.The City of
Burlingame created the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee to help improve the safety, convenience
and enjoyment of walking and cycling in Burlingame." She stated that shofelt ihat this statement brought
together the real issues that BPAC would be involved in.
Councilmember Beach asked if the onus would be on staffto communicate a projecVissue to BPAC. DpW
Murtuza stated that what staffenvisions is that staffand the Traffic, Safety and parking Commission would
bring development issues to BPAC for its input.
Councilmember Beach stated that the BPAC could advise on various projects that fall under Traffic, Safety
and Parking Commission or Parks and Recreation Commission. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach stated that she believed an important task for the BPAC would be to help the Traffic,
Safety and Parking Commission prioritize bike and pedestrian projects. She also clarified the fihh duty in '
the charter stating it should be rewritten as: '?ecommend ways to improve pedestrian and cycling
connectivity throughout the City."
Councilmernber Brownrigg asked about the decision for the meetings to be every other month. DpW
Murtuza said that this came down to resources.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the proposed charter was going to be brought to the Traffic, Safety and
Parking Commission for their input. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. Councilmernber Brownrigg
stated that his concem was that in formalizing the BPAC that the committee will lose some of its spontarielty
9
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
Aprit 18, 2016
Agrenda I ten 8a
Meeting Datce: 5/2/L6
and creativity. He also leant his support to Councilmember Beach stating that he agreed the mission
statement should be re-written.
Vice Mayor Ortiz stated that he agreed with Councilmember Beach that the mission staternent should be
rewritten and agreed with her re-write of the fifth duty. He asked what the next steps were. DPW Murtuza
replied that staffwould take into consideration Council's recommendations and present another draft to
Traffrc, Safety and Parking Commission and the existing mernbers of the BPAC for their input. After which
the matter would be brought back to Council.
Councilmember Beach discussed the idea that either BPAC formalizes and obtains advisory authority or if
they want to meet casually and not be subject to the Brown Act, they can do that but it won't be a City
sanctioned committee. City Attomey Kane replied in the affrrmative.
Councilmanber Beach stated she would be interested to hear what BPAC members and Traffrc, Safety and
Parking Commissioners thought ofthe proposed structure.
Burlingame resident Pat Giomi voiced her concern about formalizing the BPAC.
I1. COUNCIL CONTMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalfofthe City.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEI\{S
There were no future items.
I3. ACKNOWLEDGENIENTS
a. NIONTHLY PE R}IIT ACTIVITY - NIARCH. 20I6
I4. ADJOURNNIENT
Mayor Keighran adjoumed the meeting at 9: 13 p.m.
Respectfirlly submitted,
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
l0
April 18,2016
Vice Mayor Ortiz opened the item for public comment.
MEETING DATE: May 2.2016
Date: May2,2016
From: William Meeker, Gommunity Development Director - (650) 558-7255
Adoption of a Resolution and an Ordinance Related to Amendments to
Chapter 3 of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan and Title 25 of
Burlingame Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) Related to Setback
Requirements within the Bayswater Mixed Use (BMU), Myrtle Mixed Use
(MMU), Howard Mixed Use (HMU) and California Auto Row (CAR) Zoning
Districts, and Adoption of a Resolution Finding that lmplementation of the
Amendments Will Not Result in an Adverse lmpact Upon the Environment
as Reported in Negative Declaration ND-55$P, Prepared Pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (cEoA)
The City Council should adopt the following resolutions by motion:
A)A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
FINDING THAT ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 3 LAND.USE
OF THE BURLINGAME DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AND TO CHAPTERS
25.33, 25.34, 25.35 AND 25.38 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATED TO SETBACKS IN THE BAYSWATER MIXED USE (BMU), MYRTLE
MIXED USE (MMU), HOWARD MIXED USE (HMU) AND CALIFORNIA AUTO
ROW (CAR) ZONTNG DTSTRTCTS W|LL RESULT tN NO STGN|F|CANT
IMPACTS UPON THE ENVIRONMENT AS REPORTED IN NEGATIVE
DECLARATION ND-555.P PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEOA)
B)A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 3 LAND.USE OF THE
BURLINGAME DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN, REVISING SETBACK
STANDARDS IN THE BAYSWATER MIXED USE (BMU), MYRTLE MIXED USE
(MMU), HOWARD AVENUE MIXED USE (HMU), AND CALIFORNIA DRIVE
AUTO ROW (CAR) DISTRICTS
1
STAFF REPORT AGENDANO: 8b
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Subject:
RECOMMENDATION
Adoption - Seabacks in BMU, MMU, HMU and CAR Zones
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING
oRDtNANCE) C.S. 25.33 HMU (HOWARD MIXED USE), 25.34 MMU (MYRTLE
MIXED USE), 25.35 BMU (BAYSWATER MIXED USE), AND 25.38 CAR
(CALIFORNIA DRIVE AUTO ROW) DISTRICT REGULATIONS REVISING SIDE
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
The City Council discussed the proposed amendments at a duly noticed public hearing on April
18, 2016. At that time the proposed ordinance was introduced with no changes. Resolutions
memorializing the related amendments to the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan and finding
that implementation of the amendments will not result in adverse environmental impacts pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEaA) are attached herewith to complete the
package of amendments as discussed on April 18h.
None
Exhibits:
Resolution - CEQA
Resolution - Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Ordinance
April 18, 2016 City Council Staff Report (without attachments)
2
May 2, 2016
The City Council should adopt the following ordinance by motion:
DISCUSSION
FISCAL IMPACT
c)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FINDING THAT
ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 3 LAND-USE OF THE BURLINGAME
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AND TO CHAPTERS 25.33, 25.34,25.35 AND 25.38 OF THE
BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO SETBACKS IN THE BAYSWATER MIXED
USE (BMU), MYRTLE MIXED USE (MMU), HOWARD MIXED USE (HMU) AND CALIFORNIA
AUTO ROW (CAR) ZONING DISTRICTS WILL RESULT IN NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
UPON THE ENVIRONMENT AS REPORTED IN NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND-555-P)
PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIry ACT (CEOA)
THE Clry COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME hereby finds as follows:
Section 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-555-P) was prepared and approved
on October 4, 2010 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and it
was determined that with the mitigation measures proposed and incorporated into the Standard
Conditions of Approval for all projects included in lhe Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, therc
are no potential significant environmental impacts from adoption of the Plan; and
Section 2. lt has been determined that the proposed amendments lhe Burlingame
Downtown Specrflc Plan and Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance)
related to setbacks within the BMU, MMU, HMU and CAR zoning districts are adequately
evaluated pursuant to CEQA in Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted for the Plan, and that no
further environmental analysis is required in advance of adoption of the amendments; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME THAT adoption of an amendments to Chapter 3 - Land-Use of the Burlingame
Downtown Specific Plan and to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance)
related to setbacks in the BMU, MMU, HMU and CAR zoning districts were adequately
evaluated pursuant to CEQA in Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) ND-555-P since the
amendments do not materially alter the mix of land-uses policies evaluated in the MND, and that
no further environmental analysis is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (cEaA).
1
RESOLUTTON NO._
Ann Keighran, Mayor
RESOLUTION NO.
l, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2ND day of
May, 2016 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPTING
AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 3 LAND.USE OF THE BURLINGAME DOWNTOWN
SPECIFIC PLAN, REVISING SETBACK STANOARDS IN THE BAYSWATER MIXED USE
(BMU), MYRTLE MIXED USE (MMU), HOWARD AVENUE MIXED USE (HMU), AND
GAL|FORNTA DR|VE AUTO ROW (CAR) DISTRICTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME HEREBY FINDS
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2010, the City Council adopted the Burlingame Downtown
Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, properties in the Bayswater Mixed Use (BMU), Myrtle Mixed Use (MMU),
Howard Avenue Mixed Use (HMU), and Califomia Drive Auto Row (CAR) districts do not have
specified side setback standards; and
WHEREAS, situating a new building on a property line abutting an existing residential
use could be detrimental to the welfare of the respective residential use; and
WHEREAS, Table 3-2 of the Downtown Specific PIan included unintentional scrivener's
errors in the R-3 and R-4 district side setback standards and Myrtle Mixed Use rear setback
standards; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended an amendment to Chapter 3 -
Land Use of the Plan Table 3-2 and Chapters 25.33, 25.34,25.35 and 25.38 of the Burlingame
Municipaf Code to apply R-3 and R-4 side setback standards as outlined in Chapters 25.28.075
and 25.29.075 to the property lines(s) of new development projects that abut a property with an
existing residential use in the Bayswater Mixed Use (BMU), Myrtle Mixed Use (MMU), Howard
Avenue Mixed Use (HMU), and California Drive Auto Row (CAR) districts, as follows (changes
shown in italics):
1
WHEREAS, the lack of side setback requirements could allow a new building to be built
on the property line with a zero setback; and
RESOLUTTON NO._
TABLE 3-2 - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (EXCERPT)
*' Lots 42' wide or /ess = 3 feet; Lots wider than 42', but less than 51' = 4 feet; Lots 51'
wide or more, but less than 54' = 5 feet; Lots 54' wide or more, but less than 61' = 6 feet;
Lots over 61'wide and over = 7. ln addition: (a) Minimum side setback for condominium
developments shall be 5 feet; (b) the side setback requirement shall be increased one
foot for each floor above the first floor; (c) the erterior side setback for any dwelling on a
corner lot shall be 7 % feet fot a building of 2 stories or less and increase one foot for
each additional story; and (d) public building, church, library, museum or other similar
use, either governmental or private, shall be set back at least ten (10) feet from all lot
lines.
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Planning Commission's recommendation at
a duly noticed public hearing on April 18, 2016 and conculred with the proposed amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the amendments
to the Chapter 3 - Land Use of lhe Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan as described herein.
Ann Keighran, Mayor
2
Development
Standard
Myrtle
Road
Mixed
Use
Area
R-3
District
R-4
Base
District
R.4
lncentive
District
Bayswater
Mixed Use
Area
Front Setback -10 feet 15 feet 'l 5 feet 1 5 feet 10 feet
Front Build-To 0 feet 0 feet
Side Setback -
Minimum
0 feet**.0 feet"*l&feet
3-7 feet*
l$feet
3-7 feet*'
l+feet
3-7 feet-*0 feet***
Rear Setback -20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet
*-R-3/R-4 sde setback standards shall apply to property lines(s) uth an existing residential
use on the abutting prcperty.
Howard
Avenue
Mixed
Use
California
Drive/
Auto Row
0 feet*'*
20 feel
RESOLUTTON NO._
l, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2n day of
May 2016, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
oRD|NANCE NO. _
The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby ordains as follows
Division 1 Factual Background
WHEREAS, Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance), Chapter
25.33 (Howard Mixed Use), Chapter 25.34 (Myrtle Mixed Use), Chapter 25.35 (Bayswater
Mixed Use), Chapter 25.38 CAR (California Drive Auto Row) zoning classifications currently do
not require a side setback from adjacent properties.; and
WHEREAS, the lack of a required setback in these zoning classifications would permit
new structures to be placed up to the side property line of adjacent sites developed with
residential uses, and could negatively impact the use and enjoyment of these existing
developed residential properties; and
WHEREAS, the Burlingame Planning Commission considered amendments to the side
setback requirements for the HMU, MMU, BMU, and CAR zones at public hearings held on July
27 , 2015, October 26, 2015 and January 25, 2016; and
WHEREAS, following a duly noticed public hearing on January 25, 2016, the Burlingame
Planning Commission recommended that the side setbacks within the HMU, MMU, BMU, and
CAR zoning classiflcations be amended to require side setbacks to enhance the compatibility
between new development within the zones and existing residential land uses on adjacent
properties; and
WHEREAS, after considering all written and oral testimony presented at the April 18,
2016 public hearing regarding the proposed amendments, the City Council introduced an
ordinance, by title only, waiving further reading.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Division 2. The Burlin game Municipal Code, Title 25 - Chapters 25.33 Howard Mixed Use
(HMU), 25.34 Myrtle Mixed Use (MMU), 25.35 Bayswater Mixed Use (BMU), and 25.38
California Drive Auto Row (CAR) are amended as follows (amendments are shown in italics):
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING
oRDINANCE) C.S.25.33 HMU (HOWARD MTXED USE),25.34 MMU (MYRTLE
MtxED USE),25.35 BMU (BAYSWATER M|XED USE), AND 25.38 CAR
(CALIFORNIA DRIVE AUTO ROW) DISTRICT REGULATIONS REVISING
SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Burlingame conducted a duly noticed public
hearing on April 18, 2016 at which it considered the Planning Commission's January 25,2016
recommendalion regarding side setbacks in the HMU, MMU, BMU and CAR zoning
classifications; and
1
oRDTNANCE NO. _
Chapter 25.33 HMU (HOWARD MIXED USE) DISTRICT REGULATIONS
25.33.060 Setbacks and Build-To Lines.
(a) El Camino Real. There shall be a ten (10) foot buildto line along El
Camino Real. A minimum of sixty (60) percent of the structure shall be located at the
buildto line.
(b) Except for properties fronting on El Camino Real, the front wall of the first
story of any structure shall have no minimum front setback, and a minimum of sixty (60)
percent of the structure shall be located at the front property line.
(c) There shall be no minimum side or rear setback, except properties with
side or rear setbacks along El Camino Real.
(d) R-3 srUe setback standards (see Section 25,28.075) shall apply to
propefty lines(s) with an existing rcsidential use on the abufting property.
Chapter 25.34 MMU (MYRTLE ROAD MIXED USE) DISTRICT REGULATIONS
25.34.060 Setbacks.
(a) Front. There shall be a minimum front setback of ten (10) feet.
(b) Side. There shall be no minimum side setback, except for properties with
an existing residential use on the abufting property.
(c) Rear. There shall be a rear setback of twenty (20) feet.
(d) R-3 srde setback standards (see Sectlon 25,28.075) shail apply to
propefty lines(s) with an existing residential use on the abutting propefty.
Chapter 25.35 BMU (BAYSWATER MIXED USE) DISTRICT REGULATIONS
25.35.060 Setbacks.
(a) El Camino Real Setback. There shall be a minimum twenty (20) foot
setback along El Camino Real.
(b) Front. With the exception of properties with El Camino Real frontage,
there shall be a minimum front setback of ten (10) feet.
(c) Side. There shall be no minimum side setback, except properties with
srde setbacks along El Camino Real or for prcperties with an existing residential use on
the abutting propefty.
(d) Rear. There shall be a rear setback of twenty (20) feet.
(e) R-3 srde setback standards (see Sectio/l 25,28.075) shall apply to
property lines(s) with an existing residential use on the abutting property.
2
Chapter 25.38 CAR (CALIFORNIA DRIVE AUTO ROW) DISTRICT REGULATIONS
25.38.060 Setbacks and Build-To Lines.
(a) The front wall of the first story of any structure shall have no minimum
fronl setback, and a minimum of sixty (60) percent of the structure shall be located at the
front property line.
(b) There shall be no minimum side or rear setback, except R-3 slde setback
standards (see Secllon 25,28.075) shall apply to propetty lines(s) with an existing
residential use on the abufting property.
Division 3. This ordinance, or a summary as applicable, shall be published as required by law
and shall become effective 3Odays thereafter.
Ann Keighran, Mayor
l, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 18h day
of April 20'16, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day
of May 2016, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Meaghan HasselShearer, City Clerk
3
oRDTNANCE NO. _
STAFF REPORT MEETING OATE: Apdl 18,2016
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: April 18,2016
From: William Meeker, Community Oevelopment Director - (650) 558-7255
Subject:Consideration of Amendments to Chapter 3 (Land-Use) of the Burlingame
Downtown Specific Plan, Amendments to Setback Standards ln the Howard
Mixed Use (HMU), Myrtle Mixed Use (MMU), Bayswater Mixed Use (BMU),
and California Drive Auto Row (CAR) Zoning Districts as Referenced in
Chapters 25.33, 25.U, 25.35 and 25.38 (Respectively) of Title 25 of the
Burlingame Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance)
1. Request the City Clerk to read the title of the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING
oRD|NANCE) C.S. 2s.33 HMU (HOWARD MIXED USE), 25.34 MMU (MYRTLE
MIXED USE), 25.35 BMU (BAYSWATER MIXED USE), AND 25.38 CAR
(CALIFORNIA DRIVE AUTO ROW) DISTRICT REGULATIONS, REVISING
SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
By motion, waive further reading and introduce the proposed ordinance
Conduct a public hearing on the proposed ordinance.
Following closure of the public hearing, discuss the proposed ordinance and determine
whether to bring it back for adoption at a future meeting.
Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before
proposed adoption.
lf introduced, lhe ordinance, along with a resolution verifying that the actions of the City Council
are in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a
resolution memorializing the amendments to the Downtown Specific Plan, will be presented for
adoption at the May 2,2016 regular meeting of the City Council.
1
AGENDA ITEN4 NO:
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council should:
2.
3.
4.
5.
HMU, MMU, BMU and CAR Side Sefbacks and DSP Amendments Aptil 18, 2016
The Downtown Specific Plan was adopted in October, 2010. Since that time, reviews of
proposed projects and inquiries from potential applicants have identified particular aspects of
the development regulations that create challenges for applicants or neighboring properties. Of
those, one that has caused particular concern has been setback standards in mixed use
districts creating potential conflicts with existing residential uses.
Key to consideration of proposed specific plan and zoning changes is to ensure that property
owners retain rights provided under the cunent standards, while ensuring that the changes in
zoning provide greater direction in terms of providing compatibility with existing residential uses.
Properties in the Bayswater Mixed Use, Myrtle Mixed Use, Howard Mixed Use, and California
Drive Auto Row districts do not have specified side setback standards. The lack of side setback
requirements would allow a new building to be built on the property line with a zero setback. The
intent of the standard was to promote a development pattern more characteristic of a downtown
district, where buildings are typically built to the property lines. The standard was also intended
to conect instances where existing buildings with nonconforming setbacks would become
conforming, thereby more easily allowing those buildings to be maintained and improved.
When the Speciflc Plan was drafted, the expectation with the zero-setback standard was that if
there were potential conflicts with adjacent existing uses, the matter could be reconciled through
the Planning Commission's rigorous design review process. However in practice it has created
uncertainty for applicants and adjacent property owners alike, particulady where there is an
interface with existing residential uses. The potential conflicts between existing residential uses
and new commercial or mixed use buildings appear to be of greatest concern in the Bayswater
and Myrtle Mixed Use districts since these areas consist of a variety of land uses and building
scales. However there could also be some instances of conflicts in the Howard Mixed Use and
California Auto Row districts.
A potential resolution for this issue could be to apply the City's existing R-3/R-4 side setback
standards to the edge(s) of a new project that abut an existing residential use. Side setbacks in
the R-3 and R-4 zones vary from 3 feet to 7 feet depending on lot width, and increase one foot
for each floor above the first floor. For condominiums, the minimum side setback is 5 feet. Table
2
BACKGROUND
While the City is engaged in an update of its General Plan that could lead to amendments to its
various specific plans (including the Downtown Specific Plan), that process is still in early
stages. The full process to update both the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance is expected to
take two to three years. Meanwhile the City Council may wish to consider potential amendments
to the Downtown Specific Plan and associaled chapters of the Burlingame Municipal Code if
they are relatively minor but still consistent with the overall vision, goals, and policies of the
Specific Plan. More substantial amendments representing more significant changes to the goals
and policies of the plan (should any be proposed) will occur as an outcome of the General Plan
Update.
DISCUSSION
HMU, MMU, BMU and CAR Side Setbacks and DSP Amendments April 18, 2016
1 (below) outlines setback zoning regulations for the mixed use zones and the R-3/R-4 zones.
This approach would also be consistent with standards that applied prior to the implementation
of the Downtown Specific Plan, when the areas were zoned C-1. At that time residential projects
in the C-1 district were required to adhere to the R-4 development standards. Setbacks that
were not abutting existing residential could revert to the zero-setback standard.
TABLE 1: SETBACK STANDARDS COMPARISON
No minimum No minimumCalifornia
Auto Row
(cAR)
. No minimum. Minimum of 60% of structure
shall be located at front
property line
20 feetEl Camino Real - minimum
20 feet
Front - minimum 10 feet
(except El Camino Real
properties)
No minimum
No minimum, except
properties with rear
setbacks along El
Camino Real
El Camino Real - 10 foot
build-to line along El Camino
Real; minimum of 60% of
structure shall be located at
the build{o line
Front - no minimum (except
El Camino Real properties);
minimum of 60% of structure
shall be located at front
property line
No minimum, except
properties with side
setbacks along El
Camino Real
Howard
Mixed Use
(HMU)
20 feetMyrtle Mixed
Use (MMU)
Minimum of 10 feet
3
Zone I Front Setback Side Setback Rear Setback
Bayswater
Mixed Use
(BMU)
No minimum
HMU, MMU, BMU ancl CAR Sicte Sefbacks ard DSP Amendmenls April 18, 2016
Rear Setback Lines
(in feet). 1and2story=
15o More than 2
stories = 20
Minimum 15 feet from lot front
lf 40o/o ot more of frontage upon
one side of a block is developed
with structures the front setback
line for any new structure shall
be the average of the actual
front setback of such existing
structures, if such average
exceeds 15 feet. Such
measurement shall be to the
front wall or to any projection of
the existing structure.
Side Setback Lines
(in feet). Lots 42' wide or
less = 3. Lots wider than
42', but less than
51'= 4. Lots 51' wide or
more, but less
than 54' = 5. Lots 54' wide or
more, but less
than 61' = 6. Lots over 61'
wide and over =
7
The minimum side and rear setback lines
shall be as follows; if front and rear lot lines
are unequal their average shall be the width
at the midpoints of the 2 side lot lines:. Minimum side setback for condominium
developments shall be 5 feet.o The side setback requirement shall be
increased one foot for each floor above
the first floor.o The exterior side setback for any
dwelling on a corner lot shall be 7 Yz feet
for a building of 2 stories or less and
increase one foot for each additional
story.. A public building, church, library,
museum or other similar use, either
governmental or private, shall be set
back at least ten (10) feet from all lot
lines.
Front setbacks on certain
streets:. There shall be a minimum
front setback of 10 feet on
all buildings constructed on
lots which front on Primrose
Road, between Howard and
Bayswater Avenues. There
shall be a minimum setback
of20 feet on all buildings
constructed on El Camino
Real.
R-3 and R-4
Planninq Commission Review: The Plannin g Commission reviewed the mixed use setback
standards as a study ltem at its July 27,2015 meeting, and as an action ltem at its October 26,
2015 and January 25, 2016 meetings. ln the meetings there was general consensus that
applying the City's adopted R-3/R-4 side setback standards to the edge(s) of a new project
abutting an existing residential use could have merit and should be recommended to the City
Council (see Planning Commission meeting minutes excerpts, attached). This would require
amendments to Table 3-2 in the Downtown Specific Plan, as well as amendments to Chapters
25.33, 25.34, 25.35, and 25.38 of the Burlingame Municipal Code. The amendments
recommended by the Planning Commission are shown below (amendments are shown in
):underlined italic
4
Zone Front Setback Side Setback Rear Setback
HMU, MMU, BMU and CAR Side Setbacks and DSP Amendments
(a) El Camino Real. There shall be a ten (10) foot build{o line along El Camino Real. A
minimum of sixty (60) percent of the structure shall be located at the buildto line.
(b) Except for properties fronting on El Camino Real, the front wall of the first story of any
structure shall have no minimum front setback, and a minimum of sixty (60) percent of the
structure shall be located at the front property line.
(c) There shall be no minimum side or rear setback, except properties with side or rear
setbacks along El Camino Real.
@ R-3 slde setback standards /see Sectlon 25.28.07d shall aoolv to oropertv linesld with
an existinq residential use on the abuftine propefty.
Chapter 25.34 MMU (MYRTLE ROAD MIXED USE) DISTRICT REGULATIONS
25.34.060 Setbacks.
(a) Front. There shall be a minimum front setback of ten (10) feet.
(b) Side. There shall be no minimum side setback,exceDt for properties with an existino
residential use on the abuftinq propertv.
Rear. There shall be a rear setback of twenty (20) feet(c)
(d)R-3 srde setback standards fsee Secflon 25.28.075'l shall aDDlv to DroDertv lines(d with
an existinq residential use on the Drooeriv.
Chapter 25.35 BMU (BAYSWATER MIXED USE) DISTRICT REGULATIONS
25.35.060 Setbacks.
Chapter 25.38 CAR (CALIFORNIA DRIVE AUTO ROW) DISTRICT REGULATIONS
25.38.060 Setbacks and Build-To Lines.
(a) The front wall of the first story of any structure shall have no minimum front setback, and
a minimum of sixty (60) percent of the structure shall be located at the front property line-
(b) There shall be no minimum side or rear setback, except R-3 slde serback sfandards /see
Section 25.28.070 shall applv to propertv lineskl with an existino residential use on the
abuttinq propeftv.
5
Apfl 18, 2016
Chapter 25.33 HMU (HOWARD MIXED USE) DISTRICT REGULATIONS
25.33.060 Setbacks and Build-To Lines.
(a) El Camino Real Setback. There shall be a minimum twenty (20) foot setback along El
Camino Real.
(b) Front. With the exception of properties with El Camino Real frontage, there shall be a
minimum front setback of ten (10) feet.
(c) Side. There shall be no minimum side setback, except propefties with side setbacks
alono El Camino Real or for properties with an existino residential use on the abuftinq propertv.
(d) Rear. There shall be a rear setback of twenty (20) feet.
(e) R-3 side setback standards (see Section 25,28.0751 shall applv to propeftv lines(d with
an existino residential use on the abuttino propertv.
HMU, MMU, BMU and CAR Side Selbacks ard DSP Amendments Apd 18, 2016
Correction of Downtown Specific Plan Scrivener's Errors.'The review of the side setback
standards also identified some "scrivener's errors" that have been discovered in the Downtown
Specific Plan. Table 3-2 of the Downtown Specific Plan includes the following inconsistencies
with the corresponding zoning standards:
The R-3 and R-4 standards shown indicate a side setback of 10 feet. However these
standards were not included in the zoning code amendments that were prepared to
implement the Downtown Specific Plan in 201'1, and staff believes the R-3/R-4 side
setback standards as shown on Table 3-2 were an error, particularly because they apply
to areas of the downtown that were already zoned R-3/R-4 and for which the expectation
was the development standards would not be changing.
The Myrtle Mixed Use standards do not indicate a rear setback. However Chapter 25.34
of the Zoning Code indicates a rear setback of 20 feet. Given that the Specific Plan
describes the Myrtle Mixed Use zone as "a buffer between the downtown commercial
district and the residential neighborhoods to the east" staff believes the lack of a rear
setback standard in Table 3-2 was an error.
These inconsistencies have been discovered through pre-application review of proposed
projects in the respective districts. Staff believes these to be "scrivener's errors," defined as a
clerical error in a document. These errors may be corrected at the same time as amendments to
the Downtown Specific Plan for mixed use district side setback standards. The exhibit below
indicates the scrivener's errors on Table 3-2:
f.,-)t: ,-, '(: ,.. ),^ (
cto
C66EE.rEd6A.dr66lCdaF@fgaut n J.-'Il dd .6d6?Fn i*.At 5{t@@ b6dr lnlt d, t FdrEd sDreh t 'FoJ 9l'dE3
. ftEaq llEE ud s-. d.6r:ds rrt @@,!E.!cai5.!-atis dt.+.! e.rs.@ drl -&drl G i.. p':id lL itui6 ' b 16!r& ] nE* 6el 6au* t?6
5a i5 rrrh 1 Fqd Ur tatEB LIEE mi6 !tl' Bds qn
6
T.{ALE
'.2
. DEIELOPMEIiT ST-T\DAN.DS
Ixrl
I N/^
L
l:r50.{ft |
HMU, MMU, BMU anct CAR Sicle Serbacks and DSP Amendments April 18, 2016
None.
Exhibits:
FISCAL IMPACT
Proposed Ordinance
Downtown Specific Plan - Planning Areas
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 25,2016
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - October 26, 201 5
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - July 27 , 2015
7
STAFF REPORT AGENDANO: 8c
MEETING DATE: May 2,2016
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May2,2016
From: Sigalle Michael, Sustainability Coordinator - (650) 558-7261
Subject: Approval of a Letter Authorizing the City's Participation in the Peninsula
SunShares Residential Solar Bulk Procurement Program Coordinated by
the Business Council on Climate Change
The City Council is asked to authorize the Mayor to sign a letter on behalf of the City of
Burlingame committing to participation in the Sunshares Residential Solar Bulk Procurement
Program that is being coordinated by the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3).
BACKGROUND
BC3 is acting as lead agency in the Peninsula SunShares program, an effort to reduce the cost
and complexity of residential solar installations by soliciting through a Request for Proposals to
solar vendors for bulk pricing that private property owners can choose to access through
contracts between themselves and the selected solar vendor(s). By offering pre-negotiated
pricing, ease of administration, and public outreach, it is hoped that residents will choose to install
solar technology at a higher rate than without the program. ln addition, the program will include a
component aimed at reducing the complexity and cost of purchasing electric vehicles (EVs).
The City completed a Peninsula SunShares program in the summer of 20 15. At that time, the City
of Foster City acted as the lead agency and contracted with the non-profit Vote Solar to serve as
the program administrator. The San Francisco Business Council on Climate Change (BC3) is
taking over as the new non-profit home for SunShares in the Bay Area. BC3 previously ran a
SunShares campaign in San Francisco parallel to the Peninsula SunShares program last year.
BC3 is a network of large companies and agencies working to reach San Francisco's climate
action goals.
During the 2015 Peninsula SunShares program, Burlingame had one of the highest participation
rates in the program, coming in second to Palo Alto among the 13 participating cities. ln
Burlingame alone, 127 homeowners registered for a solar audit, and 16 projects were installed.
Another run of the Sunshares program would enable additional Burlingame property owners to
explore and participate in the program.
1
RECOMMENDATION
DISCUSSION
Peni ns u I a S un S h a re s P rog ra m May 2, 2016
BC3 is planning to run SunShares campaigns in San Francisco, the East Bay, and the Peninsula
this summer. They aim for these €mpaigns to include a discount EV program as well as
information on renewable energy options available to renters. BC3 piloted the EV discount
program in San Francisco, where they offered residents a purchase price of $12,500 for a new
Nissan Leaf EV, a significant discount for such a vehicle. This year, BC3 hopes to sign on Nissan,
Chevy, and BMW for the EV discount program.
BC3 will develop and issue the Request for Proposals to solar vendors and will conduct outreach
to and directly interface with both the public participants and with the selected solar vendor(s)
during the active registration period. BC3 will provide this service at no cost to the partner
agencies. ln the attached letter drafted for the Mayor's signature, the City of Burlingame commits
to directly contacting residents, members of the business community and City employees to
promote the program. For example, contacts may be made through utility billing, business
licensing, permitting, and the City's e-newsletter, which currently has approximately 6,000
subscribers. BC3 also intends to offer an education and outreach component of the Sunshares
program with free educational workshops and webinars for the public.
lf the City chooses to participate, it will be responsible for:
1. Completing a Letter of Commitment with BC3 (attached).
2 Conducting outreach on the Peninsula SunShares program including
contacting by mail or email community groups, residents and/or
businesses within the community.
Providing BC3 with the number of contacts made for recordkeeping and
tracking purposes.
5. Participating on the proposal evaluation committee (if desired).
BC3 would like to confirm partner agency participation by May 276 and issue a request
for proposals in June. The SunShares program would launch in July and run through
October.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Exhibits:
3
4
2
Using resources available to the agency to promote the program during
the application period.
Letter of Support
SunShares Program Summary
CITY
.\
The City of Burlingome
TEL: (650) 55&7200
FAX (650) 342-8386
www.buriingame.org
May 2,2Q16
Mr. Michael Parks
Executive Director
Business Council on Climate Change
1455 Market Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
Dear Mr. Parks
I am pleased to provide this letter in support of the collaborative solar and electric vehicle
(EV) education and discount Peninsula "SunShares" program now being developed by the
Business Council on Climate Change (BC3).
The City of Burlingame believes the proposed program, which will be administered by BC3,
will help to continue to overcome soft cost baniers impeding broad market transformation of
residential rooflop solar and electric vehicles by enabling homeowners to voluntarily
participate in a group education and discount program. Participating as a partner supports
our City's climate action goals and offers our residents and community members an
opportunity to explore solar energy and electric vehicles.
The City of Burlingame welcomes the opportunity to collaborate with BC3 and its program
partners on this innovative program and will use our communication channels to reach our
residents and business community throughout the program term.
The City commits to the following:
1 . Provide BC3 with contact information of, and make introductions to, relevant City staff
and community stakeholders who can reach City residents as a part of the programs
outreach strategy. The main City staff point of contact is: Sigalle Michael, Sustainability
Coordinator,smichael@burlin oame.oro. 650-558-7261
ANN KEIGHRAN, ItIAYOR
RICARDO ORTIZ, VICE MAYOR
iIICHAEL BROWNRIGG
DONNA COLSON
EMILY BEACH
CITY HALL - 5OI PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 940IG3997
RE: Participation in Peninsula SunShares Program
Register online with lhe City of Buriingome lo receive regulor City updotes ol www.Burlinoome.oro
Mr. Michael Parks
May 3, 2016
Page 2
2. The City understands that it will initiate contact with community groups on behalf of the
"SunShares" program, which will enable BC3 to follow up with interested community
groups to coordinate outreach efforts.
3. The City will conduct outreach to residents to promote program availability using internal
communication channels, which may include email blasts, utility bill inserts, neighborhood
association social media outlets, newsletters, and posters. The City will report back to
BC3 on the number of outreach contacts made.
4. BC3 will provide the City and our community partners with formatted electronic files to
conduct outreach to community members.
It is our hope that our joint work will continue the progress that SunShares has made in
expanding the number of solar installations in California; as well as support the electric
vehicle market.
Sincerely,
Ann Keighran
Mayor
City of Burlingame
Regisler online wilh the City of Burlingome to receive regulor Ci'ty updotes o't www.Burlinoome.oro
ooo
BUSINESS COUNCIL ON
CLIMATE CHAI{GE
April 2016
Peninsula SunShares
Program Description
The goal of the program is to reach solar and EV customers via
targeted outreach through community organizations including local
governments, private employers, and neighborhood groups and non-
profit organizations. Organizations participating in the program will
offer their members / employees (i.e., the individual participants) the
opportunity to become a part of an engaging sustainability initiative.
In 2015, more than 1100 residents signed up for the Peninsula
SunShares program resulting in almost 1 MW of new solar capacity
installed via a three month campaign.
Benefit to Local Governments: Initiatives that engage residents,
businesses and the community in shared sustainability efforts are a key
component in achieving local and regional renewable energy goals.
Benefit to Participating Outreach Organizations: Collaborative
purchasing programs for solar and EVs offer a new opportunity for
organizations to engage their members in helping to achieve
community wide clean energy goals while investing in their well-being
Concept In conjunction with their work on solar soft-cost reduction, a
group of Peninsula communities and their program partner, the
Business Council on Climate Change (BC3, the Program Team) is for
the second year offering interested organizations an opportunity to
participate in SunShares. BC3 will provide administrative program
support to reduce the complexity and cost of residential solar.
Additionally, the program this year will include a new component
aimed at reducing the complexity and cost of electric vehicles (EVs).
at home. Additionally, aggregating a group of homeowner sites (or
potential customers for EVs) and soliciting bids from potential
contractors can attract more competitive proposals, accomplish
community goals fastel and reduce transaction costs.
Benefit to Participants: Homeowners want to save on their utility bills
and driving costs and use clean electricity but often aren't sure how to
go about it, or don't have time to research all the options themselves.
Peninsula SunShares will pool the buying power of the community to
secure lower up front purchase pricing and highly attractive financing
options for both solar and EVs. Participants will also benefit from free
educational workshops and webinars run by the program
administrator.
How it works: The Program Team will manage all program
components, creating a custom campaign targeted at an organization's
members / employees throughout the community to generate
excitement and participation.
The education and outreach components of the Peninsula SunShares
program include a dedicated registration website, promotional
materials to attract and encourage participation, and group workshops
and webinars.
Local Government Role: Local governments have two distinct
opportunities to participate in the Peninsula SunShares program. The
As program administrator, BC3 will manage a procurement process
that includes the issuance of Request for Proposals to qualified solar
installers and EV manufacturers. A community evaluation committee
will be recruited to review proposals and select the programs' vendors
based on proposal evaluation criteria and scoring. BC3 will act as the
group's technical advisor, answering participant questions throughout
the program.
first is directly as an employer, by conducting internal outreach to
employees. The second is as a community champion, by recruiting
outside community organizations to the program, which will in turn act
as a network of outreach partners that spread the message to
individual participants. Once an individual organization is informed of
the opportunity and responds positively, BC3 staff will handle ongoing
communication regarding program implementation.
Organizational Role: The Program Team requests that a director or
executive from each participating organization provide an affirmative
letter indicating their participation in the Peninsula SunShares program.
Each participating organization will inform its members / employees
about the program in a similar manor to other member engagement
and/or benefit efforts. A minimal amount of staff time will be needed
to assist the Program Team with reserving meeting space for onsite
workshops and contacting employees through approved channels of
communication including email, newsletters, intranet sites and posters.
EXAMPLE PROJECT NMEUNE
Confirm employer organization participation
Issue Request for Proposals
Form evaluation committee
Proposals Due
Firm(s) Selected
Program launch
Education & Outreach
Group list closes
Deadline: Homeowner contracts signed
Installations Complete*
May - Week 4
(deadline: May 27)
June - Week 1
June - Week 2
July - Week 1
July - Week 3/4
July - Week 4
Aug., Sept., Oct.
Oct. - Week 4
November - Week 4
January - Week 4
*Timeframes indicated are approximate - any specific step may require
additional time, particularly recruitment and installation.
Liability or Risk The procurement process documents issued by the
Program Team on behalf of the employee group and all contracts
between the Program Team and the selected solar firm(s) specify that
the participating organizations have no fiscal or legal liability. All
contracts for solar installations are between the selected firm(s) and
individual homeowners.
Example Legal statement to be included in RFP:
X.X.X Participating Organizations
Each of the participating organizations, on behalf of their membership
groups, will collaborate with the Business Council on Climate Change
and the selected Firm(s) on Program implementation. Organizations
will identify approved communication channels and promote education
and information sessions inctuding webinars and onsite presentations
to their employees.
While the Peninsula SunShares Program is being offered to the
members of each participating organization, these organizations do
not endorse any Firms and will not endorse the selected Firm(s). Any
participant who enters into the Program does so in his/her personal
capacity and at his/her own risk and will expressly hold each of the
participating organizations harmless from any liability associated with
his/her decision to participate in this Program for services for his/her
personal, non-work related projects.
STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8d
MEETING DATE: May 2,2016
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May2,2016
From: William Meeker, Community Development Director - (650) 558'7255
Subject:Set Public Hearing Date for an Appeal of the Planning Commission's
Approval of Applications for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Commerciat Design Review for a New, Four-Story Office Building at 225
Galifornia Drive
BACKGROUND
At its regular meeting of April 11, 2016, the Planning Commission approved requests related to
the construction of a new, four-story office building to be located at 225 California Drive. The
appeal period following the Planning Commission's action ran until 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, April
21"r. On that date, a timely appeal of the Commission's action was filed with the City Clerk's
offi ce (letter attached).
City costs for processing an appeal exceed the charge provided by the master fee schedule.
However, because the City Council has determined that access to appeal procedures outweighs
these costs, the affected departments will absorb the appeal processing costs within existing
budget.
Exhibit:
1
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council set the date of the public hearing on the appeal for May
16, 2016.
FISCAL IMPACT
Appeal Letter
rIII The Mazzola Law Office
RECBTVED
APR 2 I 2016
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
fessional Corpondon
April 20, 2016
Re: Appeal of EIR and Building Permit(s) for 225 California Drive development
Burlingame City Council
We understand that the Planning Department recently required the owner of the Development,
as a condition of its permit(s), to enter into an agreement with Sakae regarding the hours of operation of
heavy construstion so that Sakae's lunch business will not be disturbed by the vibration, noise, and
debris expected and noted by the Devetopment's Environmental lmpact Report ("ElR"). That condition
has not yet been accomplished, although the parties are in limited discussions over it. Therefore,
because that precondition has not yet been satisfied, it does not appear that the Planning Department's
decision to approve the permit(s) is self-executing. For this reason and others, Sakae appeals the
decision of the Planning Department for the reasons identified in this letter.
The development of 225 California Drive will be a significant undertaking. As you know, it
involves extensive demolition of the existing structures, the removal of soil that was contaminated by
underground storage tanks (stoddard solvent, bunker oil, and gasoline), deep digging and shoring, the
removal of other hazardous wastes, reconstruction activities that will last approximately two years, and
the large scale impact on parking and traffic. The development will, without doubt, have a significant
impact on the surrounding businesses.
The EIR Development confirms construction of 22S California Drive will have significant impacts
upon the surrounding area. This letter identifies a few, but not all, of our concerns with the EIR
The Geotechnical Report of Cornerstone Earth Group identifies that underpinning and shoring
of adjacent properties will be necessary as a result of the construction, but it does not explain how that
will be performed. lnstead it simply defers that plan to an unidentified licensed engineer.
Burlingame City Council
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010
As you know, this Law Office represents Sakae, lnc. ("Sakae"). Thls letter sets forth an appeal of
the Planning Department's decision on April 11, 2015 regarding the proposed development of 225
California Drive (the "Development''). The Development project abuts Sakae at 243 california drive.
l00l Bayhill Drive, Suite 200, San Bruno, Califomia 94066 (650) 403'4802 simon@simonmazzola.com
Burlingame City Council
The Human Health Risk Assessment report by Green Environment lnc. ("GEl") for the
Development notes that the project site has been designated as a Leaking Underground Storage Tank
site. lt also states the property contains tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, ethylbenzene vapor, and
1,2-dicholoroethane, among other contaminants. The property was used in the automotive parts
business and either contained or was ad.lacent to a dry cleaning business. There are hot-spots of
subsurface contamination of the property. The repo rt confirms that a pre-construction soil and
groundwater management Environmental Management Plan is necessary. Despite this, that plan has
note been provided. Further, the GEI report states a site specific health and safety plan should be
prepared and utilized, but one has not been provided. Both plans must be provided prior to any
permit(s) being issued that allow the Development to commence.
The EIR does not address demolition of the site with a recommendation specific to removing
hazardous wastes in the building materials. As one example, the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational
Safety & Health Administration ("oSHA") issued a final rule that takes effect on June 23, 2016 regarding
crystalline silica containment. lt is designed to avoid exposure that causes significant health problems in
humans. One of the critical areas of exposure to silica comes from construction and demolition
activities. Despite this, no part of the EIR deals with compliance with these prevailing OSHA regulations.
This is true even though the construction project will last well beyond the deadline for compliance with
the OSHA requirements. Written methodology should also be required for deallng with asbestos and
other known contaminants in the buildings that will be demolished.
The Environmental Noise Assessment of lllingworth & Rodkin, lnc.1 identifies a number of
significant impacts due to the Development- ln lmpact f2, it demonstrates that the ground borne
vibration to Sakae's building will exceed acceptable limits and will likely cause structural damage to the
adjacent structure. This report recommends prohibiting the kind of heavy equipment that is expected to
be used in demolition from operating within 10-25 feet of Sakae's location. That does not seem possible
due to a shared, adjacent wall or the proximity of the buildings to the property line. The buildings are on
a zero lot line, separate by perhaps an inch or two.
lmpact #4 identifies that the noise levels will significantly impact the area and recommends
numerous measures to mitigate that noise. The report demonstrates that noise will be unacceptably
high at a distance of fifty feet, but Sakae is within inches of the property line. The report lmplies that
these excessively noisy activities can take place from 7:00 a.m. through 7:00 p.m. lt offers some noise
mitigation measures. All of the noise mitigation measures should be required as a condition of the
I The study erroneously places Sakae at 241 California Drive, when it is at 243 California Drive
t00l Bayhill Drive, Suite 200, San Bruno, California 94066 (650) 4034802 simon@simonmazzola.com
2
The Human Health Risk Assessment plan is incomplete and you should not approve the
Development without first requiring these reports and determining if they are compliant. Doing
otherwise puts the proverbial cart before the horse. We deserve to see that appropriate methodology
to remediate the contaminants and protect against the airborne release of them during demolition and
construction befo re this pldn ond EIR ore opproved.
Burlingame City Council
permit(s). Compliance with those mitigation measures should be regularly monitored and reported by
the Planning Department.
The Transportation lmpact Analysis of Abrams & Associates is notable for its utter failure to
analyze the traffic impact at California Drive and Highland Avenue, the precise location of the
construction activity of the Development. lt gives acceptable ratings to more distant intersections (Table
3), yet fails to address the principal point of impact.
We believe this omission is because an analysis of this intersection will clearly identify an
unacceptable traffic impact, especially Biven that it has no traffic signal, unlike the others that have a
traffic signal. The same omission is true for the corner of Hatch Lane and Howard Avenue, Highland
Avenue and Howard Avenue, or California Drive and Howard Avenue. lgnoring the impact on these
intersections is akin to placing one's head in the sand over the most obvious problem areas. Notably, the
report concedes that, due to the project, traffic congestion at Peninsula Avenue and California Drive will
drop from acceptable delays to significant delays.
The Abrams & Associates report gives insufficient analysis to the impact of pedestrian traffic or
on the sustained loss of parking. These failures to evaluate significant impacts mean the analysis is
irreparably flawed. While the Abrams & Associates report identifies six areas of impact, it postulates
that no mitigation is necessary. That conclusion is wantonly inappropriate. The report confirms that
there will be approximately fifty-five additional vehicles parked in the area due to construction activities.
Despite the already overcrowded parking situation in the area, the report characterizes this massive
increase as "less-than-significant." The report must be reviewed and potentially rejected for lack of
consideration of Sakae and other residents and tenants as a basis for the Development's compliance
with the safety, traffic, and parking impacts it will cause. There is no statement or study of the impact of
hard construction on Sakae and businesses in the area.
Sakae opened its doors twenty-one years ago. Its corporate owners/officers are longtime
Burlingame homeowners (20 years) and residents.Sakae lnc. is not willing to be a casualtv of errant
ng Commission be ordered to take immediate steps
address these issues in the ElR, require strict compliance with the EIR, require the owner of the
Development to cooperate and mitigate the losses by tightly controlling the conditions of the build, and
to regularly monitor the Development.
Sakae requests that all of the recommendations in the EIR be made a condition of any building
permit, such that violation of the recommendations violates any building permit{s). Sakae believes the
EIR must be subject to further review as specified in this letter and issuance of a permit must wait until
these items are addressed.
The Exhibit A to the Planning Commission's approval of the Commercial Design Review
Development does not adequately address all of the necessary concerns to making the project compliant
with relevant codes and other conditions. lt must be expanded to include the concerns articulated in
development i n Burlineame. We demand the Planni
l00l Bayhill Drive, Suite 200, San Bruno, California 94066 (650) 403-4802 simon@simonmazzola.com
3
Burlingame City Council
this letter as well as all other concerns brought by the community it their comments to this
Development.
Thank you for your attention to this Appeal.
Sincerely,
844..=..6.
Simon Mazzola
l00l Bayhill Drive, Suite 200, San Bruno, Califomia 94066 (650) 4034802 simon@simonmazzola.com
4
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 2,2016
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 2,2016
Subject:Set Public Hearing Date for an Appeal of the Planning Commission's
Approval of Applications for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Commercial Design Review for a New, FourStory Office Building at 225
California Drive
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council set the date of the public hearing on the appeal for May
16,2016.
FISCAL IMPACT
City costs for processing an appeal exceed the charge provided by the master fee schedule.
However, because the City Council has determined that access to appeal procedures outweighs
these costs, the affected departments will absorb the appeal processing costs within existing
budget.
Exhibit:
1
ncelol r.ro, 56A
From: William Meeker, Community Development Director - (650) 558-7255
BACKGROUND
At its regular meeting of April 11, 2016, the Planning Commission approved requests related to
the construction of a new, four-story office building to be located at 225 California Drive. The
appeal period following the Planning Commission's action ran until 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, April
21"t. On that date, a timely appeal of the Commission's action was filed with the City Clerk's
office (letter attached).
Appeal Letter
RECEIVED
IIII The Mazzola Law Ofiice
fessional Corporation
April 20, 2016
Burlingame City Council
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, Californ ia 94010
Re: Appeal of EIR and Building Permit(s\ for 225 California Drive development
Burlingame City Council:
As you know, this Law Office represents Sakae, lnc. ("Sakae"). This letter sets forth an appeal of
the Planning Department's decision on April 11, 2015 regarding the proposed development of 225
California Drive (the "Development"). The Development project abuts Sakae at 243 California drive.
We understand that the Planning Department recently required the owner ofthe Development,
as a condition of its permit(s), to enter into an agreement with Sakae regarding the hours of operation of
heaw construction so that Sakae's lunch business will not be disturbed by the vibration, noise, and
debris expected and noted by the Development's Environmental lmpact Report ("ElR"). That condition
has not yet been accomplished, although the parties are in limited discussions over it. Therefore,
because that precondition has not yet been satisfied, it does not appear that the Planning Department's
decision to approve the permit(s) is self-executing. For this reason and others, Sakae appeals the
decision of the Planning Department for the reasons identified in this letter.
The development of 225 California Drive will be a significant undertaking. As you know, it
involves extensive demolition of the existing structures, the removal of soil that was contaminated by
underground storage tanks (Stoddard solvent, bunker oil, and gasoline), deep digging and shoring, the
removal of other hazardous wastes, reconstruction activities that will last approximately two years, and
the large scale impact on parking and traffic. The development will, without doubt, have a significant
impact on the surrounding businesses.
The EIR Development confirms construction of 225 California Drive will have significant impacts
upon the surrounding area. This letter identifies a few, but not all, of our concerns with the ElR.
The Geotechnical Report of Cornerstone Earth Group identifies that underplnning and shoring
of adjacent properties will be necessary as a result of the construction, but it does not explain how that
will be performed. lnstead it simply defers that plan to an unidentified licensed engineer.
APR 2 I 2016
CITY CLERK'S OFFI E
I 001 Bayhill Drive, Suite 200. San Bruno, California 94066 (650) 403-4802 simon@simonmazzola.com
Burlingame City Council
The Human Health Risk Assessment report by Green Environment lnc. ("GEl") for the
Development notes that the project site has been designated as a Leaking Underground Storage Tank
site. lt also states the property contains tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, ethylbenzene vapor, and
1,2-dicholoroethane, among other contaminants. The property was used in the automotive parts
business and either contained or was adjacent to a dry cleaning business. There are hot-spots of
subsurface contamination of the property. The report confirms that a pre-construction soil and
groundwater management Environmental Management Plan is necessary. Despite this, that plan has
not" b""n provided. Further, the GEI report states a site specific health and safety plan should be
prepared and utilized, but one has not been provided. Both plans must be provided prior to any
permit(s) being issued that allow the Development to commence'
The Human Health Risk Assessment plan is incomplete and you should not approve the
Development without first requiring these reports and determining if they are compliant. Doing
otherwise puts the proverbial cart before the horse. We deserve to see that appropriate methodology
to remediate the contaminants and protect against the airborne release of them during demolition and
construction before this plan and EIR ore opproved.
The EIR does not address demolition of the site with a recommendation specific to removing
hazardous wastes in the building materials. As one example, the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational
Safety & Health Administration ("OSHA") issued a final rule that takes effect on June 23, 2016 regarding
crystalline silica containment. lt is designed to avoid exposure that causes significant health problems in
humans. One of the critical areas of exposure to silica comes from construction and demolition
activities. Despite this, no part of the EIR deals with compliance with these prevailing OSHA regulations'
This is true even thou8h the construction project will last well beyond the deadline for compliance with
the OSHA requirements. Written methodology should also be required for dealing with asbestos and
other known contaminants in the buildings that will be demolished.
The Environmental Noise Assessment of lllingworth & Rodkin, lnc.1 identifies a number of
significant impacts due to the Development. ln Impact #2, it demonstrates that the ground borne
vibration to Sakae's building yg!!! exceed acceptable limits and gill likely cause structural damage to the
adjacent structure. This report recommends prohibitinS the kind of heavy equipment that is expected to
be used in demolition from operating within 10-25 feet of Sakae's location. That does not seem possible
duetoashared, adjacent wall orthe proximity of the buildingstothe property line. The buildings are on
a zero lot line, separate by perhaps an inch or two.
lmpact #4 identifies that the noise levels will significantly impact the area and recommends
numerous measures to mitigate that noise. The report demonstrates that noise will be unacceptably
high at a distance of fifty feet, but Sakae is within inches of the property line. The report implies that
these excessively noisy activities can take place from 7:00 a,m. through 7:00 p.m. lt offers some noise
mitigation measures. All of the noise mitigation measures should be required as a condition of the
I The study erroneously places Sakae at 241, California Drive, when it is at 243 California Drive
2
l00l Bayhill Drive, Suite 200, San Bruno, California 94066 (650) 403-4802 simon@simonmazzola.com
- Burlingame City Council
permit(s). Compliance with those mitigation measures should be regularly monitored and reported by
the Planning Department.
The Transportation lmpact Analysis of Abrams & Associates is notable for its utter failure to
analyze the traffic impact at California Drive and Highland Avenue, the precise location of the
construction activity of the Development. lt gives acceptable ratings to more distant intersections (Table
3), yet fails to address the principal point of impact.
We believe this omission is because an analysis of this intersection will clearly identify an
unacceptable traffic impact, especially given that it has no traffic signal, unlike the others that have a
traffic signal. The same omission is true for the corner of Hatch Lane and Howard Avenue, Highland
Avenue and Howard Avenue, or California Drive and Howard Avenue. lgnoring the impact on these
intersections is akin to placing one's head in the sand over the most obvious problem areas. Notably, the
report concedes that, due to the project, traffic congestion at Peninsula Avenue and California Drive will
drop from acceptable delays to significant delays.
The Abrams & Associates report gives insufficient analysis to the impact of pedestrian traffic or
on the sustained loss of parking. These failures to evaluate significant impacts mean the analysis is
irreparably flawed. While the Abrams & Associates report identifies six areas of impact, it postulates
that no mitigation is necessary. That conclusion is wantonly inappropriate. The report confirms that
there will be approximately fifty-five additional vehicles parked in the area due to construction activities.
Despite the already overcrowded parking situation in the area, the report characterizes this massive
increase as "less-than-significant." The report must be reviewed and potentially rejected for lack of
consideration of Sakae and other residents and tenants as a basis for the Development's compliance
with the safety, traffic, and parking impacts it will cause. There is no statement or study of the impact of
hard construction on Sakae and businesses in the area.
Sakae requests that all of the recommendations in the EIR be made a condition of any building
permit, such that violation of the recommendations violates any building permit(s). Sakae believes the
EIR must be subject to further review as specified in this letter and issuance of a permit must wait until
these items are addressed.
The Exhibit A to the Planning Commission's approval of the Commercial Design Review
Development does not adequately address all of the necessary concerns to making the project compliant
with relevant codes and other conditions. lt must be expanded to include the concerns articulated in
100 I Bayhill Drive, Suite 200, San Bruno, Califomia 94066 (650) 403-4802 simon@simonmazzola.com
3
Sakae opened its doors twenty-one years ago. lts corporate owners/officers are lon$ime
Burlingame homeowners (20 years) and residents. Sakae lnc, is not willing to be a casualtv of errant
development in Burlingame. We demand the Planning Commission be ordered to take immediate steps
address these issues in the ElR, require strict compliance with the ElR, require the owner of the
Development to cooperate and mitigate the losses by tightly controlling the conditions of the build, and
to regularly monitor the Development.
Burlingame City Council
this letter as well as all other concerns brought by the community it their comments to this
Development.
Thank you for your attention to this Appeal.
sincerely,
Simon Mazzola
l00l Bayhill Drive, Suite 200, San Bruno, California 94066 (650) 403-4802 simon@simonmazzola.com
4
AGENDANO: 8e
MEETING DATE: May 2, 2016
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 2,2O16
Subject:Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Comprehensive Agreement with the
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board for the Caltrain Electrification
Project, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the
Comprehensive Agreement with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) for the
Caltrain Electrification POect, and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.
The Caltrain Modernization Program envisions a series of capital improvement projects to
upgrade the performance, operating efficiency, capacity, safety and reliability of Caltrain's
commuter rail service. These projects include:
1. lmplementation of an advanced signal system, which is cunently being installed and tesled;
2. Electrification of the existing Caltrain corridor between San Francisco and San Jose; and
3. Replacement of Caltrain's diesel trains with high performance electric trains.
ln January 2015, the Caltrain Board of Directors approved and certified the Peninsula Corridor
Electrification Project (PCEP) Final Environmental lmpact Report (FEIR) for the proposed
electrification of the Caltrain corridor between San Jose and San Francisco. The poect will be
implemented through a design-build contract and is cunently in the procurement process. The
PCEP improvements within Burlingame generally consist of the Overhead Contact System (OCS)
to distribute electrical power and the Traclion Power Facility (TPF) to deliver power to the OCS.
The OCS consists of installation of OCS poles and wire stringing. OCS poles will typically be
spaced 180-200 feet apart. An electric safety zone will also be established for the OCS system.
The TPF consists of an above ground facility to convert electrical power for electrical train usage.
The proposed location for the TPF is on the east side of California Drive near the antersection of
Lincoln Avenue near the California-Grove Storm Water Pump Station Facility, within the PCJPB
righlof-way as shown in the attached agreement exhibit.
STAFF REPORT
1
From: Syed Murtuza, Oirector of Public Works - (650) 558-7230
BACKGROUND
Comprehensive Agreement with PCJPB Regatding Peninsula Corridor Electification Project May 2, 2016
The comprehensive agreement will memorialize the respective responsibilities of each party,
mainly City staff review and input on construction plans, interagency cooperation, City
consultation to facilitate the construction of the project, and the PCJPB's role in coordinating the
project design and construction that may potentially impact City utilities and right-of-way. The
comprehensive agreement also establishes that Caltrain will pay for City staff time to review plans
and perform construction inspections associated with City facilities impacted by the project.
Caltrain will deposit $34,000 with the City, which will be utilized for staff and consultant services
required to review and process the project, issue encroachment permits, and perform
construction inspections as needed. The City will refund any unused portion of the funds at the
end of the project. Conversely, if additional funds are needed to complete the work, Caltrain will
deposit additional funds with the City as required. Staff has reviewed the proposed cost estimate
and found it lo be reasonable.
The project is tentatively scheduled to be awarded by the pcJpB by the end of 20'16, with
construction anticipated to begin by early 20'17. As with all construction, there will be impacts to
the adjacent community. These impacts include construction traffic and noise, and access to and
from staging areas as identified in Exhibit B of the agreemenl. Caltrain will establish monitoring
programs during construction to ensure adherence to established protocols such as use of
designated haul routes, implementation of appropriate traffic control measures due to impacts,
and notification to the adjacent community and interested residents. Additionally, Caltrain will
conduct extensive community outreach prior to the construction, and will designate a single point
of contact to handle project-related complaints.
FISCAL IMPACT
The costs associated with staff time and consultant services in reviewing engineering design and
construction plans, permit issuance and construction inspection is estimated at $34,000, which
will be paid for by Caltrain.
2
DISCUSSION
Furthermore, the agreement provides that the PCJPB:
. Screen the proposed TPF to minimize aesthetic impacts, and monitor the ambient noise
levels in the area before and after the construction, and mitigate any noise issues as
necessary.
. Coordinate with the City to obtain input into the OCS pole design relative to aesthetics.
o Coordinate with the City to obtain input in the design of prolection baniers and fencing
relative to aesthetics.
. Minimize spillover lighting during nighttime construction adjacent to residential areas.
. Take great care in avoiding and minimizing tree impacts in consultation with a certified
arborist, including developing a tree replacement plan for unavoidable situations, and
. lmplement traffic signal timing optimization and improvements at the intersection of
Broadway and California Drive.
Comprchensive Agrcement with PCJPB Regarding Peninsula Coridor Eleclrificalion Project May 2, 2016
Exhibits:
. Resolution
. ComprehensiveAgreement
o Exhibits A and B
3
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING
THE COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT
POWERS BOARD FOR THE PENINSULA CORRIDOR ELECTRIFICATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Project will be constructed almost completely within the Peninsula
Corridor Joint Powers Board right-of-way and will incur construction impacts to the adjacent
community and City rightof-way; and
WHEREAS, City staff negotiated the comprehensive agreement with the Peninsula
Corridor Joint Powers Board to memorialize respective responsibilities of each party through
design and construction of the Project, and recommends its approval by the City Council.
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame and this Council does hereby FIND,
ORDER and DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
The Comprehensive Agreement with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board for the
Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project is approved.
1
2. The City Manager is authorized to execute the Comprehensive Agreement
substantially the form submifted to City Council as well as any necessary amendments.
tn
Mayor
l, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held
on the 2d day of Mav, 2016, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
RESOLUTTON NO._
WHEREAS, the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (Project) will install Traction
Power Facilities and Overhead Contact System to deliver and distribute electrical power for train
usage; and
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE PEMNSTJLA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARI)
AND CITY OF BURLINGAME
RELATING TO THE PENINSULA CORRIDOR ELECTRIFICATION PROJECT
I1105637.4
This Comprehensive Agreement ("Agreement") between the City of Burlingame, a municipal
corporation city of the State of Califomia ("City'') and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers
Board, ajoint exercise ofpowers agency ("JPB") (collectively, the "Parties") is entered into as
of this _ day of_ 201- (the "Effective Date"), each of which is referred to herein
individually as "Party" andjointly as "Parties."
RECITALS
A. City is a duly established municipal corporation organized alld glisling under the laws of
the State of Califomia.
JPB is ajoint exercise of powers agency organized and existing under the laws ofthe
State of Califomia.
JPB is the owner ofthe Peninsula Corridor Railroad right-of-way, including certain real
property and fixtures located in the City of Burlingame between milepost (MP) 13.8 and
16.7, (the "Right-of-Way"), and includes six vehicular and one pedestrian at-grade
crossings.
The Peninsula corridor Electrification Project ("Project") consists ofconverting caltrain
from diesel-hauled to electrically-powered trains foriervice between the 46 and King
Street Station in San Francisco and the Tamien Station in San Jose.
B
C
D
E
F
H
I.
G
In 2009, the JPB completed a Final Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact
Report (EA/EIR) for the Project. Based upon that document, the Federal Transit
Administration issued a Finding of No Sigrrificant Impact (FONSI) in 2009' which
completed the federal environmental review for the Project in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
On January 31, 2013, the JPB issued a Notice of Preparation ofan Environmental lmpact
Report and, in February, 2014, issued a Draft Environmental knPact Report for a 60-day
comment period ending on April 29,2014. A Final Environmental Impact Report was
issued in December 2014.
On January 8, 2015, pursuant to Resolution No' 2015-03, the JPB certified confomrance
with the C;lifomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to the extent that it is applicable
to the Project, and certified the Final Environmental knpact Report (FEIR) for the
Project.
On January 8, 2015, pursuant to Resolution No. 2015'04, the JPB adopted CEQA
frndings oi fact, a statement ofoverriding considerations, and a mitigation monitoring
and reporting plan.
On February 5, 2015, pursuant to Resolution No. 2015-08 the JPB authorized the
issuance ofthe PCEP Project Design Build Request for Proposals to engage a Design-
Build Contractor to construct the Project.
I
J
K
The City desires to cooperate with the JPB to facilitate the design and construction of the
Project. The JPB and the City desire to memorialize the interagency cooperation and
consultation between the Parties in this Agreement.
The Parties acknowledge that the Project is funded in part with funds made available by
the Federal Transit Adminisration. Accordingly, this Agreement and the obligations
imposed on the Parties hereby shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with both
Federal and State laws and regulations.
The locations of certain elements ofthe Project may require the use of certain City streets
for hauling operations and staging of constmction during construction of the Project.
The JPB and the City acknowledge that it will be necessary to develop procedures to
ensure careful and continued cooperation between the Parties, including the following:
(1) procedures to promote cooperation during the desigt and construction process;
(2) procedures to avoid all urmecessary delays to either the contracting, desigrr or
construction process; and (3) procedures for inspecting the construction, relocation, and
replacement, as necessary, of city lmprovements.
The Parties recogrrize and agree that this Agreement may not reasonably anticipate all
aspects ofthe Project and changes thereto which may occur due to unforeseen
circumstances. Accordingty, the Parties acknowledge their respective obligations to act
reasonably and in good faith and to modiry the terms hereof when necessary to
accomplish their mutual goals.
SECTION I:AFFIRMATION OF ECITALS AND OPERATI\'E DATE
L.
M
N
The JPB and the City affirm that the above recitals are true and correct
SECTION 2:DEFINITIONS
The following definitions relate to such terms found in the entire Agreement, including, without
limitation, all Exhibits hereto.
A. "CiQr" means City of Burlingame, its officers, employees, agents, consultants and
contractors.
B "City Improvements" means City streets (including curbs, gutters and sidewalks),
traffic control devices, storm drains, sanitary sewers, water lines, hydrants,
electroliers, landscaping, irrigation systems, and all other public facilities and
appu(enances.
"Contract Documents' means the executed Desigr-Build Contract, Contract
Change Orders and additional documents incorporated by express reference into the
Contract.
2
C.
"JPB" means the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, its employees, agents,
consultants, and contractors.
"Project Improvements" means all structures, features and fixtures constructed or
installed for the Project, including all necessary changes to signal, fiber optic
facilities and appurtenances, relocation ofall utilities and pipelines ofany kind
within the Right-of-Way, grading, drainage, access roadways to the Right-of-Way,
preliminary and construction engineering, and any and/or all other work ofevery
kind and character necessary to build the Project.
"Project" means the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project described in the
FEIR, consisting of converting Caltrain from diesel-hauled to electrically-powered
trains for servici between the 46 and King Street Station in San Francisco and the
Tamien Station in San Jose.
SECTION 4:PROJECT FEATURES
The Project features set forth below are not intended to constitute a comprehensive list ofProject
features, but are described in this Agreement to provide a general description ofthe elements of
the Project. A comprehensive list ofProject features associated with the Project is set forth in the
FEIR.
The Project will install facility improvements, including overhead catenary wires,
support poles, traction power facilities, and other appurtenances necessary to convert
service from the existing diesel-locomotive driven trains to Electric Multiple Units
(EMUs). EMUs are self-propelled electric trains that do not have a seParate
locomotive. EMUs can accelerate and decelerate at faster rates than diesel-powered
trains, even with longer trains. With EMUs, Caltrain can run longer trains without
degrading speeds, thus increasing peak-period capacity. This will suPport operations
ofup to 6 Caltrain trains per peak hour per direction (an increase from 5 trains per
peak hour per direction at present). Electrification of the rail line is scheduled to be
operational by 202012021. The Project includes operating 114 trains per day
between San Jose and San Francisco and six trains per day between Gilroy and San
Jose.
The Project will include the installation of 130 to 140 single-track miles ofOverhead
Contact System (OCS) for the distribution ofelectrical power to the new electric
rolling stock. The OCS would be powered from a 25 kilovolt (kV), 60 Hertz (Hz),
single-phase, altemating current (AC) traction power system consisting of the
following Traction Power Facilities (T?F): two Traction Power Substations, one
F
3
B.
D.
E.
SECTION3: PURPOSEOFTHEAGREEMENT
The purpose ofthis Agreement is to memorialize the Parties' consultation and cooperation,
designate their respective rights and obligations, and ensure cooperation between the JPB and the
City in connection with the desigrr and construction ofthe Project.
A.
C.
Switching Station and seven Paralleling Stations. The OCS poles are typically about
180 to 200 feet apart. On curved sections, the span lengths between supports must
be reduced. The OCS poles are placed approximately 9 - 11 feet from the
centerline of the tracks. Associated with the OCS, an electric safety zone to adjacent
vegetation is oeeded. This electric safety zone distance is approximately l0 feet
from the face ofthe OCS pole.
Specific to the City , and based on preliminary desigr, the Project elements
anticipated within the City include:
(1) OCS poles. Installation of foundations, poles and appurtenances
(2)Stringing wire for OCS. Which will require temporary street closures when work
occurs at an existing at-grade crossing. Specificity about the closures will be
included in the Traffic Control Plan.
(3)Construction of TPF located within the Right-of-Way (ROW) at MP l5 and
adjacent to the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and California Drive. The location
of this TPF is shown in Exhibit A as "PS-3."
(4)Staging areas. The PCEP FEIR identified three potential staging areas for the DB
Contractols use. The locations ofthese staging areas are: (l) near the intersection
of Cambridge Dr. and Califomia Dr. (2) near the intenection of Carolyn Ave and
Cadillac Way to just south of Oak gtove Ave, and (3) near the intersection of
Bayswater Ave and Myrtle Rd. These locations are shown in Exhibit B. If
additional staging areas are needed, they will comply with applicable mitigation
measures and will be coordinated with the City.
SECTION 5:GENERAL COMMIT NIENTS
The JPB will avoid affecting any City knprovements to the extent feasible ln the
event a City Improvement requires modification and/or relocation, JPB shall be
responsible for the design and construction of the City knprovement. A
comprehensive list ofaffected City Improvements will be prepared by the JPB, and
will be provided to the City for review. The City agrees to cooperate with the JPB to
identify all City Improvements affected by the Project. Any replacement of City
Improvements will be of a similar kind and capacity to the existing facilities per
exiiting City codes and any applicable law, including any required environmental
review. If City desires to increase size or upgrade a City lmprovement beyond its
existing codes, it shall be responsible for any additional costs for that change. The
desigrr and location of any proposed replacement improvements must be approved
by the City before work on such improvements is begun. Such approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld.. The Parties will agree to a protocol for the review ofplans
and the inspection ofaffected City Improvements.
4
A.
B.
C
D
E
F
G
In order to minimize disruption to the Caltrain passenger service during project
construction as well as maximize protection of people and property, most of the
Project work will be performed outside ofthe weekday peak commute hours.
The JPB will provide the City with plan(s) addressing haul routes along city streets
and roadways, and any staging areas or property owned or controlled by the City for
City review and approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. JPB
will also collaborate with the City and provide documentation of existing conditions
by video and photographic record ofthe proposed and accepted haul routes for
comparison at the end ofthe project. The JPB shall be responsible for addressing
damages to City roadways to the City's satisfaction.
The JPB will cooperate with the City to reduce impacts of the Project on local
police, fire, and emergency services including providing adequate emergency
services access during street closures during construction
During construction of the Project, the JPB shall provide the City with a list ofJPB
personnel to be contacted in the event ofan emergency on the Project construction
site within the City. The JPB shall appoint an identifred individual staff member to
serve as a single point of contact to deal with non-emergency project-related issues
with the City.
During construction of the Project, the JPB will take responsibility for maintaining
the security of the JPB construction areas within the City in consultation with the
City's Police Deparhnent, as necessary.
For the duration of Project construction, the JPB shall assign a lead representative to
handle Project-related complaints from City residents, City officials, and/or staff.
The JPB shall provide written notice to the City and shall publicize the telephone
number and E-mail address of the lead representative. The JPB shall make an initial
response to all complaints within a reasonable period of time not to exceed 48 hours.
For urgent matters, the JPB will make initial contact immediately. Follow-up of
complaints will be completed within a reasonable time following initial contact with
the complainant. The JPB shall take all reasonable actions to ensure that its lead
representative is authorized to and does, in fact, ensure that corrective actions are
implemented within a reasonable period of time following the determination that
corrective actions are appropriate.
Construction Noticing. The JPB will provide weekly construction updates via social
media, the Caltrain website and by email. The JPB will provide a 60-day advance
notice for construction within the City. The JPB will provide an initial notice of
road and driveway closures 7 days in advance of the closure and the visual
notifications for closures will be posted 72 hours in advance.
Tree Trimming and Tree Removal. JPB will comply with any City tree replacement
requiranents for tree trimming or removal involving public or private property outside of
JPB property.
H
5
A
B.Encroachment Permits. JPB will submit to the City all information required in a
timely manner for adequate review and issuance of encroachment permits by the
City for construction of the Project. .
C.Noise monitoring. Separate from the FEI& the JPB will conduct post-installation
nighttime noise testing of PS-3 Option I and implement any necessary noise
abatement measures in order to reduce any impacts to a less than sigrrificant level.
SECTION 6: MITIGATION MEASURES
The JPB will require the Desigrr/Build Contractor to perform the work to implement the
mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Plan adopted by the
JPB on January 8, 2015, to include the following:
A.Mitigation Measure Aesthetics-2b: Aesthetic treatments for OCS poles and TPFs
in sensitive visual locations.
(l)The JPB shall coordinate with the City to obtain their input into OCS pole desigrt
relative to station aesthetics.
C
B
(2) Vegetative screening will be provided to visually buffer view ofthe traction
power facility in the City (Option I in the PCEP FEIR). Acceptable screening
that may be used includes: tree planting, fencing with creeping vines, landscape
buffer planting or vegetative wall fence. The JPB will maintain the Right-of-Way
screening on an on-going basis.
(3) The JPB will coordinate with the City on design selection ofoverbridge
protection barriers and fencing that would be viewed from highly used public
spaces and historical train stations.
Mitigation Measure Aesthetics-4a: Minimize spillover light during nighttime
construction adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The JPB will direct any artificial
lighting onto the worksite and away from adjacent residential areas at all times.
Mitigation Measure Biology-5: A Tree Avoidance, Minimization, and Replacement
Plan will be developed in consultation with a certified arborist and in consultation
with cities, counties, and affected property owners along the Project. A complete
field survey ofthe entire Project area will be completed to support the plan
development by preparing a tree inventory for all affected areas.
Mitigation Measure Traflic-lc: Implement Signal optimization and roadway
geometry improvements will be implemented at impacted intersections for the 2020
Project condition per FEIR. The impacted intersections for the City are:
( I ) Califomia/Broadway
6
D
SECTIONT: C ITY IMPROVEMENTS
A. Construction Standards: The JPB is d esigning and consructing the Project. The
design and constmction ofthe Project shall conform with JPB's adopted standards,
specifrcally JPB Standards Dated September 30', 201 I and the Designtsuild
Contract Documents. Any work required to repair or replace City Improvements
damaged or affected by the Project shall conform with the City's adopted codes. If
no City codes exist for such work, it shall be designed to applicable Caltrans codes,
or ifno Caltrans standards apply, it shall be designed to such standards as JPB shall
reasonably determine to apply, subject to review and approval by City. The JPB
shall first obtain approval from the City for any changes to the desip of work
related to the City Improvemants during constructiorL subject to the terms of this
agreement.
B. Desisr Review: The JPB will do a page-tum design review, or detailed walkthrough
of the Project elements within the City limits at the 650/o and Issued For Construction
design levels prior to official submittal of Issued for Construction plans for final
approval. All comments received will be addressed prior to official submittal of
Issued for Construction plans. Design review for Project elements within the JPB
fught-of-Way is for informational purposes only and is not for City approval. The
City shall review the design ofany required work that alters or replaces City
Improvements within 2l days of receipt of the official submittal of Issued For
Construction plans provided the submitted plans are complete and adequate. City
shall have discretion to approve or deny the submitted designs for work that alters or
replaces City Improvernents based on conforrnance with all applicable laws and
standards, although such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
The JPB will pay the City for its stafftime and/or consultant costs spent on review of
design documents, permits or inspections of City Improvements. The JPB shall pay
all applicable City permit or other fees with regard to the Project. The JPB shall
make an initial deposit of $ 34,000.00 to the City for desigrr review and inspection
costs. The JPB will pay the City's standard permit and processing fees, as applicable
to the Project. The method ofpayment is described below in Section 8. The City
will cooperate with the JPB in identifoing all City permits necessary for work to be
performed under this Agreement.
The City shall charge for stafftime and consultant services for reviewing and
approving the plans against the initial deposit submitted by JPB. The City shall
inform the JPB if additional funds are needed in order to pay for design review and
permits, and JPB shall provide additional funds as requested by the City. The City
shall retum any unused funds to the JPB at the successful completion ofthe project
Permits: Following approval of offrcial submittal of Issued For Construction plans,
the City will issue all necessary permits for work to be performed in the City in
accordance with the City's Municipal Code. Upon complete submittal of offrcially
7
C.
D
E
approved Construction plans by JPB, the City shall issue the encroachment permits
no later than twenty one (21) calendar days following the City's receipt ofsuch
permit submission.
Coordination: During construction of the Project, the City shall provide the JPB with
a list of City persomel to be contacted in the event ofan emergency on the Project
construction site within the City.
Oblieations: The Parties shall agree in writing with regard to any new or
replacement City lmprovements that will be the obligation of JPB to construct.
Unless specifically authorized in writing, JPB shall not be required to replace any
City knprovement with facilities ofgreater capacity, durability or efliciency than the
one replaced, unless such replacement is required by the Project. Upon acceptance
of any Project work related to City Improvements, City will have the responsibility
for any maintenance, repairs, alterations or future upgrades or replacements ofsuch
City Improvements.
SECTION 8:]\IETH OD OF PAYMENT TO THE CITY
The JPB shall make an initial deposit of $34,000.00 to the City for costs incurred by the
City for desigr review and inspection costs for the Project as described in Section 7
above. The JPB will pay the City's standard permit and processing fees, as applicable to
the Project. The City shall notifu the JPB when 75% of the initial deposit has been spent,
at which time the JPB and the City shall review the spent and remaining budget to
determine any additional needs beyond the initial deposit. Any change to the deposit
amount shall be agreed upon by the JPB and the City.
The City shall submit invoices no more than monthly for the permit fees and
associated design review and inspection time of City Improvements.
Invoices will have the detail ofthe services provided, distinguishing staffand
supporting consultant time from permit costs. Back-up timesheets for staff and
supporting consultant time will be included in the invoice subminal. Invoices shall
be sent to the following contact and address:
Attn: Accounts Payable
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
1250 San Carlos Avenue
San Carlos, CA 94070
A.
B.
8
The payment of invoices will be contingent on the successful completion permit
issuance within the timelines outlined above, provided that JPB has submitted
approved and complete designs as described above. JPB shall be obligated to
reimburse City costs as elsewhere provided in this agreement ifdelays beyond the
timelines described above are occasioned by JPB's failure to submit timely and
complete plans or other information as required.
SECTION9: TRAFFICMAINTENANCEANDDETOURS
The JPB will assume full responsibility for maintaining in service, or causing to be maintained in
service, all traffic detours during JPB construction ofthe Project in a manner reasonably
satisfactory to the City, subject to and consistent with all applicable California Department of
Transportation requirements. All traffrc control, lane closure, and detour plans shall be
submiued to the City for approval prior to commencement of any phase of construction requiring
either traffic control or detour(s), which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The traffic
control, lane closure, and detour plans shall speciS the length of time that portions of City streets
will likely be closed.
A.Although certain City streets will, ofnecessity, be partially closed for some period
during construction ofthe Project, the JPB will, to the greatest extent practicable,
maintain in service, or cause to be maintained in service, all City streets and related
City Improvernents within the limits of the Project area in a manner reasonably
satisfactory to the City. Access for emergency services will be maintained through
either flagging or alternate routes approved by the City. At a minimum, two-way
service will be maintained on all City streets affected by the Project, unless
otherwise agreed to by the JPB and the City.
In its Contract Documents, the JPB will require its contractor(s) to submit traffic
plans showing haul routes, temporary closures, and the method of traflic
maintenance and staging to the City for approval, which approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld. The City shall approve or disapprove the plans no later than
twenty-one(21) calendar days following the City's receipt of complete and accurate
plans.
C In its Contract Documents, the JPB will, prior to the tempomry closure to traffic of
all or part ofany street, sidewalk, or other public access, require that its contractor(s)
provide at least fourteen (14) calendar days' notice ofsuch closure to the City.
Deviation fiom this fourteen (14) calendar day requirement may be permitted in
bona fide emergency situations as determined by the JPB and the City.
D At least seventy two (72) hours prior to the temporary closure to traffic of all or part
of any street, sidewalk, or other public access, the JPB will post notice of such
closure. Such notice of any road closure shall include, at minimum, use of an
electronic sigrr. The JPB will also provide closure-information fliers to residents,
schools, and businesses within a three hundred (300) foot radius ofany such closure.
B
9
C.
A.City's Indemnity.
(1) City shall fully release, indemnifu, hold harmless and defend the JPB, as well as
the San Mateo County Transit District, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority, the City and County of San Francisco, Transit America Services, Inc.
or any successor Operator ofthe Service, the Union Pacific Railroad Company,
and/or their respective officers, directors, employees, contractors and agents
(collectively, "JPB Indemnitees") from and against all liability, claims, suits,
sanctions, costs or expenses for injuries to or death ofany person (including, but
not limited to, the passengers, employees and contractors of City and JPB), and
damage to or loss of property arising out ofor resulting from any act or omission
by City, its agents, employees, contractors or subcontractors in the performance of
its obligations under this Agreement, with the exception that this indemnity
provision does not apply to any liability, claims, suits, sanctions, costs, or
expenses for injuries to or death of any person, and damage to or loss ofproperty
arising out ofor resulting from the City's approval ofplans or designs submitted
by JPB, its contractor, or alEliates in connection with the Project.
(2) City's obligation to defend shall include the payment ofall reasonable attomey's
fees and all other costs and expenses ofsuit, and ifanyjudgment is rendered
against any JPB Indemnitee, City shall, at its expense, satisfu and discharge the
same, so long as said claim has been timely tendered to the City without prejudice
to City's rights and/or abilities to undertake a defense ofsaid claim.
B JPB's Indemnity.
(l) JPB shall fully release, indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City and its
respective offrcers, directors, employees, contractors and agents (collectively,
"City Indemnitees") from and against all liability, claims, suits, sanctions, costs or
expenses for injuries to or death of any person (including, but not limited to,
l0
SECTION l0: EROSIONCONTROLPLAN
The JPB shall provide an erosion control plan to retain sediments on site in accordance with the
JPB'S Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program and Contract Documents. All stockpiled
earthwork shall be protected from wind and water erosion. Dust control shall be undertaken in
accordance with the JPB Contract Documents and shall provide for dust, erosion and pollution
control seven days a week,24 hours a day for the duration ofconstruction activities
SECTION 1I: DESIGNATED AGENT OF THE PARTIES
The City contact person for all matters related to this Agreement will be the City Manager or his
or her designee. The JPB's contact person for all matters related to this Agreement will be the
Lin Guan (650-508-7976; guanz@samtrans.com) or his designee.
SECTION I2: INDEMNIFICATION
Severability. It is the intention ofthe Parties that should any term of this indemnity
provision be found to be void or unenforceable; the rernainder ofthe provision shall
remain in full force and effect.
Survival. This indemnification shall survive termination or exptation ofthis
Agreement.
SECTI INSURAN
The JPB shalt include in its Contract Documents a requirement that the City be named an
additional insured on all policies of insurance required of its contractors. JPB and its
contractor(s) shall comply with the City's insurance requirements for encroachment permits.
SECTION 14:RESOLUTION OF DIS PUTf,S
B.
A.Prior to commencement of any formal litigation arising out of this Agreement, the
Parties shall submit the matters in controversy to a neutral mediator jointly selected
by the Parties. The costs of said mediator shall be borne evenly by the Parties
involved in said dispute. To the extent the disputes remain outstanding following
completion of mediation, any claim, controversy, action or proceeding arising out of
or relating to this Agreement or to any document, instrument or exhibit executed
pursuant to this Agreement shall be tried by a judge pro tem. Said judge is to be
selected by counsel for the Parties from a list ofretiredjudges fumished by the
presiding judge of the County of San Mateo. If counsel are unable to select a judge
pro tem saidjudge will be selected by the presidingjudge from the list provided.
Each Party shall pay its pro rata share of the fee for the judge pro tem. Each Party
shall bear its own fees and expenses in such proceedings and the prevailing Party
shall not be entitled to reimbursement fiom the losing Party for any such fees or
expenses.
The judge pro tem shall have the authority to try and decide any or all ofthe issues
in the ctaim, controversy, action or proceeding, whether of fact or of law, and to
report a statement of decision thereon. In any proceedings before the judge pro tem,
tlle issues are to be determined under the statutory and decisional law ofthe State of
C
t1
C.
D.
passengers, employees and contractors of City and JPB) and damage to or loss of
property arising out ofor resulting from any act or omission by the JPB, its
agents, employees, contractors or subcontractors in performance of its obligations
under this Agreernent.
(2) JPB's obligation to defend shall include the payment ofall reasonable attomey's
fees and all other costs and expenses ofsuit, and ifanyjudgment is rendered
against City Indemnitee's or any one of them, JPB shall, at its expense, satisfy
and discharge the same, so long as said claim has been timely tendered to the JPB
without prejudice to JPB's rights and,/or abilities to undertake a defense ofsaid
claim.
Califomia. All local and Califomia Rules of Court shall be applicable to any
proceeding before the judge pro tem. All proceedings shall be conducted on
consecutive dates without postponement or adjoumments, except as granted by the
judge pro tem.
All notices required hereunder may be given by personal delivery, US Mail, or courier service
(e.g. federal express) transmission. Notices shall be effective upon receipt at the following
addresses.
PCJPB: Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
1250 San Carlos Avenue
San Carlos, CA 94070
Attn: Executive Director
City: City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
Attn: Lisa K. Goldman
SECTION l6: PARTIES NOT CO-VENT URERS
Nothing in this Agreement is intended to nor does it establish the Parties as partners, co-
ventures or principal and agent with one another.
SECTION I7:FURTHER ASSURANCES. TIME PER]O S AND RECORDS
A.Each Party shall execute and deliver to the other all such additional instnrments or
documents as may be necessary to carry out this Agreement or to assufe and secure
to the other Party the full and complete enjoyment of its rights and privileges under
this Agreement, subject to appropriate approvals of each Party's goveming body.
Should unforeseen circumstances occur, the JPB and the City shall negotiate in good
faith to reach agreement on any amendment(s) that may be necessary to fully
effectuate the Parties' respective intentions in entering into this Agreement-
Pursuant to Califomia Covemment Code Section 8546.7, the Parties shall be subject
to the examination and audit ofthe State Auditor, at the request ofthe JPB or as part
of any audit of the JPB by the State Auditot for a period of three (3) years after
final payment under this Agreement. The examination and audit shall be confined to
those matters connected with the performance of this Agreement including, but not
limited to, the cost of administering the Agreement.
B
C
t2
SECTION l5: NOTICES
No director, member, official, employee or agent of the City or the JPB shall be personally liable
to any Party to this Agreement or any successor in interest in the event ofany default or breach
of this Agreement or for any amount which may become due on any obligation under the terms
of this Agreement.
SECTION 19: HEA-DING AN D TITLES
Any titles ofthe Sections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only, and
shall be disregard in construing or interpreting any part of its provisions.
SECTION 20: APPLICABLE LA\\'
This Agreement shall be interpreted under and pursuant to the laws ofthe State of Califomia
The Parties agree that the jurisdiction and venue of any dispute between the Parties to this
Agreement shall be the Superior Court of San Mateo County.
SECTION2l: SE\.ERABILITY
Ifany term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement is held by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder ofthe provisions shall continue in
full force and effect unless the rights and obligations ofthe Parties have been materially altered
or abridged by such invalidation, voiding or unenforceability.
SECTION 22: BIND ING UPON SUCCESSORS
This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit ofthe transferees, successors and
assigns ofeach ofthe Parties to it, except that there shall be no transfer ofany interest by any of
the Parties to this Agteement except pursuant to the terms ofthe Agreement.
SECTION 23 : REN{EDIES NOT EXCLUSIVE
No right or remedy conferred upon or reserved to the JPB or the City under this Agreement is
intended to be exclusive ofany other right or remedy, except as expressly stated in this
Agreement, and each and every right and rernedy shall be cumulative and in addition to any
other right or remedy given under this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity
or by statute, except such rights or remedies as are expressly limited in this Agreement.
SECTION 24:FORCE MAJEURE
In addition to specific provisions of this Agreement, performance by either Party shall not be
deemed to be in default where delays or defaults are due to war, insurrection, strikes, lockouts,
riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, quarantine restrictions, casualties, acts ofGod, acts ofthe public
enemy, epidemic, govemment restrictions on priorities, freight embargoes, shortage oflabor or
t3
SECTION 18: NON-LIABILITY OF OFFICIALS. EMPLOYEES AND
AGENTS
materials, unusually inclement weather, lack of transportation, court order, or any other similar
causes beyond the control or without the fault of the Party claiming an extension of time to
perform. An extension of time for any cause will be deemed granted if notice by the Party
claiming such extension is sent to the other Party within thirty (30) days from the
commencement ofthe cause and such extension is not rejected in writing by the other Party
within thirty (30) days of receipt of the notice. Time of performance under this Agreement may
also be extended by mutual written agreement, signed by both Parties.
SECTION 25: INTEG RATION
This Agreement represents the full, complete and entire agreement of the Parties with respect to
the subject matter hereof, and supersedes any and all other communications, representations,
proposals, understandings or agreements, whether written or oral, between the Parties hereto
with respect to such subject matter. This Agreement may not be modified or amended, in whole
or in part, except by a writing signed by an authorized officer or representative ofeach ofthe
Parties hereto.
SECTION 26:COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each ofwhich shall be deemed an original but
all of which together shall constitute a single Agreement.
SECTION 27: AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may be amended only in a writing that is executed by the Parties hereto.
SECTION28: THIRDPARTY RIGHTS
Nothing herein shall be considered as creating any rights and/or obligations by any ofthe Parties
to this Agreement to any third parties. Specifically, none of the duties to inspect or maintain
shall in any way be construed as creating or expanding any additional obligations to any third
Party beyond those required and established under the applicable statues, regulations, ordinances
or law.
SECTIO SUCCESSO
This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit ofthe respective successors
and assigns ofthe Parties hereto.
SECTION 3 0: BONDING
JPB will require the desigdbuild contractor for this Project to provide performance and payment
bonds in th; full amount of the contract and will require a two-year warranty period. The bond
shall be maintained in full force and effect during the entire period that work is performed by the
contractor until such work is accepted by JPB. With respect to work related to City
t4
Improvements, the JPB shall not accept the work related to such facilities for purposes of this
section until it has reviewed the matter with the City.
This Agreement is made and entered into as ofthe date set forth above.
PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS CITY OF BURLINGAME
BOARD
By:
Jim Hartnett
General Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JPB Attomey
Lisa K. Goldman
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City of Burlingame City Attomey
l5
EXHIBIT A
zo
F(-)
leF
zoo
Eo
Foz
6
5
,
5
de
2
:'
k
h
ID
Bt'
I
ra
oI
o
t1
E
e
.,d
o
It
il
l,
il
I
E
I'i
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
l
--:l
s
7
e
$
E
7
Fl{,+.{=o
-O FlEo>< ollrJ(oo-
3
I
n
i !
3I
I
I
it iE
a
6
e
E
3
=
sE=4
s(,o-6N
eEHib
EFRiH
HEEE
!
i
E
!
i
I {
a
!r
Ii
!r
o
G
CI
t!i
p
l;ir
I
t:
3i
!
I
t
,
a
d
a
3
8
a
ti
I
a
)
i.
iri
I
/
8r
lr
il
ii
i,
I
/
n
l
, ,..
-,,:
II
EXHIBTT B
I
I
I
I
lH9rU :t OsV 33S
i
-lt
E
d
e:].
3
I
H
I
ts
,/
I
IFIsl5
tBt<;5
F
l9t:zof
U)
ot!aoIouI
I
-i
$
I
a
T
S.llTt it\o't38
o
.;
hIE-T-
3t 9
sl g
it l,
P II^
3lESsE*
E IeEE4;
E lHu 'a
;H
=<
E
€lr
Ei!
I
II
li ll
6
.L
3
I
!
!
TE
Bn EI
EE Ef;
EE f,g
5r tEr
iE A:Hbif o'6
c,oq 33 !qE8 5bhtrll
ilil
IE-. 6-tl l rl
Et c 5ig;l! l
rtt!ltiiil
E=EEi
P8:XE8aA9izA
H5r
91,
Ei6
6, e-
Eeca
XZES
I
rl
.l
IT
:
L-
J
I
:-i4*
-,.i.a
:i
l4Y
b,--
a
l|L
,
l
I
I
I
I
rif
TI
I
II
I
i
1
r
l
I
I
I
I
&
)
I
frw
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t'
a
I
cnco 'Fy.O
-orl
=<uxb/LU(Ilo-
-
,lI
_-l
.:l
!
,
c
h
90 dll C,! 0 tls
a
L
LlTl ,xO'138 f3SF--15_------B._ic!..=
E-
-rry
lS&, _
t
I
I
+i
E
3
til
dl
:
aj
;
9
I
2
I
t
?
T:
a,
E
01
f,1
:Tit)
il
*,=e
ilr*
tafo.
'-.?
Z
F,*t-g 'l.Jl*It
st=-eA -{t
,
I
*
I
=J;-*
t.
i
1
L
9
3
6e -'Slsit
EEE4r
Hb .il
U;
t
rrtsf
r, ;ilF
!-a
E-ffi:.
E
I
tr#
3r5'-
,
i i"
:iKi5
II
?rDII!
rrl
T
,cI
s
eiIra,lHat
(r--i
IIa
ll
=
a
l0t'l
rI
dot
T
II
I
CIRME[ITA AVE
_-t*.
.El-r.Iir;il-ki
6i
-dr--.---,itI
t-t
ta I
ffi
I
!
=l
-
I
E
I
t,;i'q
.9-;t--
I
:l,aI
hr-i
tr;
...1
i-'.
-4.' -:
E
G
T Ff
f\\
..:tt.-.
a
I I
: i.---
I
w '.t
F:"rrlE
E#-, :iir
a
- _rv,novola- -
I
E
5:!I
H
-
E
aI
'!oo*
o.-rnri?v6le3-tt
i
asE
LrJ()
doF
6z.
F
o'z'6
a
o!J
oo--oEd
-:l
ttJ
rttl:
I
r=+G_
i
-
9
fItfl!
a
a,
,
I
.f
--rit
-rI I
?t,F::r'l,l-r r'diilL=l .-;;r
GErf,f
-J-,i
F.*jF'6
.c
$'
*
!r
.N0101I IT
a
E
:--' <*-: 'I
lHe tu 3 O8V lls
a
I
]S
5
E
J.r
rnco 'lf_o-O c\
=<ux o/IIJ (o
o-
ti
'!r
IT
c
E
.*fEr
HIE
a6E;lIi
EI::
[!lE
I
a-q
g, gE
al B{
$H$El
ir:Eshir 6'5
q;$;IHtrtt
ilil
E, q i,tt > oE
E; f; 558;!! r
Eiiil
r lE;E:iIt
Af,; TEE
FTB 13P
ilii
I
B
E
HE
l>
lll'l A\o'138 llsY_E:_-7FE:_ .G_' ! ____=:_ _=<_
I
I
W,rror,
a
II
€
I;a .^;i- iYi iI
a
I
{t"f#i S:r I
tsr=l
,
3,.I
6
6e -'ka* ?b
isEa*56051+
Hu 'a
ui
39
6
I
1
=
\r;} ';
<.(
S,v?oI
t
!
a
P
3
is'h?s,
=-?
ITf1,8;
:u
6
' aQ.
r$
T I
.
r?
@
(L
;o
F
L!
=oz
=El(D
T
tI
oeE-;::frt
aF_IT G(la
I!!,
'-"1
43,_Y'{a
ilf.a ,,o
s
i
I
,:I,'!FIE}E
ffiI>\
F"8
,!oS,S,.:t-.
trri;
er,t+.
!t
IT
tr
-
t^
l=-t * - g.;I I
a.Ji
()S
=Eo<
@O
o#
t/)YoIho-ooEZrL<
f,I:',;
.:B*I
I
I \,
T
;ir-rl3^t3t(
,?r
ei
AlE
=I
A\S::.--.1 #
8ad\
I
g,_$ffi
IHC|U fAOSV fls9l dn 9it 0 3fS
I
i9
;I
(Y')
CO .+.eO-o roE<uxU,LU fOo-
T]
L]
a
B- Eg
al e{
HEEE
S
6- Etl !
aE dzt
"
6p tic
EE;IE.*ttti:l||ilil
2
e- s E-l3: 5E
E5;58$:r tr
3t ttEi il
E EE
"E.
E. EPE
F P; &BP
!it
3
Eic
HlEq
eEic
Sesi
EisB
I
h
!]
I
!
I
STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8f
MEETING DATE: May 2,2016
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May2,2016
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works - (650) 558-7230
Subject:Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Professional Services Agreement
with Alta Planning + Design for Engineering Design Services Related to the
California Drive Bicycle Facility Feasibility Study Project, and Authorizing
the City Manager to Execute the Agreement
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving a professional
services agreement with Alta Planning + Design, in the amount of $150,000 for engineering
design services related to the California Drive Bicycle Facility Feasibility Study Project, City
P@ect No. 84310; and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement.
California Drive is a major north-south arterial in Burlingame. lt connects Burlingame with
Millbrae to the north, and San Mateo to the south. ll varies in width from approximately 34 feet to
over 60 feet wide, and in the number of lanes, varying between two and four lanes.
With the increase in traffic and bicyclists using California Drive, specifically north of Broadway,
the bicycling community has raised concerns about safety. The City has installed various safety
improvements, including driver feedback signs, bicycle signage, as well as shared-lane markings
in both directions (shanows). Although these improvements have made a positive impact,
members of the bicycling community continue to be concerned about the safety of bicyclists. ln
order to address these concerns, the City Council has expressed interest in exploring viable
options to provide a more improved and safer bicycle facility along the corridor, particularly north
of Broadway.
The City Council approved funding to conduct a feasibility study as part of the FY 2015-16 Capital
lmprovement Program. The study will determine the feasibility of building a Class I Bicycle
Facility along the railroad tracks. lf a Class I Bicycle Facility is not a feasible option, the study will
explore options of building a Class ll Bicycle Facility.
Staff issued a Request For Proposals (RFP) for professional engineering services and received
two proposals from qualified firms. After careful evaluation and interviews, staff selected Alta
1
RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
Califomia Dive Bicycle Facility Feasibility Study May 2, 2016
Planning + Design as the most qualified firm based on their understanding of the overall project,
project needs, a well-defined scope of work, and quality of proposal. Staff has negotiated the
following scope of services with Alta Planning + Design:
Project Management - Develop and maintain critical path project schedule; attend
meetings with City staff to review design at 35% and 60% plans; and provide quality
control monitoring process for contract deliverables.
Data Gathering - Conduct pre-design investigations, field analyses including surveying,
obtaining as-builts, utility mapping, and preparation of base map.
Traffic Engineering - Collect vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian volume counts, and
accidenUcollision history analysis for the preparation of a traffic analysis study.
Conceptual Design - Create up to three conceptual plans of roadway and intersection
modifications along California Drive for public outreach meetings. Plans should include
proposed cross-sections layout and striping and identify areas for stormwater best
management practices and landscaping.
Public Outreach - Conduct three community outreach meetings to gather input, obtain
support for design concepts, and help select a preliminary design; hold additional
meetings with individual stakeholders, and make presentations to the City Council. A
project website will be created for project updates and other relevant material.
Final Product - Prepare 35Yo and 60% design plans, specifications, and cost estimates
FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated consultant fee for completing the Feasibility Study is approximately $150,000.
Additionally, staff estimates approximately $35,000 in contingencies, project management and
administration costs. The City Council has allocated $200,000 as part of the FY 2015-16 Capital
lmprovement Program for this project, which would be sufficient. Any savings from this project
phase will be available toward future work in implementing the selected alternative.
Exhibits:
o Resolution
. Professional Services Agreement (including Exhibit A: Scope of Services)
. Project Location Map
2
RESOLUTTON NO._
CITY PROJECT NO. 84310
RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California and this
Council does hereby FIND, ORDER and DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
The public interest and convenience require execution of the agreement cited in
the title above.
3. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and instructed to attest such signature.
Mayor
l, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council
held on the 2ND day of Mav, 2016 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS
City Clerk
1
2
A RESOLUT]ON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN FOR THE
CALIFORNIA DRIVE BICYCLE FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY PROJECT, AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
The City Manager be, and is hereby, authorized to sign said agreement for and
on behalf of the City of Burlingame.
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
WITH ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
FOR CALIFORNIA DRIVE BICYCLE FACILITY
CITY PROJECT NO. 84540
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of
2016, by and between the Citv of Burlinqame, State of California, herein called the "City",
and ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN engaged in providing PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING DESIGN services herein called the "Consultant".
RECITALS
The City is considering cond ucting/undertaking activities for the consultant
planning and engineering design services for California Drive Bicycle Facility.
The Consultant represents and affirms that it is qualified and willing to perform the
desired work pursuant to this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1 Scope of Services. The Consultant shall provide professional planning and
engineering design services related bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects,
and as detailed in "Scope of Work" of the attached Exhibit A of this agreement.
2. Time of Performance. The services of the Consultant are to commence u pon the
execution of this Agreement with completion of all work as set forth in Exhibit A.
3. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant shall com ply with all applicable laws,
codes, ordinances, and regulations of goveming federal, state and local laws.
Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits,
qualifications and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required for
Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant represents and warrants to City
Page 1 of 8
The City desires to engage a professional engineering consultant to provide
planning, public outreach, and engineering design services because of
Consultant's experience and qualifications to perform the desired work, described
in Exhibit A.
AGREEMENTS
A.
B.
4. Sole Resoonsibilitv. Consultant shall be res ponsible for employing or engaging
all persons necessary to perform the services under this Agreement.
5. lnformation ort Handlinq . All documents furnished to Consultant by the City
and all reports and supportive data prepared by the Consultant under this
Agreement are the City's property and shall be delivered to the City upon the
completion of Consultant's services or at the City's written request. All reports,
information, data, and exhibits prepared or assembled by Consultant in connection
with the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement are confidential
until released by the City to the public, and the Consultant shall not make any of
these documents or information available to any individual or organization not
employed by the Consultant or the City without the written consent of the City
before such release. The City acknowledges that the reports to be prepared by
the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are for the purpose of evaluating a
defined project, and City's use of lhe information contained in the reports prepared
by the Consultant in connection with other projects shall be solely at City's risk,
unless Consultant expressly consents to such use in writing. City further agrees
that it will not appropriate any methodology or technique of Consultant which is
and has been confirmed in writing by Consultant to be a trade secret of Consultant.
6. Compensation. Compensation for Consultant's professional services shall not
exceed
task.
150 000.00 and payment shall be based upon City approval of each
7
Billing shall include cunent period and cumulative expenditures to date and shall
be accompanied by a detailed explanation of the work performed by whom at what
rate and on what date. Also, plans, specifications, documents or other pertinent
materials shall be submitted for City review, even if only in partial or draft form.
Page 2 of 8
that Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all
times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals
which are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant
shall maintain a City of Burlingame business license.
Availabilifu of Records. Consultant shall maintain the records supporting this
billing for not less than three (3) years following completion of the work under this
Agreement. Consultant shall make these records available to authorized
personnel of the City at the Consultant's offices during business hours upon written
request of the City.
8
o
Proiect Manaqer. The Project Manager for the Consultant for the work under this
Agreement shall be_Ms. Jennifer Donlon Wyant, Principal.
10.Notices. Any notice required to be given shall be deemed to be duly and properly
given if mailed postage prepaid, and addressed to:
To City:Andrew Wong, Transportation Engineer
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
To Consultant:Ms. Jennifer Donlon Wyant, Principal
Alta Planning + Design
131 L Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
or personally delivered to Consultant to such address or such other address as
Consultant designates in writing to City.
11. lndeoenden t Contractor . lt is understood that the Consultant, in the performance
of the work and services agreed to be performed, shall act as and be an
independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the City. As an
independent contractor he/she shall not obtain any rights to retirement benefits or
other benefits which accrue to City employee(s). With prior written consent, the
Consultant may perform some obligations under this Agreement by
subcontracting, but may not delegate ultimate responsibility for performance or
assign or transfer interests under this Agreement.
Consultant agrees to testify in any litigation brought regarding the subject of the
work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall be compensated
for its costs and expenses in preparing for, traveling to, and testifying in such
matters at its then current hourly rates of compensation, unless such litigation is
brought by Consultant or is based on allegations of Consultant's negligent
performance or wrongdoing.
Page 3 of 8
Assionabilitv and Subcontractinq. The services to be performed under this
Agreement are unique and personal to the Consultant. No portion of these
services shall be assigned or subcontracted without the written consent of the City.
12.Conflict of lnterest. Consultant understands that its professional responsibilities
is solely to the City. The Consultant has and shall not obtain any holding or
interest within the City of Burlingame. Consultant has no business holdings or
agreements with any individual member of the Staff or management of the City or
its representatives nor shall it enter into any such holdings or agreements. ln
addition, Consultant warrants that it does not presently and shall not acquire any
direct or indirect interest adverse to those of the City in the subject of this
Agreement, and it shall immediately disassociate itself from such an inlerest
should it discover it has done so and shall, at the City's sole discretion, divest itself
of such interest. Consultant shall not knowingly and shall take reasonable steps
to ensure that it does not employ a person having such an interest in this
performance of this Agreement. lf after employment of a person, Consultant
discovers it has employed a person with a direct or indirect interest that would
conflict with its performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall promptly notify
City of this employment relationship, and shall, at the City's sole discretion, sever
any such employment relationship.
A. Minimum Scope of lnsurance:
Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the
contract, General Liability insurance policies insuring him/her and
his/her firm to an amount not less than: One million dollars
($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence and two million
dollars ($2,000,000) aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury and
property damage in a form at least as broad as ISO Occurrence
Form CG 0001.
[.Consultant agrees to have and maintain for the duration of the
contract, an Automobile Liability insurance policy ensuring him/her
Page 4 oI 8
13. Eoual Emolovment Ooportunitv. Consultant warrants that it is an equal
opportunity employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal
employment opportunity. Neither Consultant nor its subcontractors do and
neither shall discriminate against persons employed or seeking employment with
them on the basis of age, sex, color, race, marital status, sexual orientation,
ancestry, physical or mental disability, national origin, religion, or medical
condition, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the
California Fair Employment & Housing Act.
14. lnsurance.
i.
and his/her staff to an amount not less than one million dollars
($1,000,000) combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and
property damage.
Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the
contract, professional liability insurance in amounts not less than two
million dollars ($2,000,000) each claim/aggregate sufficient to insure
Consultant for professional errors or omissions in the performance of
the particular scope of work under this agreement.
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and
approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer
shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions
as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers;
or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of
losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense
expenses.
B. General and Automobile Liability Policies:
The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be
covered as insured as respects: liability arising out of activities
performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and mmpleted
operations of Consultant, premises owned or used by the
Consultant. The endorsement providing this additional insured
coverage shall be equal to or broaderthan ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85
and must cover joint negligence, completed operations, and the acts
of subcontractors. This requirement does not apply to the
professional liability insurance required for professional errors and
omissions.
The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be endorsed to be
primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials,
employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurances
maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers
shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not
conkibute with it.
t.
.
Page 5 of 8
t.
iii
The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect
to the limits of the insureds liability.
ln addition to these policies, Consultant shall have and maintain Workers'
Compensation insurance as required by California law. Further,
Consultant shall ensure that all subcontractors employed by Consultant
provide the required Workers' Compensation insurance for their respective
employees.
All Coverages: Each insurance policy required in this item shall be
endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled except after thirty
(30) days' prior written notice by mail, has been given to the City (10 days
for non-paynent of premium). Cunent certification of such insurance shall
be kept on file at all times during the term of this agreement with the City
Clerk.
Acceptability of lnsurers: lnsurance is to be placed with insurers with a
Best's rating of no less than A-:Vll and authorized to do business in the
State of California.
Verification of Coverage: Upon execution of this Agreement, Contractor
shall fumish the City with certificates of insurance and with original
endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The certificates
and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person
authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates
and endorsements are to be on forms approved by the City. All certificates
and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before any
work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete,
certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.
15. lndemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, (including without
limitation, California Civil Code sections 2782 and 2782.6), Consultant shall save,
keep and hold harmless indemnify and defend the City, its officers, employees,
authorized agents and volunteers from all damages, liabilities, penalties, costs, or
expenses in law or equity, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, that may at
IV
C
D
E
F
Page 6 of 8
Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall
not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, ofiicials,
employees or volunteers.
any time arise, result from, relate to, or be set up because of damages to property
or personal injury received by reason of, or in the course of performing work which
arise out of, pertain to, or relate to, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, the
negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant, or any of the
Consultant's officers, employees, or agents or any subconsultant. This provision
shall not apply if the damage or injury is caused by the sole negligence, active
negligence, or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, agents, employees, or
volunteers.
'16.Waiver. No failure on the part of either party to exercise any right or remedy
hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may
have hereunder, nor does waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement
constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other
provision of this Agreement.
17. Governinq Law. This Agreement, regardless of where executed, shall be
govemed by and construed under the laws of the State of California. Venue for
any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of the County of
San Mateo.
18.Termination of Aqreement. The City and the Consultant shall have the right to
terminate this agreement with or without cause by giving not less than fifteen (15)
days written notice of termination. ln the event of termination, the Consultant
shall deliver to the City all plans, files, documents, reports, performed to date by
the Consultant. ln the event of such termination, City shall pay Consultant an
amount that bears the same ratio to the maximum contract price as the work
delivered to the City bears to completed services contemplated under this
Agreement, unless such termination is made for cause, in which event,
compensation, if any, shall be adjusted in light of the particular facts and
circumstances involved in such termination.
19. Amendment. No modification , waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this
Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the
Consultant.
20.Disoutes. ln any dispute over any aspect of this Agreement, the prevailing party
shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, as well as costs not to exceed
$7,500 in total.
Page 7 of 8
21 . Entire Aqreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive
statement of the Agreement between the City and Consultant. No terms,
conditions, understandings or agreements purporting to modify or vary this
Agreement, unless hereafter made in writing and signed by the party to be bound,
shall be binding on either party.
lN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Consultant have executed this Agreement
as of the date indicated on page one (1).
City of Burlingame "Consultant"
nMlx/BY
Lisa. K. Goldman
City Manager
Approved as to form:
City Attorney - Kathleen Kane
ATTEST:
City Clerk - Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
A6 eYanriing%besign
PrintName:S6<tl licr,,.Cor
Title: Principal
c
I
Page 8 of 8
EXHIEIT A
Professional Engineering Design Services for California
Drive Bike Facility
Work Plan
r\lu Planning + Design (Alta) unde$tands that thc Gty of Burlingome (City) is looking for assistance to
produce community-supported preliminary plans and dcsign documens to improve bicyde, pedestrian
end vehicular access along Califomie Drive, from lvlurchison Drive (northern Ciry limi$ to south of
Broaduray. This 1.4 miie scction of Califiomia Drive is an imponant connectioo for the City bicyclc
nctwork and thc San lvlatco County North-South Bikc Route.
The follorving approach is based on our understanding of the needs of the Gty, and our expericnce rvirh
similar projccs and national best practices. \Ye are flexible in our approach and look foruzrd to refining
this based upon your feedbecl<.
Task 1. Project Management and Administration
TASK 1 .1 , PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Alta will provide experienced proiect management so thet this proiect can be implemcnted with
comrnunity suppon and in a timely manner. Produciog a highnudiry pmjcct that meets end e\ceeds thc
Gty's nccds and schedule critcria rcquires an uoderstandiag of the issues and concems of the City,
ncighborhood associations, advocatcs, and othcr stakeholdcrs. Effcctive project management requires
communicatioo skills that facilitatc a common expcctatioo of thc projcct outcomc. Effcctivc project
leadership requires reachiag corxiensus on a shared vision for thc proiect to facilitatc broad comrnunity
suPPort.
Tfuoughout the planning aod design process, Alta's Projcct lvlanager Bryan Jones rvill provide regula.r
conact with City's Project N'Iaaager and othcr saff. Communicadon will indude facc-to-face mcctings,
c-mails, telephonc calls, and writterr documcnts. All dcsign drarving!, mernoraoda, mapping and
delivcrables will be submiaed and distibuted in electronic fornat whene!'er possiblc in an effort to
promotc sustainabiliry goals throughout the Ptoicct. 'fhis task iodudes managing and updating the
prolect schcdule.
Activities planned within Task 1 . 1 iodudc:
o An in pcrson proiect kich-off meeting to disclss thc proiect objcctives
o Nlonthly meetings by phone aad up to three in-pcson meetings witlr Citv staff to ideotity key issues
and concems about dte corridor and the functiooality ofthe proposed improvements
o 'Ihrec in petson meetings to rwiew kcy delivcrablcs, including ptdminary design,35% plans, and
6flo plans
. Tour of pmposed ptoiect area
TASK 1.2. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
Ala will consolidate the iovoices of the proicct team ioto one invoice that vill be submitted montlrly ro
the City. Alu vill prcpare and submit invoiccs as oudincd in the contnct language provided by the City.
Thc proicct team will provide task levcl descriptions ofwork complctcd and pcrcent of tasls completed.
TASK 1.3, QUALITY CONTROL
Each of our submittals will be reviewcd by the Principal-in-Chargc and Projcct lvlanagcr/Senior
Engineer as well as expctienced rUta design staff not direcdy iavolved with the prolect so that applicable
professional and rcgulatory quality standads are mct We utilizc senior level staff for all submittal
rcaisvs, and deady communicate projcct rcquirearcns to the cntitc proiect team so that all team
members undeBtand the proicct expecBtions.
Task I Dsllver.bles:
o Coordinatioo with Gty Ptoiect lvlalagcr (mecdngs, conference calls, web-conferences, emails)
o Update project schedule moo*rly
. lvlorthly prog.css repors and invoiccs
o l\Ianagemeot ofproject and asks, induding subconsultants
o Quality assunnce of dcliverables
o One (l) kict-off mceting, 6eld tour, and up to ttrree (3) face-to-face coordinatioo meetings with Gty
) Schcduled completion: Nlonthly and ongoing throughout thc proiect from Notice to Proceed
(NTP + 7-5 months)
Task 2. Existing Conditions Analysis
'fhis scope assumes the City and parmcr agerrcics will assist the AIta team in obtaining tecord drarvings,
right-of ray and parcd maps, records of surrey, patcd and subdivision maps, availablc uriliry maps,
utility plans, assessor's maps, and availablc suwcy information in ATcGIS or AutdAD format.
TASK 2.1 . SURVEY AND BASELINE MAP
Ivlacl*od and r\ssociates will devdop a CAD base map from an aerial topographic survey at a scale of
1"=20'vith ooe-foot contours. A supplemental ground survey will be taken rvhcre thc aerial survcy is
obscurcd. Features to be mapped iodudc: sidc\.alks, curb and gutter, drivervays, surface utilities, signs,
fences, tralls, ovcrhead utilitics, sreet lighr, buildings, tlces, Frvement elevations, and street
mooumeots. Thc survey will usc NA1T)88 vcrtical datum aod NAD83 horizonml datum. Colored
orthorectified images rvill also bc hduded for thc entirc projcct area to bc tscd for public meeting
crhibits and materials.
Right-of-way information rvill be collectcd along Cdifomia Drive, including ploperty liocs aloog thc
Caltrain corridor. Right of rvay lines, succt centerlines, and propcrty lines rvill be provided in the
r\utoCAD base map.
This scope of work does not include acquisition of aay additional dght-of-rvay that may be rcquired, nor
does it indude the cost of tdated survc)'ln& certification, relocatioo, deed prcparatioo and rccording.
Such scrcices can be quoted scparatdy.
EXHIBIT A
EXH'BIT A
TASK 2.2. OBTAIN AS.BUILT PLANS AND UTILIry MAPPING
Alta will perform utility research to identi$ potential utility orvners and opentoEn rvirhin thc project
yiciniry. Alta will providc notification of the impendiog proiect to poteotial utility orvncrs operating in
the profect area. The notification to utfity orvners will indude r requcst for data rdated to the size and
locadon of their facilities within the project limits. A system map of underground utilities rvill be
preparcd in AutoC-{D based on ioformation obtained from utility companies and the City. The existiog
utiliry base map will be used to assist in the ideotification of potential utility conflicts.
TASK 2.3. EXISTING CONDITIONS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Alta rvill revierv existing trafic conditions aloog California Ddve and conduct &affic analysis for the
corridor. this includes collision history nnalysis, bicyde, pedestrian, and traffic counts, and turniog
movcmens for both fu\I and Pll pcak periods at up to *uee intersections, as rvdl as Averagc Daily
Traffic counts at thrcc roadrvay scgmeos. Alta rvill prepere a traffic analysis report summarizing cxisting
traffic conditions dong Califomia Drivc.
Task 2 Delivetables:e Baseline map with RO\t(/ aad utfities
o TrafEc counts at thrce (3) locations and collision analysis
o TrafEc Analysis Stud),
) Scheduled completion: Sis (6) rvceks ftom Notice to Proceed (NT? + 1.5 months)
Task 3. Preliminary Bikeway Concepts and Public Engagement
TASK 3.1. PRELIMINARY BIKEWAY DESIGN PLANS
Alta is skilled at repurposing road space and workirg rvithin the eristing tight-of-rvay aod parement to
create space to enhance safety and mobility for roadway users ofall abilities. Alta rvill prepare up to thtee
(3) initial conceptud designs for bikeway, roadway, and intersection modilications along Califomia Drive
bctrveen IUutchison Ddve aod south of Broadrvay bascd on the information gathered from *re meeti.ngs,
identilied goals, and freld work. \Ye rvill use City and stakeholder input to collaboratirely arrive at up to
three conceptual design altcrnatives. The duee design altematives may bcgin as an assortment of cross-
section possibilitics, including bicyclc larres, separarcd Class I paths and bicycle boulward ueatments
(sharcd lanes, markinp, and trafEc calming). Alta rvill desigo and ideati$ bene6ts for pedestdans and
bicyclists for each design altemativq specifically idcntifying rvhere potential conflics tnev occur and
dcsigrr.ing enhancements within the p.oiect to improve darity and safcty betnreen motorists, bic)'clists,
aud pedestrians. While we har.e a sense of the options available vithin this corridor, rve vill use the
public engagement process to help define the potendal oprions to coosidcr. Traffic calmiog feaures,
streetscapc elements, aod landscapiog rvill also be included part ofeach alternative.
\l'e vill provide site plan illustrations for the corridor usiog a combination of Adobe and AutoCAD
design sofnvare. Thcse illustratioos rvill intuitivc\ commuoicate the details of the proposed designs to a
radety of stakeholders; horvevcr, they rvill be based in AutoCAD allowing efficient transition ioto the
35?o preliminary dcsign drawinp. We rvill use an itetative design process, rvorking with the City and
stakeholdcrs to reEne concepts. We assume that we vill have hvo (2) urotking meetings rvith staff during
this phase of rvork to evaluate the ideas thtoughout the process. The cooccpt dcsigo rvill illustrate
EXHIBIT A
various idcas, induding corridor cross-scctions, intersection trcxtmcnts, and interaction with intcrsecting
bikevays.
The conccptual drawing rvill bc shown on .ligtral topographic maps and/or aerial images, and rvill
dcady indicatc critical dimeosioos, unique gcomeuic feahrres aod program dernents, concepoal traffic
cootrol and signagc/striping, landscaping, location of utilitics, proposed circ,ulation revisions, and
pmximity to adjaccnt land uses.
In addition to the oyerall site plans, typicel cross sections and up to three (3) 3D illustrations
(SkctchUp/Adobc Photoshop format) rvill be prepared for each altcmative that will demonstratc the
allocation ofspacc for all modes of trrvcl so that they are dcady undcstood by community mcmbers.
TASK 3.2. DEVELOP PROJECT WEBSITE AND OUTREACH MATERIALS/NOTICES
iUa will dcvelop a projea rvcbsite vith images, mccting summaries, and proiect update naratives.
Throughout thc dutation of the project, Ala vill nraiotain and update the proiect wcbsitc with rclcvant
informatioo for public inforution aod outreach.
;\lta vill prcparc dctailcd agendas and provide expert graphic design services (in the form of posters,
mailcrs, flyers, comment cards, and meeting presenratioo tn rtedals) for the three (3) community ouueach
mqe.ings id€artihed fot th.is sage. Alte vill also prcpare PorverPoint slides for City Couocil mcetings and
public outrcach mecting.
TASK 3.3. PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Public engagemcnt is essential to gain community orvnership and build momentum for this important
project. Thctc ere many sakeholders along this corridor, induding but not limited to the City, Council
member steff, Caltrain, rcsidents, neighborhood associations, aod advocates.
Alta proposes haring a multi-pronged appmach to commuoity cngagcmcnt, including
o A kick-off meeting and Ecld tout rvith staff
o Individual mcetings with kcy su.kcholders
o Prcscnrations to the Burlingame Cig Couocil
. Public ouEeach meetings
Upon selcctioo, Alta vill rvork with the City to refine thc proposed stakcholder engagcmcor process and
develop a stakeholder list that includes residcns, employees, businesscs, propcrry owners, orp;anizations,
user gtoups and advocates.
Alta will lead threc (3) public mcctiogs as part of this process. \['e also propose ro conduct trrgeted
stakcholdcr mcedngs, with individuat sakcholders (such as Caltrain) ot a small group. Thcse meetings
rvould be held in coniunctioo vith othcr tcam mcetings and/or public mcctinp. Intcrfacing dilccdy with
the stakeholdcr goups will be impormnt for geining buy in oo thc proposcd design concepts. A.lta rvill
also present progress flt nvo (2) City Council meetingp. The follorviag table provides a specific
recomrnendation for mcedngs:
Alta rvill preparc graphic displav boads aod assist with devdopment and ptcscotadon of a PowsPoint at
each of thcse mcetings as appropriate. Alta rvill also servc as scribe for commwrity nnd stakeholder
mceting, and will provide mecting ootes and action item summaries withio 5 business days of each
EXHIBIT A
meetiog. ?\lta vill also maintain a proiect contact list th;oughout tbe project bascd on mecting anendee
informarion and other conac* provided by others.
The public and stakcholder eogagement process rvill allow individuals and organizations the opportunitv
to be heard and be part of the design process rather than iusr hear about the proiect that is going to be
cons tructed.
Task 3 Deliverables:
. Ptdiminar,, Bikevay Design Plan
. Tpical cmss-sectioo and 3D illustrations
. Project vzebsite and outreach matcdal/notices
. Thrce (3) communiry meetings and plesentations
. Tvo (2) Gty Council mectiogs and preseotations
) Scheduled completioo: fow (4) months from Notice to Procced (NTP + 4 morths)
Task 4. 35olo and 600/o Plans, Specifications, and Estimate
Documents
TASK 4. 1. 35O/O PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES
Alta rvill prepare 357o Plaos, Specifications, aod Estimates (PS&E) in accordance rvith the latest editioa
of the Public Works Sundard Drawings and Specifications for the City of Burlingame and the 2010
Caltrans Standard Plans and Specifications. The design plans rvill be prepared based on the selectcd
prefetrcd alternative from the prelirninar,v design stage.
The plans will be prcpared in AutoCAD at a scale oF 1"=40' or better. Detailed intersectioo sheets will
bc includcd for roadway segments or iatetsections that are non-tyDical and require specitic details for the
contractor to follorv- The scale of these drarvings rvill be minimum 1"=20'.
Detailed unit price constmction cost estimatcs szill be developed for the 35olo submittal usiog historical
bid data in the lormat of rhe City's choosing.
Meetings Purpose
1. lnilial Stakeholdet
and PublicCoordination
Before conceplual design
(Iask 3.1) begins.
Brainstorm ne€ds, mncems, constrainls, and
opportunities in the corfdor. Alla will present high levet
data and infomation in an accassible format. These
meetings will guide the design concepts to be developed
in Task 3.1 .
2. Design Concepls
Review
After conceptual design
(Iask 3.1) is completed.
The meetlng will include informalion about each concept
and opportunilies for lhe public and stakeholders to rate
each concept based on a set of obiective factors.
3. 35% Oesign Review AflerTask 4.1 is complete Remind participants about lhe ca.eful steps from pre-
conceplual design lhrough preliminary design. This
meetiflg provides an opporlunity for lhe public and
stakeholdeG to make sure the design addresses the
issues Eised during the process.
Timeframe
EXHIBIT A
With each submitd, City staff will rcview and providc a consolidated and intemally consistent set of
cotlrments to be incorporatcd in the next plan scr After the rcview period, r\lta's Project lv[anagcr Bryan
Jones rvill meet rvith City staff to rcvierv desigo changes to be incorporated in thc n€xt submiftal.
T'hc follorving are the anticipated plan shects to be includcd in the 357o subminal;
. Tidc sheet
o Gcncml notes
o Existing conditions and demo
' 'l'YPical sections
. hyout plans
. Interscction details
. Sigung and striping plans and deails
TASK 4.2. 60% PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES
Ala will update the 35o% Plans to 60/o desigo lcvel bascd on input from thc City, public and
stakeholde$. Drainage improvem€'nts atrd adiusurrents to exisriog storm dnin systern may be necessary
if the prcfcrred design indudes cub extensions, roadway rvidening or separated Class I bike facility.
Adiustrnent of utility covers to gradc and poteotidly some utiliry relocatiom nray also be neccssary
depending on thc p.cfcrred dcsign altcmatire. I-andsceping and Irrigation design will be included for
areas idcntified in the pdiminary dcsign.
Project specificatioos rvill be prepared rt this time in accordance sdth thc latcst cditioo of the Public
Works Standard Spccifications for the City of Bulingame and 2010 Caltrans Stalrdard Spccifications.
The dctailcd unit price constructioo cost estimates will bc updated for the 60lo submitral.
Thc 60/o plans rvill preseot dl proposed project fcatures and are anticipated to include the following
sheers:
r 'Iidc shect
. General notes
o Eristing conditions and demo
o TPical sections
. Iryout plads
o lnterscction details
. Signrng end striping plans and detafu
. Grading plans
r Drainage and utility plans and details
o F-rosion control plans
r l-andscaping and irrigation ptans and dctails
. TrafEc conrol plans
e Watcr pollution cootrol pl,rns
'l'atl", 4 Dcliucrsbht
o 35% PS&E - Ten (10) sets of 11" X 17" plan documcnrs, along with 8.5" X I l" cstimate.
EXHIEIT A
o 6fflo PS&E - One (1) set of futl size plan documents on reptoduciblc bond. Ten (10) sets of 11" X
17" plan documeots, along with 8.5" X 11" spccifications and estimetes. Onc (1) CD rvith PDFs
doctments and AutoCAD fIles.
) Scheduled Completion: see€ri and a half p.5) months ftom Notice to Proceed (NT? + 7.5
mon$s)
Optional Task 5 Application for FHWA or CTCDC for
Experimentation
TASK 5.1. FHWA
Should the proposed solution requirc FIIWA permission to erpetiment with idcntificd design elements
that do oot have an sistiog dctcrmination, Alta will preparc ao application oo behalf of the City. This
does not indudc beforg during, or after monitoring or data collection or atteo&nce at meetings as may
be requircd as part of the application process, rvhich can be done on a time and materials basis.
TASK 5.2. CTCDC
Should the proposed solution require CTCDC permission to expcrimert wi*r idcntificd design elcments
that do not have an eristing determinatioo, AIta rvill prcpare an application on behalf of tbe City. This
does not indude beforc, during or rftct rnonitodng or data collection or attendancc at meetings as may
bc required as gan of tlrc applicatioo process, rvhich can bc done on a time and materials basis.
Tark 5 Dcliwrubht
. Applications fot CTCDC or FI'IVA permission
) Scheduled Completion severr and a half (/.5) months ftom Noticc to Proceed (Nm + 7.5
months)
EXCLUSIONS
lhis scope of work is iotended to cover the work idcntified abovc. It docs oot iodude any of the
following:
o EnvLonmenul documcnts (CEQA or NEPA) or permits
. Signnl modifietion plans
. Final PS&E
o Bidding and constnrction rdministration support
. Gcotechnical analFis or recommendation
o lUght-of-'*ay acquisirion or any tasks relatcd to acquisition (i.e. plat preparation, ctc.)
. .Any other services not cxplicitly stated above
EXHIBIT A
COST PROPOSAL
a tqrid aar rrr litdrql ttrl
--LtararrrnrEaaa/aaaati*aha--lr+.
t ad.iEqatra-ld.
r rt*r--rhta..ah,*E a-
aaanao,,tr1e
ulrrTta40a
tinhdraL l9!d. nra
,Ennrsrgo.!. rE 6d.
Iro arra n'. 5- tr,
la 14, i2!. -r, lrr.. aarx &3 tra ll,..
..r, 1- ra raaa 5a 4, ata,2n
gAl
SAN
.,.<
7
Q\.
,%
.tr
.""
+1
qa
t
s
!:
J
c\S
2,
%
ry-
oi
/oo
cv
orl(nst
oo
C,z
(Jo'd .'
o- <.
P;-i z.'"- O>- i-ir-=<'6uCooIIJoFE(J>LU.9=cov(uo-
Lo
.gct-o
=(o(J
STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 89
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 2,2016
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works - (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the 2015 Street Resurfacing Project by
lnterstate Grading & Paving, lnc., City Project No.84160
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the 2O15 Street
Resurfacing Project constructed by lnterstate Grading & Paving, lnc., City Project No.84160, in
the amount of $1,159,282.55.
1
MEETING DATE: May 2,2016
RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND
On July 6, 2015, the City Council awarded the 2015 Street Resurfacing Project to lnterstate
Grading & Paving, lnc., in the amount of $1,195,130.90. The project was funded by State Gas
Tax, San Mateo county Measure A, and Measure M funds. The project consisted of performing
asphalt base-failure repairs, asphalt overlay, micro-sealing, pavement reconstruction, concrete
curb and gutter repairs, and traffic striping improvements at the following locations:
. 1400 block of Chapin Avenue
. 2100 block of Clarice Lane
. First block through 100 block of Loma Vista Drive
. 400 block of Marin Drive
. 1300 block of Marsten Road
. 2200 through 2600 blocks of Martinez Drive
. 1 100 through 1400 blocks of Sanchez Avenue
. '1300 block of Skyview Drive
. 200 block of Vernon Way
. Karen Court
. Arguello Drive from Sebastian to Trousdale (digout repairs only)
. Carolan Avenue from Broadway to Oak Grove (digout repairs only)
. Bayshore Highway from Burlway Road to U.S. Highway 10 ,l off+amp (digout repairs only)
. Parking Lots C, K, B, & N
.r
Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the 2015 Street Resurtacing Project May 2, 2016
DISCUSSION
The project has been satisfactorily completed in compliance with the plans and speciflcations.
The final project construction cost is $1 ,1 59,282.55, which is $35,848 lower than the original
contract price. The decrease in cost was due to a reduction in quantities.
FISCAL IMPACT
The following are the estimated final pro.iect expenditures:
Expenditures:
Construction Contract
Construction lnspection & Testing
Enoineerino Desion & Administration
$ '1,159,283
$ 57,040
s 68.100
Total: $ 1,284,393
Sufficient funds are available in the Fiscal Year 2015-2O16 Capital lmprovements Project budget
to cover the final estimated project costs.
Exhibits:
o Resolution
o Final Progress Payment
. Project Map
2
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS - 2015 STREET RESURFACING PROJECT BY
INTERSTATE GRADING & PAVING, INC.
ctw PRoJEcr No. 84160
RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, Califomia, and this Council
does hereby find, order and determine as follows:
1. The Director of Public Works of said City has certified the work done by lnterstate Grading
& Paving, lnc., under the terms of its contract with the City dated July 6, 2015, has been completed in
accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the satisfaction of
the Director of Public Works.
2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 84160
3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted.
Mayor
l, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2d day of
Mav, 2016, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
ABSENT
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.-
.t..
tI
I
I
n i:P IP
: l:It
; i;
s !$- t-
II
:'I
I
I
I''': '
69
6a
:s
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
'H
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
::
SE
38
$$88
E:
;8 I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
;
I
I
I
;iFi
al..i
I Et
tHtl{l
strt
HEI
-}{
t^l
J
N
EE
FI
6
I
t
r
8
a
!
c
t
2
d
9
8
B
a
!r6t6
E
a
I
I
t$
Eal
rs6<
?i,rErt
H s!oia
9;8*88
EI
j9.-.-.-..99=siA!ee:ela-l
3; r 8I8I8 E E E E I E qq
EEBBPEPEER*[q3EEgr (
3Ea88t88888838EE
EBC$PERl$fiEE?:IE
i:*sainsg*$6$$E$${EgEBrsosro il$g3gE;5EgE!!
Is8a8br8888883EtqAEEg
E se "iii'38 $ 389's3! B{- E
s 8I I I8 8 8 8 r I8 E E e E E E 8E
*ccccsEsErge;fiFgB8Eq9ii-:R.d ari..o..E99-
8833333888e38883qE94pE€EghBE"""g598ueE
EF;FE:****::;*:S:H*:
f; B3e 8.fi sp : 8e Ep' Ecl I :-
aeEasa
tl
ls:l
i==l
li;l
tl
l=xll:eltltt
!.;!
3E
iIt-
l-?slat
.i:
bl
EIiErl6t
I
t)@t
:;
6?
5-
.tE
.iII
u5
E
!H0l.qf,aza
zBr
5
E
3
o_
.:6
5q
Bi
T89;
z<dg
t1ha
!E
EEruEE"EE:t5 *$* t $:€ €es a €E uEsE .;EEAEE Es sEE
. =E- E;TTEE: EE iiE
ariEEaEiilliiigEEliiE
I
E
,
all1!ii
I
:i
ai
cl
:l
ei
l
iil!t:l!li;;
lilllil
ti
l\)
3(,
@-{f,mo
"I=VD-'9EimcyqnH
={eDYollzsoo;!o7oon
z
I
6
&"
I
/1
.,
I
!l
"a
It
L
\
\
e
\\\\
+r
\
z
--1
,,"\
STAFF REPORT 8h
MEETING DATE: May 2,2016
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May2,2016
From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director - (6501 558-7222
Subject: Quarterly lnvestment Report, Period Ending March 31,2016
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and approve the City's investment report through
March 31, 2016.
This report represents the City's investment portfolio as of March 31, 2016. The report includes all
invested City funds with the exception of bond proceeds. All investments are in compliance with
the City's adopted Statement of lnvestment Policy.
The City's investments are guided by the Statement of lnvestment Policy, which is reviewed and
approved by the Council annually. The policy was last approved by the City Council on August
17,2015. The policy directs that investment objectives, in order by priority, are safety, liquidity,
and return- This conservative approach ensures assets are available for use while also allowing
the City to earn additional resources on idle funds. The City utilizes a core portfolio of
investments managed by the City's investment advisor, PFM Asset Management, and also
maintains funds invested in the State's Local Agency lnvestment Fund (LAIF) and the San Mateo
County Pool, to achieve its investment goals.
CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS
Volatility ushered in the New Year, as slowing global growth drove investors out of riskier assets,
such as equities and high-yield bonds, and inlo safehaven securities such as U.S. government
debt. Stocks posted one of their worst-ever starts to a year, with the S&P 500 falling more than
'10% while commodity prices plunged. As a result, U.S. Treasury yields retraced nearly all of their
fourth{uarter increases.
1
AGENDA NO:
RECOMMENOATION
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
lnveslment Repo/,,, March 31,2016 May 2, 2016
2.00%
1.80%
1.60%
1.,O%
! 1.2()95F r.oo*
0.80%
0.60%
0.,(L6
0.2&
0.m%
3r31/15
0.o20/o
o.140h
0.22%
0.55"/.
0.88%
1.34v"
1.93%
2.54%
lsrQuarter
Change
0.03%
{.10%
4.O20k
4.33%
4.55%
4.55%
{.50%
4.41%
U.S. Treasury Yield Curve
-Mard!
31,2015
-o€cerbe.
3'1, 2015
-Mard
31,2016
3 Month
6 Monttr
'l Yeat
2 Year
3 Year
5 Year
10 Year
30Year
3 6
M
1 2 513
t\l Y
Maturity
The Federal Reserve (Fed) left policy rates unchanged in the 'lst quarter. The Federal Open
Market Committee (FOMC) lowered expectations to just two rate hikes in 2016 (from its
December expectation of four rate hikes in 2016) and acknowledged that global economic and
financial market conditions posed a risk to its outlook. While the Fed embarks on a tightening
path, other global central banks are still easing monetary policy. The European Central Bank
expanded its bond purchase program to 80 billion euros per month, including the purchase of
corporate bonds, while the Bank of Japan cut rates to -0.10%.
U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) g rew at a 1 .4o/o rate in the fourth quarter of 201 5 and 2.4o/o tor
all of 2015 as consumer spending continued to drive growth, while business investment and net
exports were a drag. Preliminary estimates of groMh in the first quarter are approximately 1%.
The labor market remained strong, as employers added 628,000 net new jobs in the first three
months of lhe year. The unemployment rate for March came in at 5%, as the labor participation
rate increased for four months in a row.
PORTFOLIO INFORMATION
The City's cash, excluding bond proceeds, is pooled for investment purposes. As of March 31,
2016, invested funds totaled $121,195,497 (including the cash balance in the City's custody
account). These investments are assets of the City of Burlingame, which includes the General
Fund, the enterprise funds (such as Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste), as well as various non-
major funds.
Main lnvestment Portfolio
Main lnvestment Portfolio - Cash Balance
lrwestment Portfolio B
S€n Mateo county Pool galance
LAIF Balance
69,420,L17.74
219,755.95
5,996,697.N
1,Otu,243_65
,+4,098,642.86
721,195,497,20Tot.l
CiV'3 lnva3tment
Mark.t Value ar ofMarch 31,2016
2
1?131t15
o.17%
0./t8%
0.60%
1.05%
1.40%
1.76%
2.27%
3.02%
3/31'16
0.20%
0.38%
0.58%
0.72%
0.85%
1.21
1.77%
2.6104
lnvestment Repo,7, March 31,2016 May 2, 2016
Note that the City's account with the California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust Fund (CERBT),
used to pre-fund the City's retiree medical obligations, is not included in this report.
Over the quarter, the City' investment advisor (PFM) suggested that the City maintain a
moderately defensive duration position to protect the portfolio's market value in the case of
several Fed rate hikes in 2016, though the portfolio duration was modestly extended in select
situations. At the end of the quarter, the portfolio's duration was 2.53 years (short of the
benchmark's duration of 2.65). Factoring in additional investments such as the San Mateo
County Pool and LAIF, the average effective duration was '1.51.
The potential impact of slower economic growth on corporate profits caused the sector's yield
spreads to widen in the first half of the quarter. However, corporate spreads tightened through
March as markets rebounded, ultimately driving the sector's outperformance over Treasuries for
the quarter. Two corporate notes in the portfolio were called during the first quarter, but the City
also found value in commercial paper, shorterterm corporate obligations. As issuance increased
during the quarter, federal agencies became more attractively priced compared to U.s.
Treasuries. PFM took advantage of this attractive pric:ng, purchasing several federal agency
securities for the City's portfolio. ln some cases, federal agency securities which were yielding
0.11% to 0.15% higher than similar maturity U.S. Treasuries were purchased. ln total, the
portfolio's allocation to federal agencies was increased by 2% over the quarter.
Please see below for a summary of all the transactions for the quarter ended March 31 , 2016.
1.28Yo 1,050,00051U.S. Treasury
NotesPurchase912828K582t212016
0.610/0 1,500,0003Credit Agricole NY
CPPurchase22533TEC6
0.840k 1,500,000690262CH91UBS Finance
Delaware CPPurchase2t12t2016
1 .05o/o 1,465,000FHLMC Notes3137EADG1Purchase2t16t2016
39 0.920/465,000U.S. Treasury
Notes912828KQ2Sale2t16t2016
0.94o/o 1,000,000U.S. Treasury
Notes 39912828W10Sale
1,000,0000Toyota Motor
Notes89236T8D6Call
2,250,OO0to1.52YoFHLB Notes3130A7CV5Purchase3t10t2016
250,0000JP Morgan Chase
Notes4U25rGH2Call3t10t2016
o.42%Sale3t1012016
2,300,000591.38%3130A7CV5Purchase313112016
0.63%'1,000,00010FNMA NotesSale3135G0GY3
'10 1,300,000FNMA Notes3135G0GY3Sale313112016
YTM/YTC
%(Yield) PrincipalDescriptionTransaction CUSIP
3
Settlement
Date
Term
(Mths)
2t12t2016
2t1612016
3t7t2016
'1,000,0000Bank of Tokyo
Mitsubishi CP06538BCF8
FHLB Notes
3t31t2016
0.63%
lss
lnvesttnen, Report, March 31, 2016 May 2, 2016
As noted in the pie chart below, the City's investmenl portfolio as of March 31,2016, was heavily
weighted towards the State Local Agency lnvestment Fund (LAIF) and high{uality (AA+ rated)
federal agency and U.S. Treasury securities to maintain the focus on safety and liquidity.
lnvestments By Security Type
As of March 31 , 2016
Corporate Notes
17o/o
Certificates of
Deposit
2Yo
San Mateo
County
lnvestment Pool
1o/o
Federal
Cash
<1o/o
Commercial
Paper
3%
Credit Quality of lnvestments
As of March 31 , 2016
Local Agency
lnvestment Fund
(LArF)
37Yo
U.S. Treasuries
,,70/o
NR (LAIF)NR (San Mateo
37Yo County Pool)
1o/o
NR (FD|C
lnsured)
ZYo
Agencies
a10/-
BBB (A3 by
Moody's)
<1o/o
A
12o/o
A-'l (Short-Term)
3o/o
AAA
Cash
<1o/o
44Yo
The City's lnvestment Policy allows for a five-year time horizon with an emphasis on liquidity. As
of March 31, 2016, 37% of the City's funds were invested in very short{erm liquid investments,
23% of the funds were invested with maturities between one day and two years, and 40% of the
investment portfolio had a maturity ranging from two to five years. This distribution gives the City
the necessary liquidity to meet operational and emergency cash needs while maximizing returns
on funds not needed in the immediate future. The City's aggregate investments maintain a
weighted average maturity of 1.61 years, and currently generate annual inlerest income (yield to
4
2o/o
tnvestment Repo , March i1, 2016 May 2, 2016
maturity) of 0.95% before investment expenses. The City's funds are invested in high credit
quality investments, and continue to meet the City's goals of safety, liquidity, and yield/return.
As of March 31,2016, the yield to maturity at cost on the main portfolio of securities was ', .32o/o.
lncluding additional investments such as LAIF and the San Mateo County Pool, the aggregate
investments averaged a yield to maturity of 0.95%. During the quarter, the main portfolio
generated interest income and realized gains that totaled $241 '815.
"Ratings by Standard & Poor's. Average excludes 'Not Rated' securities.
As noted in previous reports, staff has arranged for a gradual drawdown of the City's holdings in
the San Mateo County Pool, as these funds are not as easily accessible as the City's other liquid
holdings, and the yield on the County Pool is lower than that earned in the City's own investment
portfolio. The accessibility of funds in the City's LAIF account will allow staff to make as-needed
withdrawal requests to meet operaling and capital needs, and the City's managed portfolio will
grow as the County Pool funds are withdrawn. A total withdrawal of these funds (approximately
$5.2 million this time last year) will occur over the next two years, as withdrawals from the fund
are limited to 20% of the City's balance in the pool.
Yield History
October 31 , 2014 - March 31, 2016
$121,195,497 .20
1.61 Years
AAAverage Credit Quality*
0.95%Yield To Maturity
City lnvestments Statistical tnformation
+Portfolio Under Management
.I.LAIF
--f 2-Year Treasury
Pool..,+,FSan Mateo Cou
I .5o/o
1 .2%
0.9%
0.6%
0.3o/o
1.29%
0.88%
72o/o
Oct Nov Dec Jan
14 14 14 ',15
Feb Mar Apr May Jun
15 15 15 15 15
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan'15 15 15 15 15 16
Jul
15
Feb Mar16 16
5
0.460/o
Market Value
Weighted Average Maturity
0.0o/o
lnvestment Repott March 31, 2016 May 2, 2016
Maturity Distribution
As of March 31, 2016
4OYo
35o/o
30%
25Yo
20o/o
11Yo
lOYo
5%
o%
Overnight One Day-6 6-12 Months 1-2 Years 2-3 Years 3-4 Years 4-5 Years
Months
The following is a summary of cash and investment holdings held by each fund as of March 31,
2016, which includes invested funds, debt service reserves, amounts held in overnight (liquid)
accounts, the City's main checking account and other operating funds:
Cash and lnvestments by Fund
As ot o3l3tlL6 AsofLZ|SI/IS Change S
180k 16%
14%
10o/o
4%
General Fund
lnternal Service Funds
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
Solid Waste Fund
Parking Fund
Building Fund
Landfill Fund
Subtotal, Operatlng Funds
Other Funds
Total Cash and lnvestments
29,343,s97 5
L6,506,778
13,926,655
L3,707,582
4,452,846
5,352,895
5,070,199
750,45L
36,502,204 5
15,575,559.00
L4,O2t,759
t2,575,513
4,347 ,285
4,759,L82
4,909,794
674,N2
1o/o
5 (7 ,158,6071
(68,781)
(9s,102)
r,726,069
105,560
593,7L4
160,405
76,448
89,105,005 94,365,298
38,322,405
(s,260,293)
55 27t,O47 16 948,642
5 t44,376,O5t 5 132,687,703 5 11,688,349
Cash holdings in the General Fund declined significantly in the first quarter of 2016 due to the
transfer out of of $7.5 million to provide additional funding of the Renewal and Replacement
Reserve (Capital Projects Fund)as approved with the FY 2015-16 Mid-year report. ln addition,
there were no maior property tax receipts in the quarter - these are received in December and
April. lncreases in the category of Other Funds reflects $10 million in proceeds from the 2016
Storm Drain Revenue Bond issuance, which closed early in March.
6
37%
lnvestment Repoi, March 31, 2016 May 2, 2016
CONCLUSION
All City funds are invested in accordance with the approved Statement of lnvestment Policy with
an emphasis on safety, liquidity, and return (in that order). The City's investment strategy of
balancing lhe investment portfolio between shortterm investments (to meet cash flow needs) and
longerterm maturities (to realize a higher rate of retum) is appropriate given cunent market
conditions.
Due to the ease of access of the City's funds in overnight accounts such as LAIF, the City has
more than sufficient funds available to meet its liquidity (expenditure) requirements for the next
six months.
Staff and the City's investment advisor will continue to closely monitor the City's investments to
ensure the mitigation of risk and ability to meet the City's investment goals while being able to
respond to changes in market conditions.
FISCAL IMPACT
Quarterly reporting of the City's lnvestment Portfolio will not result in any direct impact on City
resources
Exhibit:
Portfolio Holdings as of March 3'l, 2016
7
JJ
{,
(.)
b0r{
z
C)oa
e
Er.g
ti,lllil
q
6l
6l
!.1
+
e
q
q
+{
E
E
-i
o999;iN6rEiiiiooo
^lil
Xdidi6i.666S.BiiSi*BE=BEsEEEssaSssssssSSSS-A -h -B -R -H.R -H.B oR -K rz,8 srK -R eB
E; EE Ei E; E; E: E; Ei E; E; EE E; Ei E;
EBEE EB E3 EE E3EB EB ESEBE$EgEBEEF; F6 tro tro tro tro Fo tro FP FO FP FP Fo FPgE EE 3E 3E 3E 3E 3E tsE 3E 3E 9E EE 3E 3E
r.l
.1
x
F..
q
=
=
ozfs-o
a
ri
6
.n
n
.1
.1
^i
q
q
6
s
q
a
+
q
di
q
+
q
+
e
viq
+
;
3
q
^l
.n
r,)
\
j
^!
r,)
c;
dl
j
j
a
.,i
I
E
q
E
3
+{
e
8q
a
j
e
.!
a
Fj
q
o-
+
Eg
.!
'1
..i
o-
+{
Ea
.{.
c
.!
e
j
I
+{
aI
ci
;
E
t
ri
q
F.
e
di
j
q
ci
-i
.!
+
8
q
!.-
+
8
8
q
+{
E
.!.
zF
o
=
o
=E
!ro!tgs
tto
E3o9
E
EEug
<i
E3FU
IE
9or
HE
€s
io
i9o:€e
olItE
d,
E
o.
t
U
E
t!-=.aEEE
.9<
o.6iu'>g
=l!5o
lo
ot\
lll3(,,
t0
E
EJ!
E
t!
oE
o
TL
!,
tu
!
oo
Iottl
o
t!
oo
tr
o(J(,
E
a,
E'It!tr
IE
E
ffilllll,f
oz
ttEoiAt
F
v,
f
E-
Elt o.EU
o
z.
=
u.lE
(,
z.
Jd.f
co
[Lo
UJ
c
C)
A
c)
00(!
('l
e
ooa
2,Ii
riltll
q
N
-l
ri
F.
ci
;
+
:.
j
!
+
.!
d
6-
+
ea
Vi
n
e
E
I
+{
e
Eq
IE
c;
EI.i
j
.
+
x.
ea
Iq
e
E
8q
a
+x
eIq
I5;
+{
ea
tJ
Uis
ri
.;
6t
.?
ri9
.n
d
j
.1
e
j
ri
q
.,]
r,)
q ,ri
+
c
c;
!!
+
e
E
Ic
+
c;
E
.'iq
+
c;I
5
vt
c;
ui
q
ri
g
s
8
ul
9.!
s
.1
s
.')
c;
.!
$
u;
+
.!
d
(,oI(,!(,
o
I
F
(,
z
(9
o
.
+
E
q
4
s
aqq
+{
I
(,(,(,
Eo:6
iJ6EEEEHEEHEEHEs S S x F S H H ;i-B=-s= H : :
> u,> !o= -- e*- r{r-- S # i* EX EX : S i
EE:E:EeE :EEE*t,g,E:E3NgE E Egs*Eq:g;q;q;EI9i9IU!EIE! 6 E
E$ EE iB Eg EB E3 E$ Es E3 Eg Eg E= Es E3
iE PE EE tr'E
=E
AE EE EE EE EE EE
=E =E
EE
o
o
t\
o
t\
o
t\
o
oq
o
o
i
F
F
rl, ll,
E3
!t)
E.i
E
EE
UE<;
=8F9
E
ctt o'El,,o
9c,
f;E
€sr! r!
i
l
-zE>
EBb?
{E
o.ois'>g
l:t!:o
*p
PT
;E
tlBEdE
d
t!
o.
A(,
I
lo
o
s
ct!
E
o)
.E!
L!
o
=(u
ou-
so4
t,
.c
L
(,o
ah
o
G
0,
cr
E
o(,I
!t
tU
E'I
IEtr(E
=
i-
ffiillll'f
^le
a,
oz
tlco!o
co
C'I
Ea,Eil,tt
z.
=
u.j
=(,
z.5d
=@
TLo
JJ
(,
E
ho
A
(,,tb(n
e
,ri llllh,tffiil
q
q
9
n
q
!-1
q
.j
q
d]
-:
^i
I
!.:
e
o
cr')
(,(,
I
ds
;
.!
e
q
q
j
q
q
o
pEE
N bN r.. Y co co -co ZoHiEeHE H E E."EEEHEE5B9E6 BEN BHB9EBEn Y;'o-o -^rL: ; U> (,;' Yh e;.9F
Es <s 8"s o s hs 5s Es X-.- U".-
9E EE eE 9 E BH EH Y€ gE 6Ei-i U.i 6d, .i ;; 3; aq 2q 2q
OE oE =8: 3 9::E ea =8 98t it *1.5t;B *E EE ] B;E Pg:N if :R=x= _.,: x =s d x s; ix <s 6; os:F;F HE eEF SE 9E HE XE iE
=o =o Fo (Jzo Fo ilo (,0 (90 xo
q
a
.-1
+
q
a
a
<i
n
6i
..,1
o-
.1
ri
j
;
ct
q
+
q
;
o
+
a
q
i,,
oz
OJ
coA
o|J
a
d
rt
o\
o
r.{
t\
09
t\
l\€
.i
d
r{
oo
<to
o
F
.E
.i
..4
*i
sss
q.1 .l
[i a] !2(: !ashir trg trg!2 r- O-. O --L
Fh Fh Fh
F:
ct
6i
^i
F;
B(,
.j
I
+
I.?
!,1
F.
+
I
c;
n]
j
!
+
E
j
oz
tl
o
ao
c
a)
E,'
i
tol!
Es
tl!,
t0o9
E
=8F(J
o
Elt o'i(Jo
9or
HE
io
xi!ic
trt!E
d
oo.
E
o-=.0>EP
H.q
{;ruoqa
LE;s:oio
oq
roHoN
rl
coE
€
UJ
o
=OJ
o
TL
E
oE
6o
(Jo(t
o
=(g,L'oo
JP
oIu
t,o
E'I
GcoE
,ril llltrr,
rllllllllr
I
q
E
.i
.,:EE
il<i
Z
E
ul
=(,z.
J
fco
ILo
4
I
!E
UJ
tr(,
E
C)
bD(g
(g
2
c)
ah
at)
2
E
6ililr
I
.1
I:.
z
I
o
F
z
z
q-
z
;;'
;B H8
FE E5:(! vt
Eq <{
ua !la
Io
,'!
t\
q
o
F
.E
I
^!
I
8
c;
q!
n
e
Ei
rE7
==8O\o -1o (Jloo: u= i=
6i zi <otrts as =E!s ls d*gE 6E EE(9o ,fro zosalE,3rE,
e
c;
E
.!
j
c
;
IF
al
g
'g
E
Eo(J
o
t'i
d
ao
+t\
d
oo'
l\
{l\
o)
o
q
o
F
C!
F
.E
q
I
I
.,J.
^:
.!
r,l
o-
E
ui
=I
o,Eos
6 E >3 I I I9 II s is las r s d s
!4 oq or b._1 < .! = Fl
lj - oN 5.o I N 6
Q 6 oE HB s E = E9oS 9S =S E S 9aSR#a firl Et v cl ,rH{H{5,r" XA = nE 9EBE 7 o i o i o d E o 22 o*gE;E aE 895 tgE
j
ci
<iq
ri
q
^!
E
I
E
q
E
q
E
-i
II'io
E
6
e
q
a
6
+
E
E
c;
j
III
J:
EE
t
E3o9
E
EE
<;
=3F9
o
i-gro'i(Jo
9o
frE
!o
ia
'ls
PTiE
oAC
utod.
oA
4
I
E
--.i>:et
H.a
{;oo9a
'> .9!o!o
lo
o6l
E(J
G
=or
E
UJ
oE
oIL
=o
I
o
.c
L
(Joti
o
o
oo
trfo(,(,
E
0,
Cnt!E
G
E
ffi,lllll'
=ot!(,o
o
o
Ei,L|
ol,!
\h
oo
<i
o
oz(,
o
ot!
oU
z.
=
IUE
(9
z.
Jd.f
co
TLo
EU
to
q,\
o
t\
E
F
l\o
o!' t+
I
do
<i
s
,'l
Io
o
ot'
qo
o'
E
.Ac
e.
a=
t\ri
o
(D
I
o'o
c;
G,!
!
o
do
oqooo
o_
E
t;lr
=
4t\
o
coooo'
l\o
oqoooo
qooo
F
t-
.E
j
6
9
!.)
3
z
=
D
o
o o vo;o - o E9E=EEEiE H EEE:H=i:E: : =fi:Yd +N T-N 26
=H
EE EE bH H
=H
fiHtrE;E EE =F =5 fri iNEg:B EB gB
=N.?E 9Bue;e ie =P Ee Ee Ee6la (90 (96.oo (Jo uo <o
ri
qq
q
z
q
e
e
e;
.a-
+
e
q
n
..i.!.
a
9
z
q
q
I
z
q
z
z
I
ci
z
z
ci
I
z
z
I
l
'do.L(,o
o
E
U
aro
Es
!
E8o9
E
PI
gE<;
-8F(J
o
E
cnoEUo
9or
f;E
€e
Eo
-i9
E.=
gE
l,!AC
to tt
oA
c
U
.E
f
o-zE>
.=+o*
{;
o.ois'>g
E8
(o
o
ar{
('|
E
coE
E
lrJ
coE
o)
o
2
fJr
JJ
trqJ
A
o
oo
6z
oot)
z
Er
*lilflnf
z.
E
uJE
(2
z.
=nfro
!,(,
I
oo
=Ioo
o
IE
0,6
o(JU
Eo
ED
IEE
IE
=
\o
UJJ
co
tr
C)
b0
(B
2
oot)
a
Er
tfilllil
E
E
F
qq
dd
d
o)
o
so
ci
oqoo
ao'
oooo
o
?
-ol
o!.g€
5i
ot\
o
o
oqo
oo
cio
F
t
=
oqooooood
oo,\
@|4
o
qo
oqoo
d
q
oodoo
F
t-
.?
8
E
q
Fi
I=o
!!
'j
c;
q
.a
+{
5
e
j
I
+
8
e
s
E
Iq
+{
e
E
I
j
+
Ea
8q
I
6
8
+
c;
E:.
(,(,
G
@F.F.<oo=
}. u1 + h []F Y -
;x.i --l i a zi <3s is Q* os I s
{E rE 5E 3E P E6; h; f,^ ii o -
-- o vo ;i og* ES ES ES E SuJt z{ 9{ aQ ! {
H3 =; =; =; E2EEE SE FE f 5 HBE
oz
t
oE
tuo
E
oti,l!
ta
EE
EE
b.g<E
=3t-o
o
i-
Elo.Eu
o
9or
f;E
€c
io
is
9fic
CD4Ed&ur t!
d,
oo.
E
o
I
.E
-=.EE20
UI
o:aodi
c!6
'> .g.:l!io
o
ro
oN
F|
E
coE
E
LIJ
oE
oIL
=o
I
o
C'
L
(,oo
o
IE
oo
tr
o
L,tJ
E(,
E'!
Gtr
G
=
ffill,llf,
E
EE
E
fno
JoLLFd.oa-
UJ
=(,
z.5dfcn
AGENDANO: 10a
I4EETING DATE: May 2,2016
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: May 2,2O16
From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager - (650) 558-7243
Authorize the City Manager to Send a Letter to the State Lands
Commission Conditionally Withdrawing the City's Application for the State
Lands Commission Parcel on the Bayfront While the City Negotiates with
H&Q Asia Pacific for a Hotel/Park Project on the Site
Staff recommends the City Council authorize the City Manager to send a letter to the State Lands
Commission (SLC) conditionally withdrawing the City's application for the SLC parcel on the
Bayfront while the City negotiates with H&Q Asia Pacific (H&Q) for a hotel/park project on the
site.
BACKGROUND
On January 20,2015, in response to a request by the SLC staff, the City Council discussed
whether it wished to pursue the City's park poect or would prefer a hotel project on the property.
At the time, the SLC had received inquiries about the property, but no formal hotel application had
been submitted. The City Council concluded that it wished to continue working on the park
application given the need for additional fields in town. This message was conveyed to the SLC
staff.
The City completed its application and recirculated its Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in
late 2015. The City Council adopted the MND on February 16, 2016, and the SLC staff
subsequently deemed the City's application complete.
Separately, H&Q and another developer submitted applications to the SLC to build hotels on the
property. (The other developer has since withdrawn its application.) As currently envisioned, the
STAFF REPORT
Subject:
RECOMMENDATION
The City has been working for several years to secure a lease with the State Lands Commission
(SLC) to build a park on an 8.81-acre parcel on the City's Bayfront. Under the City's vision for the
property, the City would create a big grassy area on the Bayfront, with picnic tables, parking,
restroom facilities, and Bay Trail improvements. The park would be open to the public and
provide a nice amenity on the waterfront for Burlingame residents, the business community, and
visitors.
prscussroN
1
' Bawiew Park May 2, 2016
H&Q project includes a boutique hotel on the side of the property adjacent to Bayview Place and
Kincaid's restaurant, with a significant amount of parkland on the remainder of the property. The
strip of land closest to the hotel building would be storm water gardens, while a great lawn/multi-
use field would cover much of the rest of the property. Parking is also included, both for the hotel
and for the park area.
On March 7, 2016, the City Council held a study session to discuss Bayview Park and whether
the City should continue to pursue a lease with the SLC for the park or partner in some way with
H&Q for a hotel and park project. During the discussion, staff shared with the City Council that
the SLC was only offering a 2o-year lease and that the estimated cost of the park was now $5.6
million.
Although staff believes that it can negotiate a longer lease for the property, perhaps as long as 30
or 35 years, it is unlikely that the SLC will grant a 49-year lease, which is the longest term
available under the law. Given the relatively short timeframe of the lease, the cost of the
necessary improvements to land that the City doesn't own, and the City's interest in turfing both
Murray Field and part of Bayside Park so as to increase field space in Burlingame, the City
Council agreed to try to work with H&Q on a mutually acceptable project. The Recreation Task
Force (Mayor Keighran, Councilmember Colson, and Recreation Commissioners Baird and Dito)
was charged with determining what the City would like included in any agreement with H&Q.
Since the SLC has deemed the City's application complete, and the SLC is sublect to the Permit
Streamlining Act, which requires public agencies to act on development projects in a relatively
short time, the only way for the City to move forward to try to partner with H&Q is to withdraw the
City's application from consideration at the SLC. (The alternative is to have the City's application
considered at the June SLC meeting and potentialty denied given the pending H&Q application,
which is still at least a year away from completion.)
The SLC staff understands the City's position and its desire to revive its application should the
City and H&Q be unable to reach agreement, or should H&Q ultimately be unable to build its
project for any reason. Therefore, the City has been advised to send a letter to SLC staff
withdrawing the City's application and making it clear that the City expects to regain its place in
the queue should the H&Q project falter. This pause in the City's application, whether permanent
or temporary, will enable the City to work with H&Q and, separately, to make progress on its
plans to turf both Murray and part of Bayside.
There is no fiscal impact.
Exhibit
Draft letter
FISCAL IMPACT
2
The City of Burlingome
CIIY HALL- 50I PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 9 401 V3997
TEL: (650) 558-7204
FAX: (650) s66-9282
i/s. Jennifer Lucchesi
Executive Ofiicer
State Lands Commission
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 South
Sacramento CA 95825-8202
May 3, 2016
Dear Ms. Lucchesi
As you're aware, the City of Burlingame has been working with your Land Management Division over the past several years
to lransform State Lands property on the City's Bayfront into a public park. We have submitted all of the necessary
information to your staff, and our application has been deemed complete,
On March 7, 2016, the City Council met in a study session to discuss the City's park proposal and the hotel/public park
proposal submitted by H&Q Asia Pacific (H&a). The City Council was pleased to see that H&Q dedicated a significant
portion of the site to storm water gardens and to a great lawn/mutli-use field. The Council also welcomed the idea of
bringing a boutique hotel to Burlingame.
The City would like to work with H&Q to see their project come to fruition, provided the project continues to feature a
significant park that is easily accessible and open to the public. The City is developing its list of 'must haves" and looks
fonrrrard to negotiating a mutually acceptable agreement with H&Q for the development of the property as we believe this will
best serve the Burlingame mmmunity.
At this time, we would like to conditionally withdraw our application from State Lands Commission consideration. Should we
be unable to reach agreement with H&Q, or should H&Q be unable to build the project for some reason, then we expect that
our application will be revived for the Commission's consideration without necessitating that the City submit any additional
paperurork.
Thank you for your assislance with this matter
Sincerely,
Lisa K. Goldman
City Manager
Cc. Burlingame City Council
OFFICE OF THE
CITY MANAGER
AGENDA ITEM NO: 'lob
STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: May 2,2016
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director - (650) 558-7222
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution of lntent to Amend the City of Burlingame Master
Fee Schedule Effective July 1,2016; and Set the Public Hearing for Such
Amendment for June 6, 2016
Staff recommends that the City Council review and discuss staff recommendations for changes
to the City's Master Fee Schedule for fiscal yeat 2016-17, and establish a public hearing for
June 6, 2016 in connection with updates to the document.
A comprehensive cost allocation plan and user fee study assists the City in determining the
actual cost of providing City services, and helps the departments establish appropriate user
fees. Prior to this fiscal year, an update of the City's cost allocation plan (CAP) and fee study
had not been performed since 2007. This past fiscal year, departmental staff worked with
Wohlford Consulting on a revised CAP, allowing the recent completion of a Cost of Services
Study. The Cost of Services Study is attached to this staff report. The study determined the
actual cost of providing City services/programs paid for by user fees, based on the 2015-16
operating budget.
ln recent fiscal years, City fee increases often were based on changes in CPl, as personnel and
other departmental budgets reflected higher costs of services year over year. A Public Hearing
(required for any change in fees) was noliced, and the Council considered the fee changes
recommended by staff.
1
Date: May 2,2016
RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND
The City Council has traditionally approved a Master Fee Schedule as part of the budget
process. Since fiscal year 2003-04, City user fees have been adjusted to reflect the annual
increase in costs that are adopted for the ensuing budget. The fee ad.iustments are not
automatic. They require an annual review and approval by the City Council. An annual review
and update ensures that fees reflect current costs to provide services, allows the addition of
fees when applicable for new City services, and provides for the elimination of fees for
discontinued services.
Mastet Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2016-17
The recommendations presented by staff in this report ensure not only that charges keep pace
with the costs of providing certqin services, but that they are also competitive with comparable
programs (where applicable) and are responsive to demands for the service within the
community. The proposed fee changes are summarized below, by department.
California law gives cities the ability to impose fees for governmental services when an
individual's use of the City service is voluntary, and the fee charged is reasonable to the level of
service and the cost of providing the service. The 201 5 Cost of Services Study was undertaken
to ensure that the City meets the statutory test for imposing user fees. The study also identified
all costs associated with providing each service (fees reflect 100% of costs); as well as services
in which the General Fund subsidizes the fees charged by the City.
ln general, the City's Master Fee Schedule reflects user fees that are intended to represent
100% cost recoverv of fullv burdened rates. with the exc eption of user fees that are highlY
sensitive and promote citizen engagement. Fully burdened rates include the cost of direct labor
(direct staff time spent on the service), indirect labor (administrative and supervisory time), and
central services overhead (other budgetary support for the department providing the service).
To reflect general cost increases, some fees are increased based on the Bay Area Consumer
Price lndex (CPl), which increased 3.2o/o lrom February 2015.
The city's overall cost recovery rate of 55% reflects varying rates of cost recovery amongst
departments, and amongst programs within each department, due to the wide variety of
services provided. For departments that provide social or public safety services, policy
concerns and market factors (as opposed to actual costs) tend to influence fee levels more than
for other types of services. To raise all fees to achieve 100% full cost recovery is not feasible or
desirable, as discussed in the Cost of Services Study. However, where full cost recovery is
recommended, the costs shown in the Cost of Services Study have been increased by CPI to
more accurately reflect current costs.
2
May 2, 2016
But as the delivery of City services, as well as the costs incurred in providing those services,
change over time, an updated Cost of Services Study often reveals dramatic differences
between actual current costs and the fees charged to recover those costs. For this reason, the
20'16-17 Master Fee Schedule Update is a two-step process. This draft report includes staff
recommendations for fees so that they can be reviewed in conjunction with the information
provided in the Cost of Services Study. Council direction is requested so that any changes in
the 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule can be incorporated prior to making the final document
available to the public (at least 10 days prior to the public hearing). In determining the full cost
of providing services for which fees are charged, the Cost of Services Study lays the
groundwork needed for development of a values-based and data-driven User Fee Cost
Recovery Policy. The City Council's input and comments on the fees proposed by staff relative
to the cost of the various services will assist in preparing such a policy for Council consideration
early in the 2016-1 7 fiscal year.
DISCUSSION
Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2016-17 May 2, 2016
Pursuant to State law, certain fees to be charged by the Planning and Building Divisions, the
Fire Department and the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department cannot become
effective until 60 days after adoption of the adjusted fees as delineated in the attached Master
Fee Schedule. Staff requests that a public hearing for the update of the City of Burlingame's
Master Fee Schedule be established for June 6, 2016, lo allow all other fee changes to become
effective July 1, 2016.
The fees described below reflect amendments based on the following:
Administration
Administrative Services primarily provides support to other City departments, and therefore the
fees were not reviewed in the Cost of Services Study. Staff recommendations for changes are
based on staffs analysis of the cost of the service or activity.
Certain city-wide administrative fees and fees charged by Finance and the City Clerk's Office
have been increased from time to time by CPl. Only one change in fees is recommended for
the upcoming fiscal year: an increase of the charge for Returned Checks from $26 to $30.
The fee is intended to recover the cost of staff time (notifying the customer of the returned
check, adjusting entries to Accounts Receivable, and collecting the debt) and the bank return
check fees.
ln addition, the cost allocation plan shed light on the costs borne by the administrative
departments that are not recoverable from other departments, many of which are classified
simply as "general governance". While this is understandable, certain tasks were identified that
are particular to the City.of Burlingame but are not associated with general governance.
Specifically, the Finance Department incurs costs in administering the billing and collection of
Business lmprovement District Fees. While the City does not charge the Broadway Business
lmprovement District or the Burlingame Avenue Business lmprovement District for these
servi@s, it has always charged a flat fee of $4,000 for the annual processing of the San Mateo
County Tourism Business lmprovement District (TBID) assessments. Although TBID activities
are of great economic benefit to the City, much of the administrative costs incurred are the
result of billings and collections for other cities that participate in the TBID. Many of these cities
were not initially part of the district, and the administrative burden has grown. The Council may
wish to consider directing staff to negotiate a higher fee for these activities with TBID officials.
Buildinq
As with many comparably-sized cities, Burlingame's building permit fees are largely based on a
project's valuation, ad.justed by criteria that define the scope of work. For the most part, the
Cost of Services Study evaluated only the unit fees for services provided by the Building
Division. The report also identified an impediment to fuller cost recovery in Building's hourly
rates. While the cost of the staff time spent on regular inspection activities is included in the
cost of the permit, the fees for hours required above lhe normal amount (for additional
3
May 2, 2016
inspections, re-inspections, or unusually complex pOects), should be increased to provide for a
higher level of cost recovery.
Therefore, staff has proposed no change to the building permit fees based on total valuation,
finding them to be consistent with other jurisdictions that use total valuation for setting these
rates, and adequate in covering City costs. A flat fee was considered for smaller poects (such
as single bathroom or kitchen remodels), but lhe current fees appear to approximate the full
cost of these permits in the Cost of Services Study. The City's cunent system allows more
flexibility in establishing the total permit fee because it takes into consideration items in the
project's scope of work that differentiate a smaller project from a larger project, other than the
square foot tiering that a flat fee would provide.
ln addition to the changes of the per hour charges for inspections and plan checks (or flat fees
based on per hour inspection or plan check costs), the fee schedule was updated to provide a
consistent fee for Arborist Review ($226.00).
Enqineerinq
The Engineering Division charges fees for development-related services including lmprovement
Planning Application Reviews; Encroachment Permits; Construction, Demolition and Grading
Permits; and Subdivision Maps. Many of the fees have been increased to provide greater cost
recovery, although some fees were decreased based on the results of the Cost of Services
Study. For example, Encroachment Permits are recommended to be set at 100o/o cost
recovery, with a few exceptions: the charge for Fire System Connection was decreased to
include only the fee for City Engineer services (not for CCFD services); the fee for Block Party
barricades remains well below cost recovery levels so aS nol to discourage this sort of
community activity; and the fee for permits issued for "Moving only Purposes", established
fairly recently, remains unchanged.
The Planning Division currently collects a flat fee of $229.00 for the Engineering Planning
Application Reviews and actual costs for all other project reviews. Through the Cost of
Services Study, staff determined that the current fee is not representative of the aclual cost to
review the planning application. Keeping track of actual costs iS time-consuming for each
project, and the costs do not vary significantly within the various types of development. ln order
to better manage the fees, average costs have been obtained based on the pro,iect type. The
fees represent staff time to complete the typical review for each project type.
ln addition, new fees have been added for certain Engineering services. New fees and deposits
are recommended for Stormwater Pollution Prevention Construction Permits, for inspection
services which assure compliance with best management practices (BMPs) and the Municipal
Regional Permit (MRP). While the department currently reviews building plans for stormwater
management and discharge control measures for construction projects, there is no fee in place
to inspect and enforce the applicanubuilder to comply with best management practices (BMPS).
The new stormwater permit fee would be based on the type of project.
4
Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2016-17
Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2016-17 May 2, 2016
A fee scale has also been added for Grading Permits. Per the municipal code, a grading
permit is required prior to the excavating, filling or grading of any site for any purpose. A fee is
imposed for a standalone grading permit if it is not part of a building permit application. The
current fee schedule does not charge a fee for this service or permit. Staff proposes a new fee
to cover the actual costs to process, review, and inspect the grading of a project site during
construction. The fee has been broken down by the volume of the grading by the applicant.
A new fee has been added for the processing, review and approval of Abandonment of Public
Utility Easement. Property owners that are encumbered by a public utility easement have the
opportunity to request the City to abandon the easement if the utility or City no longer needs it.
The City does not have an application process in place for these requests. The new fee is
calculated to fully recover the costs of staff time to review the application, notify all utilities, and
if granted, go before Council for approval.
Finally, the City is reviewing projects from an increasing number of developers that wish to
construct underground garages. Excavation of the underground garage floors requires
temporary shoring systems (tiebacks and/or support walls) that encroach into the City's right-of-
way during construction and are permanently left after construction. ln order for the City to
process such requests, a special encroachment permit for subsurface Shoring systems is
proposed for the permanent space used by the developer. The fee will be based on the type of
shoring system and square footage of the area that is permanently restricted by the poect's
use.
Librarv
The Burlingame Public Library is a member of the Peninsula Library System (PLS). Service
rates and fines are largely coordinated throughout the system by the PLS Administrative
Council. Concerned that fines provide a barrier to accessing library services, the Administrative
Council recently studied the elimination of overdue fines for children and teens systemwide. As
a result, beginning July 1,2016:
o PLS will implement a new youth library card type for patrons under 18, which will be
utilized by all PLS libraries and will be applied to all existing PLS patrons under 18
. All PLS libraries will eliminate daily overdue fines on youth library cards
o All PLS libraries will waive all existing daily overdue fines on youth library cards
Current and future fees related to lost or damaged materials on youth library cards/accounts will
remain unchanged.
There are several fees added for library services in the proposed 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
as a result of the planned opening of a Passport lntake office at the Main Library. ln
partnership with the US State Department, the office will be open three days per week for a total
of nine hours per week, beginning in July 20'16. ln addition to taking in separate application
fees payable to the US Department of State, an execution fee for Passport Acceptance will be
charged for each passport application. The City retains this $25 fee. The amount is set by the
5
Masler Fee Schedute Fiscat Year 2016-17 May 2, 2016
State Department and is non-negotiable. The fee is intended to cover hourly employee wages,
postage, equipment and office supplies. ln addition, a Passport Photo fee of $15 will be
charged for patrons that choose to purchase a passport photo at the time of passport
acceptance. The costs of the new Passport lntake Office, including part-time wages, postage
and photo equipment, will be included in the FY 2016-17 budget for library operations.
Finally, staff recommends the addition of a $0.25 charge for color printing per page. Cunently,
printing from public computers in the library is only in black and white, with a fee of $0.15 per
page. Burlingame Library has never previously provided the ability to print color copies from
public computers, but increases in patrons using the library for business purposes, as well as
students creating more dynamic school projects, have raised the number of requests for this
service. The charge covers the cost of the machines and supplies, including the higher cost of
color loner cartridges. Note that library patrons are able to use their library cards to receive
three free black and white prints per day or one color print. (This reduces staff time explaining
the different print charges for those patrons who only need a quick print job.)
As noted in the Cost of Services Study, the cost analysis of Parks and Recreation activities did
not follow the typical unit-based approach used for the other fee areas. For most recreation
programs, the underlying data for each activity for which a fee is charged is not available, or
varies widely, leaving the unit cost build-up approach impractical. lnstead, the cost analysis for
the Parks and Recreation Department focused on the overall cost of each program area- Staff
used lhese results to examine potential fee changes within each program.
An example of program-level costs associated with multiple activities is park maintenance
expenses. All maintenance costs are included in the department's budget, but expenses are
only allocated to activities for which a fee has been identified. Further breakdown of expenses
by park, ptayground, picnic area or field would be needed in order to determine a more speciflc
distribution of cunent expenses. Therefore, staff considered comparable or market-rate fees as
a more relevant data set than the cost of these programs as a whole in establishing fee
recommendations for park/facility usage.
For recreational programs, the Cost of Services Study results showed that Leisure/Fitness,
Preschool and Youth Camp programs were highest in cost recovery, and Teen and Senior
programs, along with Community Events, had much lower levels of cost recovery. As stated in
the report, the results for the department (76% average cost-recovery rate) are typical, as park
and recreation programs offer a significant general community benefit. However, the
information is useful in providing cost parameters in the fee-sefting process.
Last year, certain fees related to Parks and Recreation services were modified based on recent
years' experience associated with the rental of facilities. Therefore, increases in the fees
charged for indoor facilities were kept to a minimum, and there were no changes to outdoor
facilities rentals and fleld fees. All Fietd Light fees were raised $5 per hour in an attempt to
better recover costs while still staying within market (comparable to the school district and
6
Parks and Recreation
Mastet Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2O16-17 May 2, 2016
surrounding areas). Fees for various advertising options in the department's bi-annual activity
guide were also increased last year to offset the cost of the publication; no further changes were
deemed necessary.
Fees for Private Tree Emergency Work provided by the department's crew were updated to
reflect increased labor costs. ln addition, a fee was added for the placement of Memorial
Benches at Bayside Park, also based on current costs.
ln its participation in the Cost of Services Study, the department acknowledged a number of
services that were provided at no charge. This is due to the purely public benefit derived from
many of these services. lt was noted that the City does not charge the City's business
improvement districts or non-profit organizations for the cost of hanging banners from street
light poles. The City Council may wish to consider directing staff to implement a fee that covers
(or partially covers) the cost of this service.
The division proposed several new fees in order to proactively provide services that support the
needs of property owners: A Zoning Verification/Property Profile Lefter ($50) fee is
proposed to cover staff time involved in preparing such documents as requested by individuals
and entities such as appraisers and litle companies, and it is not unusual for municipalities to
have a fee for this service. Two variations of the Minor Amendment to Approved Project
(commonly refened to as an "FYl" request) would provide a mechanism for the Planning
Commission to review unanticipated changes that may occur during construction. A minimum
fee (50 percent of full cost) would support voluntary submission of these changes by the
owners. A fee for reviews that are initiated by variations that are discovered by staff in the field
(As-Built Variation from Approved Project) would be charged at full cost.
Finally, several fees are proposed to be combined or restructured to simplify the fee schedule to
the extent possible. Fees for re-zoning and General Plan amendments have been combined on
the Master Fee Schedule, as one is typically not done without the other. Full cost is charged for
Planninq
For many of the permits and services provided by the Planning Division, full cost recovery is
justified, as these development activities are driven by an applicant or property owner who will
benefit from the service. For many services, an increase to full cost recovery significantly
increases the fee. For this reason, 50-75 percent of full cost recovery is recommended for
certain services that provide a community benefit (such as special permits, which provide
architectural design consistency, and noticing). Staff also has proposed 50-75 percent of full
cost recovery for activities where higher fees may discourage requests for the services (Sign
permits, Environmental Review permits, Minor Modifications). Still other fees are held at
existing rates to encourage compliance (Fence Exception, Second Unit Amnesty'
Reasonable Accommodation), promote preservation of neighborhood character (Design
Review additions and amendments), or encourage participation in the planning process
(Conditional Use Permits, Appeals, Planning Commission Hearings).
Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2016-17 May 2, 2016
General Plan AmendmenuRezoning, as such service requests are for the sole benefit of the
property owner. The fee would include the cost of associated noticing requirements.
Note that most development impact fees have not been changed. These fees are based on the
conslruction cost index published in the Engineering News Record (ENR) as of July 1 of each
year, and are reviewed/updated on a different schedule than other Planning Department fees in
the Master Fee Schedule. Only the Burlingame Avenue Parking in Lieu Fees (per parking
space) were adjusted by CPI as of February 29, 2016.
Fees established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (collected and passed-
through by the Planning Department) have been updated to reflect adjustments by that agency
effective January 1, 2016.
Police
The cost analysis for Police Department services revealed an overall cost-recovery rate of 17o/o.
None of the fees recovered the full cost of service, providing a significant subsidy to fee payers.
However, this is largely anticipated in that police services are generally provided out of public
funds for the benefit of the public at large. However there is a limited range of activities where it
is appropriate for the department to set charges to fully or partially recover costs. Ensuring that
charges are levied effectively in such circumstances will help protect the provision of public
police services by contributing to the overall funding of the department.
Therefore, each of the fees was reviewed to determine the extent of public benefit provided in
each service. So, while many fees remain unchanged (police report copies, bicycle license,
false alarm charges, curb painting, etc.) due to the public safety benefit attributed to the
service, other services (vehicle release, DUI response, concealed weapon permits and
specific business permits) provide benefit only to the individual, with no particular benefit to
the public at large. These fees were increased to move the fees closer to full cost recovery. A
few fees (for taxicab annual inspections and fingerprinting) were kept below cost recovery to
encourage compliance.
Public Wo rks - Sewer and W r Utilities
water and sewer rates remain largely unchanged. water rates were last amended in
September 2012 with the adoption of an ordinance that established increases for three years.
Based on a rate study by HF&H Consultants, a 7.8% increase for each of the three years was
approved to cover the wholesale cost of water to the City as well as capital improvements to the
system. The third year of water fee increases was implemented on January'1, 2015, for the
2015 calendar year. The City is currently undergoing another rate review for both the Water
and Sewer utilities; the results of the review will be brought to Council for discussion early in the
2016-17 fiscal year.
The only changes needed for water and sewer utility services are reflected in Sewer
Connection Fees. To keep up with the costs of these connections, the fees are adjusted to
I
Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2016-17 May 2, 2016
conform to the Engineering News Record Construction Cost lndex for San Francisco each year.
However, a misapplication of the base year index has been conected, resulting in a slight
decrease in these fees.
Other Fees
Fees for Fire services are established by the Central County Fire Department (CCFD). As a
separate JPA that is subsidized by both Burlingame and Hillsborough, the CCFD budget is
separately adopted by the CCFD Fire Board on a separate time table. The City will amend the
Master Fee Schedule if CCFD makes any adjustments to their fees.
Animal Control fees are set by the County of San Mateo. The City's Master Fee Schedule will
be amended when the fees established for these services are updated.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The changes to the fee schedule should result in some additional revenue in the new fiscal
year. However, the actual amounts are difficult to calculate because the use of some services
is voluntary, and the volume of activity varies.
Exhibits:
o
. A Resolution of lntent of the City Council of the City of Burlingame to Amend the Master
Fee Schedule for City Services
. City of Burlingame Proposed Master Fee Schedule
. 2015 Full Cost of Service (User Fee Study)
RESOLUTTON NO._
WHEREAS, the City of Budingame regularly reviews the fees which the City charges
persons or entities for the use of City facilities, or the provision of City services; and
WHEREAS, in order to ensure that the cost of such services and facilities is borne by the
users of said services and facilities in a fair and equitable manner, the City periodically adjusts the
fees for services and facility use to ensure that the fees charged reflect the actual costs to the CiV
and the City's taxpayers in providing those services and facilities; and
WHEREAS, the fees reflected in the Master Fee Schedule have been carefully reviewed
by each city department, and speciflc recommendations to amend fees have been provided to
ensure that tharges keep pace with the costs for providing City services, where appropriate; and
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO AMEND THE
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR CITY SERVICES
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Burlingame City Council intends to amend the Master Fee Schedule.
2. The Master Fee Schedule, with proposed adjustments for fiscal year 2016-17, is
posted and available on-line at www.Burlinoame.orq' with the staff
-
report
associated with the May 2, 20'16 agenda item related to Amendment of the Master
Fee Schedule.
3. The Master Fee Schedule, with proposed adjustments for fiscal yeat 2016-17, is
also on file and available at the office of the city clerk at 510 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, california, and is available for review during regular business hours, 8
am to 5 pm, MondaY through FridaY.
4. The City council of the city of Budingame hereby schedules a public hearing on
the proposed amendments to the Master Fee Schedule for Monday, June 6, 2016,
at Z:00'pm, in the Council Chambers, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, Califomia.
5. At the public hearing, the city council will receive testimony and evidence, and
interested persons may submit written comments before or al the public hearing, or
such comments may be sent by mail or delivered to the city clerk, Burlingame city
Hall, 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010.
6. At the public hearing, any and all persons may make oral or written comments of
the proposed amendments.
7. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the city council will deliberate upon the
proposed fees as outlined in the Master Fee Schedule, and will consider further
amendments and adoption of the 2016-1 7 Master Fee Schedule.
l, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Cle* of the City of Burlingame, hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Burlingame City Council held on the 2d day of May, 2016, by the following vote to wit:
8. All of the facts recited above, in the staff report and supporting documentation are
true and conect and the Council relies upon same.
Ann Keighran, Mayor
Councilmembers
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT
zuRLINGAME
City of Burlingame
Master Fee Schedule
EFFECTIVE ON JULY T,2OL6*
+Certain fees charged by the Planning and Building Divisions, the Fire Department and the
Engineering Division of the Public works Department will become effective August 5, 2016
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
SERVICE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Returned Check Resolution No. 31-2003 s26.00 S3o.oo
Copying of Routine Document
(Copies of sizes other than 8- %"
by lL" or 8 -%" by 14" or 11" by
17 or color copies will be charged
at cost)
To be paid in advance
Resolution No. 33-2008 $0.25 per page No change
Audio tape copies (except for
Police)
lf blank tape supplied
lf no tape supplied
Resolution No. 32-2009
Resolution No. 32-2009
S17.00 per tape
$17.00 per tape
plus purchase costs
of tape
No change
No change
Page 1
CITY.WIDE FEES
REFERENCE
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
S1.00 to S500.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 s37.oo
ss01.00 to s2,000.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 538.00 for the first
S5oo.oo plus $5.28
for each add itional
S100.00 or fraction
thereof up to and
including S2,000.00
No change
S2,001.00 to 525,000.00 Resolution No.27-2077 S109.oo for the
first S2,000.00 plus
S22.15 for each
additional
S1,000.00 or
fraction thereof up
to and including
s2s,000.00
No cha nge
525,001.00 to S50,000.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 5611.00 for the
first S25,000.00
plus St6.3o for
each additional
S1,000.00 or
fraction thereof up
to and including
s50,000.00
No change
Page 2
BUITDING PERMIT FEES BASED ON TOTAL VALUATION
No change
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
ss0,001.00 to $100,000.00 S1,006.00 for the
first s50,000.00
plus $11.02 for
each additional
S1,ooo.oo or
fraction thereof up
to and including
s100,000.00
No change
s101,000.00 to ss00,000.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 51,551.00 for the
first S100,000.00
plus 59.40 for each
additional
S1,ooo.oo or
fraction thereof up
to and including
Ssoo,ooo.oo
No cha nge
S501,000.00 to S1,000,000.00 Resolution No 27-2011 55,044.00 for the
first S500,000.00
plus 58.57 for each
additional
S1,ooo.oo or
fraction thereof up
to and including
s1,000,000.00
No change
Resolution No. 27-2011
Page 3
BU!LDING
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
More than S1,o00,ooo.o0 Resolution No. 27-2011 S8,755.00 for the
first s1,000,000.00
plus $5.80 for each
additional
51,000.00 or
fraction thereof
No change
Building inspections outside
normal business hours
S11o.oo per hour
(minimum charge
of 4 hours)
5225.00 per hour
(minimum charge
of 2 hours)
Re-inspection fees (minimum -
one hourl
Resolution No. 27-2011 S110.00 per hour S225.00 per hour
Energy Upgrade California
Basic Package
Advanced Package
Resolution No. 27-2011
s110.00
s219.00
S22s.oo
General fire inspections for new
building and tenant remodels
limited to building permits of
commercial or multi-family
residential
Resolution No. 27-2011 Additional 12% of
Building Permit fee
Determined by
CCFD - pass-
through costs
Basic Fee - Building Division Resolution No. 104-2002 No ch ange
Page 4
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
Resolution No. 27-2011
s4s0.00
PLAN REVIEW FEES
65% of Building
Permit Fee
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Energy Plan Check Fee (where
applicable; includes review of
Green Points Checklistl
Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of
Building Permit Fee
No change
Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 35% of
Building Permit Fee
No change
S110.00 per hour S270.00 per hour
Review of Unreasonable
Hardship Request
Resolution No. 27-2011 S110.00 per hour S270.00 per hour
Minimum fee of 580.00
Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of
Building Permit Fee No change
Plan Revisions for Planning
Department
Resolution No. 27-2011 S110.00 per hour S270.00 per hour
Plan Revisions Subsequent to
Permit lssuance
Resolution No. 27-2011 S110.00 per hour
plus cost of any
additional review
5270.00 per hour
plus cost of any
additional review
Engineering Division Plan Review
(where applicable)
Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of
Building Permit Fee No change
lmaging Fee
No change
Page 5
BUILDING
Disabled Access Plan Check Fee
(where applicable)
Review of Request for Alternate
Materials and Methods
Resolution No. 27-2011
Planning Department Plan Check
Fee (where applicable)
Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 5% of
Building Permit Fee
with minimum fee
of S5.00
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE REFERENCE NEW FEE
Arborist Review Resolution No. 33-2007 Additional 5.75% of
Building Permit Fee
5226.O0
PLUMBING PERMIT FEES
*These fees do not include connections fees, such as for sewer connections or water meter fees charged by
other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility companies.
For issuance of each plumbing
permit
Resolution No. 27-2011 S42.oo No change
**The following items are in addition to the Basic Permit lssuance Fee:
New Resid ial Buildine -
including all plumbing fixtures,
connections and tas outlets for
new single- and multi-family
buildings
$0.12 per square
foot of habitable
a rea
No cha nge
Fixtures a nd vents
For each plumbing fixture or trap
(including water and waste
piping and backflow prevention)
Resolution No. 27-2011 s18.oo No change
Sewer and interceptors
For each building sewer Resolution No 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
S64.oo
Sss.oo
No change
Page 6
CURRENT FEE
Resolution No. 32-2009
For each industrial waste
pretreatment interceptor
(except kitchen-type grease
traps)
No change
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE
For each water heater including
vent
$ss.oo
$ss.oo
No change
No change
For each additional outlet over
five
S36.oo
S7.00 No change
lrrigation systems including
backflow device(s)
Other backflow prevention
devices:
2 inches (50.8 mm) and
smaller
over 2 inches (50.8 mm)
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resof ution No.27 -2OLI
sss.00
$ss.oo
sss.00
No change
No cha nge
No change
Page 7
NEW FEE
Water Pipins and Water Heaters
For installation alteration or
repair of water piping or water-
treatment equipment
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
Gas Piping Svstems
For each gas piping system of one
to five outlets
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 33-2008
No change
lrrisation Svstems and Backflow
Prevention Devices
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Swi mming Pools
For each swimming pool or spa,
all plumbing:
Public pool
Public spa
Private pool
Private spa
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No.27-ZOLL
s219.00
s16s.00
S219.oo
S16s.oo
No change
No change
No change
No change
Miscellaneous
For each appliance or fixture for
which no fee is listed
Resolution No. 27-2011 s36.oo No change
lnspections outside normal
business hours
Resolution No. 27-2011 S110.00 per hour
(minimum charge
of 4 hours)
S225.00 per hour
(minimum charge
of 2 hours)
Reinspection fees
(minimum - one hour)
S110.00 per hour S225.00 per hour
lnspections for which no fee is
specifically indicated
(minimum charge is one-half
hour)
S110.00 per hour
lmaging fee Resolution No. 32-2009 Additional 5% of
plumbing permit
fee with minimum
fee of 55.00
No cha nge
Plan review (where applicable)Additional 25% of
plumbing permit
fee
No change
BUILDING
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011 5225.00 per hour
Resolution No. 104-2002
Page 8
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee schedule
BUILDING
REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES
*These fees do not include connections fees, such as for seer connections or water meter fees charged by
other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility companies
Basic Permit lssuance Fee
For issuance of each mechanical
permit+*
Resolution No.27-2077 s42.oo No change
+*The following items are in addition to the Basic Permit lssuance Fee:
New Re sidential Building
including all mechanical work
including appliances, exhaust
fans, ducts, and flues
Resolution No. 32-2009 $0.10 per square
foot of habitable
area
No change
Furnaces
To and including 100 MBTU
Over 100 MBTU
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
sss.oo
5ss.oo
No cha nge
No change
Boilers, comp ressors, absorption
svstems
To and including 100 MBTU or
3HP
Over 100 MBTU or 3 HP
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
Sss.oo
Sss.oo
No change
No change
Air Conditioners Resolution No. 27-2011 sss.00 No change
Page 9
SERVICE
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Over 10,000 CFM
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
S36.00 each
S55.oo each
No change
No change
Each hood including ducts Resolution No. 27-2011
S18.00 each
S28.00 each
No change
No change
Miscellaneous
For each appliance or piece of
equipment not specifically listed
above
S28.00 each No change
Resolution No. 27-2011 S110.00 per hour
(minimum charge
of 4 hou rs)
S225.00 per hour
(minimum charge
of 2 hours)
Re-inspection fees
(minimum charge is one hour)
Resolution No. 27-2011 S110.00 per hour S225.00 per hour
lnsDections for which no fe e ts
specificall indicated
(minimum charge is one-half
hour)
Resolution No. 27-2011 S11o.oo per hour 5225.00 per hour
lmaging fee Resolution No. 32-2009 Additional 5% of
mechanical permit
fee with minimum
fee of 55.00
No change
PaBe 10
Air Handlers
To 10,000 CFM including ducting
Ventilation and Exhaust
Each ventilation fan attached to a
single duct
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
lnsDections outside normal
business hours
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Plan review (where applicable)Additional 25% of
mechanical permit
fee
No change
ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES
*These fees do not include connections fees, such as for sewer connections or water meter fees charged by
other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility companies)
+*The following items are in addition to the Basic Permit lssuance Fee:
For issuance of each electrical
permit"
Resolution No.21-2OII S42.oo No cha nge
New Residential Building -
including all wiring and electrical
devices in or on each building,
including service
Resolution No. 32-2009 $0.10 per square
foot of habitable
area
No change
Page 11
Resolution No. 104-2002
FiscalYear 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Swimmine Pools
Public swimming pools and spas
including all wiring and electrical
equipment
Private pools for single-family
residences
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
s110.00
s168.00
Temporary Power
Temporary service pole including
all attached receptacles
Temporary power pole and
wiring for construction sites,
Christmas tree lots, etc.
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
Sss.oo
Sss.oo
No change
No change
Receptacle, sw itch and lieht
outlets
First 20 units
Each additional
Resolution No. 27-2011 ss4.00
S4.oo No change
Page 12
SYSTEM FEE SCHEDULE
s82.oo
s22s.00
UNIT FEE SCHEDULE
Resolution No. 32-2009
No change
FiscalYear 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Residential Appliances
For fixed residential appliances
including cook tops, ovens, air
conditionin& garbage disposals,
and similar devices not exceedint
1 HP in rating
(For other types of air
conditioners or other motor-
driven appliances having larger
ratings, see Power Apparatus
below)
Resolution No. 32-2009 S9.00 each No change
Nonresidentia lAooliances
Self-contained factory-wired
non-residential appliances not
exceeding 1 HP, KW, or kVA in
rating including medical and
dental devices; food, beverage
and ice cream cabinets;
illuminated showcases; drinking
fountains; vending machines;
laundry machines; etc.
Resolution No. 32-2009 59.oo each No cha nge
Page 13
(For other types of devices
having larger electrical
ratings, see Power Apparatus
below)
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Power Apparatus
For motors, generators, air
conditioners and heat pumps and
commercial cooking devices as
follows (ratings in horsepower,
kilowatts, kilovolt-amperes, or
kilovolt-a mperes-reactive) :
up to 10
Over l0 to and including 100
Over 100
Notes:
For equipment or appliances
having more than one motor,
transformer, heater, etc., the
sum of the combined ratings may
be used.
These fees include all switches,
circuit breakers, contractors,
thermostats, relays, and other
related control equipment.
Resolution No 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
s28.oo
Sss.oo
S110.00
No change
No change
No change
Page 14
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Photo volta ic svstems
Residentia I svstems
Permit
Up to 3000 watts
Over 3000 watts
Plan Check
Resolution No. 32-2009
Resolution No. 32-2009
Resolution No. 32-2009
No Charge
No Charge
No Charge
No change
No change
No cha nge
Commerci al Svstems
Up to 3000 watts
Over 3000 watts
Plan Check
Permit
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
S3so.oo
S110.00 per hour
S3so.oo
No change
5225.00 per hour
No cha nge
Buswavs
For trolleys and plug-in type
busways
Resolution No. 27-2011 528.00 for each
100 feet (30,500
mm) or fraction
thereof
No change
Page 15
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
BUILDING
REFERENCE NEW FEE
Signs, outline lighting, or
marquees supplied from
one circuit
For additional branch circuits
within the same sign, outline
lighting, or marquee
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 32-2009
S55.oo each
S18.00 each
No change
Services
600 volts or less and not over 200
amperes in rating
600 volts or less, over 200
amperes to 1,000
amperes
Over 600 volts or over 1,000
amperes
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 21-2077
S55.oo each
S82.00 each
S110.00 each
No cha nge
No change
No change
Miscellaneous
For apparatus, conduits, and
conductors for which a permit is
required but for which no fee is
set forth
Resolution No. 27-2011 S36.oo No cha nge
lnspections outside normal
business hours
Resolution No. 27-2011 S11o.oo per hour
(minimum charge
of 4 hours)
S225.00 per hour
(minimum charge
of 2 hours)
Page 16
SERVICE CURRENT FEE
Siens, Outline lightine and
Marquees Permits
No change
Resolution No 27-201L
FiscalYear 2016-17 Master Fee schedule
BUILDING
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Reinspection fees
(minimum charge is one hour)
Resolution No. 27-2011 5110.00 per hour S225.00 per hour
lnspections for which no fee is
specifically indicated
(minimum charge is one-half
hour!
Resolution No 27-2011 S110.00 per hour S225.00 per hour
lmaging fee Resolution No. 32-2009 Additional 5% of
electrical permit
fee with minimum
fee of 55.00
No change
Plan review (where applicable)Resolution No. 104-2002 No cha nge
Building Moving S327.oo No change
Page 17
Additional 25% of
electrical permit
fee
GENERAL FEES
Resolution No. 32-2009
(Section 18.07.030)
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
CITY CLERK & ELECTIONS
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE
Video recording of City Council
meeting or other proceeding that
has been video recorded - to be
paid in advance of copying
recording
Resolution No. 32-2009
Resolution No. 32-2009
S88.00 per vHS
tape plus photo
service charge
588.00 per DVD
plus photo service
charge
No change
Audiotape of City Council
meeting or other City proceeding
that has been taped - to be paid
in advance of copying tape
Resolution No. 32-2009
Resolution No. 32-2009
S17.00 per tape if
tape is supplied by
requestor
517.00 per tape if
tape is not supplied
plus pu rchase cost
of tape
No cha nge
No change
All Certifications Resolution No. 32-2009 S17.00 each No change
Filing of Nomination Papers Burlingame Municipal
Code section 2.2O.020
(Ordinance No. 1703
(2003)
No change
Page 18
NEW FEE
No change
S28.00 per
candidate
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEERING
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE
Sewer Lateral Test Resolution No. 32-2009 S332.oo s39s.00
Sewer Lateral Replacement (with
Sidewalk Add No. 5)
Resolution No. 32-2009 s332.00 s39s.00
Water Service Connection (with
Sidewalk Add No. 5)
Resolution No. 32-2009 s497.00 ss16.00
Resolution No. 32-2009 s600.00 s178.00
Sidewalk/Driveway up to 200 S.F.
(lncludes Curb Drain)
Resolution No. 32-2009
Section s
L2.LO.O3O/72.O8.O2O/
12.04.030
5430.00 plus S.34
for each square
foot over 200
S371.00 plus $.34
for each square
foot over 200
s211.00 s370.00
Traffic Control Resolution No. 33-2008 s283.00 s303.00
Block Party (includes up to 6
barricadesf
Resolution No. 27-2006 No Change
NEW FEE
ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
Fire System Connection (with
Sidewalk Add No. 5l
Sidewalk Closure/Pedestrian
Protedion
Resolution No. 32-2009
550.00 plus 55.00
for each ad d'l
barricade over 6
Page 19
AEItsSEEE
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
ENGIN EERING
SERVICE REFERENCE NEW FEE
Commercial Areas and
Construction Purposes
Moving Only Purposes
(Residential Areas)
$t+5.00 plus
$10.00 space per
day or meter rates
$31.00 processing
fee plus $10 per
space per day
S192.00 plus
$10.00 space per
day or meter rates
No Change
Page 20
CURRENT FEE
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
ENGINEER!NG
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Demolition Permit (in addition to
any Building Department-issued
Demolition or Construction
Permit)
lncludes sewer, water and
sidewalk replacement
Add fire line
Add curb drain
Add sidewalk closure
Add PG&E
Resolution No. 32-2009
Resolution No. 32-2009
Resolution No. 32-2009
Resolution No. 32-2009
Resolution No. 32-2009
s1,283.00
s600.00
s18s.00
s211.00
s269.00
S14i.7.oo
S7s.oo
s202.00
s202.00
s202.00
Resolution No. 32-2009 s364.00 s29s.00
Single Trip -Transportation Fee
(Fixed rate set by Per Caltrans)
Senate Bill SB 372 No Change
Leaf Blower Testing Certification
Fee
Ord. No. 781t(2012],525.00 for up to 5
leaf blowers
55.00 for
certification decal
if certified by
man ufacturer
Creek Enclosures Resolution No. 32-2009 S1,374.00 s3,9s0.00
Page 21
GENERAL FEES
Address Change
s16.00
531.20 for up to 5
leaf blowers
S5.00 for
certification decal if
certified by
manufacturer
FiscalYear 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
ENGIN EERING
SERVICE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
s4,s0s.00
Hauling Permit Section 13.60.080 S36.00 application
fee plus l cent per
ton per mile
S236.00 application
fee plus l cent per
ton per mile
Subsurface Shoring Systems
o Per LO'-ZO' deep tieback
o Per >20'deep tieback
. For permanent space used
S2,000.00 each
S1,000.00 each
50% of a ppraised
land value at time
of building permit
Resolution No. 32-2009 s618.00 S1,26s.oo
Non-permanent installations,
such as tables, chairs, planters
5292.00 s1,497.00
DEPOSITS OR BONDS FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WORK
Openings in Public Right-of-Way
(not in sidewalk or street)
Resolution No. 33-2007 5328.00 Minimum
(in easement area )
S1o/s.F. in
sidewalk
5915.00 Minimum
(in easement area )
S10/S.F. in sidewalk
Page 22
REFERENCE
Abandonment of Public Utility
Easement
SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
Permanent structures, such as
retaining walls, fences
Resolution No. 32-2009
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
ENGIN EERING
REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Resolution No. 33-2007 S1o.oo per square
foot in sidewalk
area, 5328.00
minimum
$10.00 per square
foot in sidewalk
area, 5915.00
minimum
Street Roadway Opening (AC
Pavement Restorationf
Resolution No. 33-2007
Water Main Modification
Sewer Main & Storm Drain
Modification
Resolution No. 33-2007 S1,096.oo per
connection
S2,500.00 per
connection
Lot Line Adjustment Resolution No. 32-2009
(Section 26.24.0901
s727.OO S2,525.00 plus
deposit
Lot Combination Resolution No. 32-2009
(Section 26.24.O9O1
S1,ls7.oo S2,525.00 plus
deposit
Subdivision Map Resolution No. 32-2009
(Sections 25.24.O9O/
25.16.1s1)
S1,454.00, plus
5219.00 for each
additional lot in
excess of 5 lots;
plus actual City
consultant costs
S3,750.00 plus
deposit, plus
5219.00 for each
additional lot in
excess of 5 lots;
plus actual City
consu ltant costs
Page 23
SERVICE
Openings in Public Right-of-Way
in sidewalk (not in streetl
$1o.oo per square
foot in paved area,
5822.00 minimum
including curb
replacement
$10.00 per square
foot in paved area,
s1,s00.00
minimum including
curb replacement
Resolution No. 33-2007 S1,644.00 per
connection
S5,400.00 per
connection
SUBDIVISION MAPS
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee schedule
SERVICE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Condominium Map Resolution No. 32-2009
(Sections 26.24.090/
26.16.1s1)
S2,319.00, plus
S548.00 for each
additional unit over
4 units, plus actual
City consultant
costs
S2,912.00, plus
S548.00 for each
additional unit over
4 units, plus actual
City consultant
costs
STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
** The fees represent the labor cost to inspect and security deposit
S165.00 plus
S500.00 security
deposit
Type 2 Project: Multi-family
dwellings o commercial additions
(excluding tenant improvements)
that are on a 10,000 sf lot or
smaller
S330.00 plus
S500.00 security
deposit
Type 3 Project: Any project
10,000 sf up to an acre lot
S660.00 plus
S1,500.00 security
deposit
Type 4 Project: Any project
greater than one acre in size
S1,32o.oo plus
S5,000 security
d eposit
Page 24
ENGIN EERING
REFERENCE
Type 1 Project: Single family
dwellings with 1't or 2nd floor
additions on a 10,000 sf lot or
smaller
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
ENGIN EERING
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
PLANNI NG APPLICATION REVIEWS
Single Family Dwelling (Addition)s428.00
Single Family Dwelling (New)s8s6.00
Multi-family 51,7t2.OO
Commercial/lndustrial 57,772.OO
Environmental Review s1,379.00
Traffic and Parking Studies 53,2s3.00
GRADING PERMIT
s1,1s6.00
101 - 1,000 cubic yards s1,74s.00
Over 10,000 cubic yards 52,776.OO
Page 25
1 - 100 cubic yards
1,001 - 10,000 cubic yards s2,040.00
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
FINANCE
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Duplicate business license Section 6.04.120 s10.00 No change
Application for first business
license
Section 6.04.170 s3s.oo No change
Submittal of surety bond for
transient occupancy after
expiration of bond
Resolution No. 27-
2006
$150.00 for every
15 days bond is late
No change
Special business license for long-
term parking
Section 6.08.085 5% of gross receipts No change
Page 26
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES . CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
The Central County Fire Department (CCFD) is governed bythe Fire Board, and as such, its fees are enacted via
process that is separate from that ofthe City of Burlingame. These fees will be included in the City of
Burlingame Master Fee Schedule as of July 1, 2016 based on any future action by CCFD. The following are
current fees as of July 1, 2015.
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Health & Safety Code 5
73235
Available on July 1,
2016
Residential Care Facility for
Elderly serving 6 or fewer
persons - fire inspedion
enforcement
Health & Safety Code 5
1569.84
No Charge Available on July 1,
20L6
Residential Care Facilities Resolution No. 33-2008 s284.00 Available on July 1,
20L6
Large Family Day Care Resolution No. 33-2008 s1s0.00 Available on July 1,
2016
Skilled Nursing Facility Resolution No. 33-2008 Sssl.oo Available on July 1,
20L6
Hospital/lnstitution Resolution No. 33-2008
RE-INSPECTIONS
Second re-inspection Resolution No. 33-2008 $t 33.oo per
inspection
Available on July 1,
2076
Page 27
CARE FACILITIES INSPECTION
Pre-inspection of licensed
community care facility
S160.00 per hour
S2,1s4.oo Available on July 1,
2016
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES . CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Third and subsequent
reinspections
Resolution No. 33-2008
CONSTRUCTION FEES
Resolution No. 33-2008 S155.00 per hour Available on July 1,
2016
Expedite Building or Planning
Check Fees
(2 hour minimum)
Resolution No. 33-2008 $310 per hour Available on July 1,
20L6
Consultation and Planning Resolution No. 33-2008 S181.00 per hour Available on July 1,
20L6
Fire Alarm Svstems
Permit for Monitoring System
Permit for Manual System
Permit for Automatic System
Permit for Combination
System
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 33-2008
s160.00
s160.00
s294.00
s42s.00
Available on July 1,
20t6
Fixed Fire Extin ishi ns Svstem
Permit
Resolution No. 33-2008 5227.OO Available on July 1,
2016
Standpipe System
Permit
Resolution No. 33-2008 s294.00 Available on July 1,
2016
Page 28
5335.00 per
in spection
Available on July 1,
20t6
Building or Planning Plan Check
Fiscal Year 2016-L7 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES . CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Storage Tank (above or below
groundl Permit
Resolution No. 33-2008 s160.00 Available on July 1,
20t6
One or two Family Dwelling Fire
Sprinkler System (NFPA 13D
Permit Resolution No. 33-2008 5427.00 - flat fee
including two
inspections
(additional
inspections will be
charged at the
hourly rate of the
staff who actually
perform each
inspection)
Available on July 1,
2016
Fire Pump Permit Resolution No. 33-2008 s160.00 Available on July 1,
2016
SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
Page 29
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES . CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
Residential or Commercial Fire
Sprinkler System (NFPA 13 or
13R)
Permit - Single Story (incl. T.l.l
Permit - Multi-story
Resolution No. 33-2008 5695.00 flat fee
including two
inspections
(additional
inspections will be
charged at the
hourly rate of the
staff who actually
perform each
inspection)
Available on July 1,
20L6
Fire Service Line lnspection Resolution No. 33-2008 s160.00 Available on July 1,
20t6
Alternate Means of Protection
Review
S176.00 per hour Available on July 1,
2076
MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND PERMITS
Available on July 1,
2016
NFPA 13 or 13R Remodel &
Repair (Sprinkler Head
relocation/adjustment only)
Available on July 1,
20t6
Change of Use lnspection
(usually triggered by new
business license)
Resolution No. 33-2008 s169.00 Available on July 1,
20t6
Page 30
Resolution No. 33-2008
Vetetation Management
lnspection
Resolution No. 33-2008 S160.00 plus 50%
of contractor's fee
Resolution No. 33-2008 s160.00
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
Standby Service
Firefighter
Fire Captain
Battalion Chief
Engine Company
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 33-2008
S123.00 per hour
(minimum of 3
hou rs)
S146.00 per hour
(minimum of 3
ho u rs)
S163.00 per hour
(minimum of 3
ho u rs)
S5o1.oo per hour
(minimum of 3
hours) plus
apparatus costs of
S1,360.00 per day
as set by state
Available on July 1,
2016
Available on July 1,
20t6
Available on July 1,
20L6
Available on July 1,
20t6
Photographs from
investigations
Cost of
reproduction
Available on July 1,
20t6
Fire lncident Reports (not
including photographs)
Resolution No. 33-2008 S1o.oo Available on July 1,
20L6
Work without a construction
permit
Resolution No. 33-2008 Up to 10 times the
permit fees
Available on July 1,
20t6
Emergency Response Costs for
Driving under the lnfluence
Costs according to
Personnel Schedule
Below plus
apparatus cost of
S1,350.00 per day
as set by state
Available on July 1,
)016
Page 31
FIRE FEES . CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 51-2004
Resolution No. 33-2008
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES. CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
False Alarms Resolution No. 33-2007 s570.00 for 3 to 5
S1,o71.oo for 6 or
more
Available on July 1,
20t6
Hazardous Materials Clean-
up/Response
Resolution No. 33-2008 Costs according to
Personnel Schedule
Below plus
apparatus costs of
S1,360.00 per day
as set by State
Available on July 1,
20L6
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
PERSONNEL COSTS
Administration
Firefighter
Fire Captain
Fire Admin Captain
Fire lnspector
Battalion chief
Fire Marshal
Admin Support Officer
Fire Mechanic
Deputy Fire Chief
Division Chief
Fire Chief
Resolution
Resolution
Resolution
Resolution
Resolution
Resolution
Resolution
Resolution
Resolution
Resolution
Resolution
Resolution
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
33-2008
33-2008
33-2008
33-2008
33-2008
33-2008
33-2008
33-2008
33-2008
33-2008
33-2008
33-2008
S 54.00 per hour
S123.00 per hour
S146.00 per hour
S153.00 per hour
S134.00 per hour
S163.oo per hour
Su6.00 per hour
S 91.00 per hour
S143.00 per hour
S154.00 per hour
S159.00 per hour
S182.00 per hour
Available on July 1,
20t6
Personnel Costs bv Job Class
Page 32
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES . CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Aerosol Products Resolution No. 33-2008 S2so.oo Available on July 1,
20L6
Amusement Buildings Resolution No. 33-2008 s284.00 Available on July 1,
20t6
Apartments, Hotels and Motels
- 10 or less units
Resolution No. 33-2008 s181.00 Available on July 1,
2016
Apartments, Hotels and Motels
- 11 to 25 units
Resolution No. 33-2008 s218.00 Available on July 1,
2016
Apartments, Hotels and Motels
- 26 or more units
Resolution No. 33-2008 s308.00 Available on July 1,
2016
Aviation Facilities Resolution No. 33-2008 s4s0.00 Available on July 1,
2016
Battery System Resolution No. 33-2008 s4s0.00 Available on July 1,
2016
Carnivals and Fairs Resolution No. 33-2008 s417.00 Available on July 1,
20t6
Christmas Tree Lot Resolution No. 33-2008 s1s0.00 Available on July 1,
20t6
Combustible Fiber Storate Resolution No. 33-2007
Combustible Material Storate Resolution No. 33-2008 s2s0.00
Page 33
GENERAL PERMITS
s2s0.00 Available on July 1,
20t6
Available on July 1,
2016
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee schedule
FIRE FEES . CENTRAL COUNW FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Compressed Gasses Resolution No. 33-2008 s2s0.00 Available on July 1,
20L6
Commercial Rubbish-Handling
Operation
Resolution No. 33-2008 S2so.oo Available on July 1,
20t6
Cryogens Resolution No. 33-2008 s2s0.00 Available on July 1,
20t6
Dry Cleaning Plants Resolution No. 33-2008 s2s0.00 Available on July 1,
20L6
Dust-Producing Operations Resolution No. 33-2008 Available on July 1,
20t6
Explosives or BlastinB Agents Resolution No. 33-2008 S4so.oo
Fire Hydrants and water
Control Valves
Resolution No. 33-2008 s247.OO Available on July 1,
20t6
Fireworks Resolution No. 33-2008 s4s0.00 Available on July 1,
2076
Flammable or Combustible
Liquids
Resolution No. 33-2008 S4so.oo
Hazardous Materials s4s0.00 Available on July 1,
20t6
High-Piled Combustible Storage
- 20,000 square feet or less
Resolution No. 33-2008 S4so.oo Available on July 1,
2016
High-Piled Combustible Storage
- more than 20,000 square feet
Resolution No. 33-2008 ss83.00 Available on luly 1,
2076
Page 34
S2so.oo
Available on July 1,
2016
Available on July 1,
20L6
Resolution No. 33-2008
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE REFERENCE NEW FEE
Hot-Work Operations Resolution No. 33-2008 s2s0.00 Available on July 1,
20L6
Liquefi ed Petroleum Gasses Resolution No. 33-2008 s4s0.00 Available on July 1,
2016
Liquid- or gas-fueled Vehicles or
Equipment in Assembly
Buildings
Resolution No. 33-2008 54s0.00
Live Audiences Resolution No. 33-2008 s4s0.00 Available on July 1,
2016
Available on July 1,
2016
Magnesium Working Resolution No. 33-2008 s2s0.00 Available on July 1,
2016
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
EXHIBITS & TRADE S HOWS. FOR ASSEMBLY
Exhibits & Trade Shows -
Display Booth
Resolution No. 33-2008 Available on July 1,
2015
Exhibits & Trade Shows - With
Open Flame
Resolution No. 33-2008 s2s0.00 Available on July 1,
2016
Resolution No. 33-2008 S2so.oo Available on July 1,
20L6
Page 35
FiscalYear 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
CURRENT FEE
Available on July 1,
2016
Lumber Yards storing in excess
of 100,00 board Feet
Resolution No. 33-2008 S3so.oo
s2s0.00
Exhibits & Trade Shows -
Display Fuel Powered
Equipment
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES . CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE
Motor Vehicle Fuel'Dispensing
Stations
s211.00 Available on July 1,
20t6
Open Burning S2so.oo Available on July 1,
20t6
Resolution No. 33-2008 Available on July 1,
2016
Ovens, lndustrial Baking and
Drying
Resolution No. 33-2008 Available on July 1,
20t6
Parade Floats Resolution No. 33-2008 Available on July 1,
20t6
Places of Assembly s47s.00 Available on July 1,
20L6
Resolution No. 33-2008 S417.oo Available on July 1,
2016
Pyrotechnical and Special
Effects Material
Resolution No. 33-2008 Available on July 1,
20L6
Radioactive Materials Resolution No. 33-2008 s2s0.00 Available on July 1,
20t6
Refrigeration Equipment Resolution No. 33-2008 s3s0.00 Available on July 1,
2016
Resolution No. 33-2008 s284.00 Available on July 1,
20\6
Resolution No. 33-2008 s284.00 Available on July 1,
2016
NEW FEE
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 33-2008
Ortanic Coating S2so.oo
S211.oo
s2s0.00
Resolution No. 33-2008
Production Facilities
s4s0.00
Repair Garage
Spraying and Dipping
Page 36
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Tents, Canopies, and Temporary
Membrane Structures
Resolution No. 33-2008 s380.00 Available on July 1,
2016
Tire Storage Resolution No. 33-2008 s2s0.00 Available on July 1,
20L6
Wood Products Resolution No. 33-2008 s2s0.00 Available on July 1,
20L6
Page 37
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
LIBRARY
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Photocopies - Black and White S0.15 per page at
vending machine
No Change
Photocopies - Color 50.25 per page at
vending machine
lnternet /Database copies or
printouts - Black and white
Resolution No. 27-2011 First 3 pages free
$0.15 per page
No Change
lnternet /Database copies or
printouts - Color
Resolution No. 27-2011 First page free
$0.25 per page
Facilities R al
Lane Community Room rental
Use of Audio Visual Equipment
Tech Media Lab rental
Use of Audio Visual Equipment
Computer set-up/breakdown
Meetint Room rental
Use of Audio Visual Equipment
Resolution No. 32-2009
Resolution No. 27-2011
s100.00
530.00 flat fee
540.00 first 4 hours
530.00 Flat fee
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
Page 38
CITY OF BURLINGAME FEES
560.00 first 4 hours
530.00 flat fee
S50.oo flat fee
LIBRARY
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Outside System Book Loan Resolution No. 27-2011 55.00 + additional
fee from lending
library if applicable
No Change
Passport Acceptance/US State
Department Fee
Set by US State
Department
s2s.oo
Passport Photo Fee S1s.oo
PENINSULA LIBRA RY SYSTEM CONSORTIU M CONTROLLED FEES
Overdue Fee for Adult Peninsula Library System $0.25 per item, per
day
No Change
Maximum Fee Peninsula Library System 58.00 Adult
s3.90 Child
No Change
Peninsula Library System $5.00 per item plus
costs of
replacement of
item
No Change
Replacement of Lost Card Peninsula Library System s1.00 No Change
Page 39
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
Lost Book Replacement Fee
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
School District Fees: Fees shall be a pplied to the district and affiliated organizations (examples: PTA,
Boosters, Foundations) as follows:
A. San Mateo Union H ieh School District
a. Unless otherwise specified in an adopted facility use agreement, indoor and athletic facility
fees shall be calculated administratively to be comparable to the SMUHSD fee schedule as it
pertains to City use of similar SMUHSD facilities.
b. picnic and special park facility fees, and staffing fees charged to SMUHSD shall beattherates
described in other sections of the fee schedule.
B. Burlinsame School District
a. Unless otherwise specified in an adopted facility use agreement, indoor and athletic facility
fees shall be calculated administratively to be comparable to the BSD fee schedule as it
pertains to City use of similar BSD facilities.
b. Picnic and special park facility fees, and staffing fees charged to BsD shall be at the rates
described in other sections ofthe fee schedule. Pool fees for BSD use shall be charged at the
non-profit rate.
Group Classifications for Purposes of Parks & Recreation Facilities Usase:
Group A: City of Burlingame, Burlingame School District
Group A-1: Recognized Burlingame based non-profit youth sports groups (for field use only)
Group B: Non-profit groups or organizations with IRS Section 501c(3) tax exempt status
Group C: Private parties, commercial, business, and profit-making organizations
Page 40
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACTUTY/SERVTCE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Recreation Center
Auditorium
Group A
Group B
Burlingame Residents
Non-Residents
Burlingame Non-Profit Meetints
Non Resident Non-Profit Meetings
Auditorium Deposit
Resolution No. 31-2003
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 33-2008
S142.00 1't hour
571.00 /add' I hour
S154.oo 1't hour
S77.00/add'I hour
540.00 per hour
$44.00 per hour
S244.oo 1" hour
5122.001 add'l
hour
5278.00 1't hour
S139.00/ add' I
hour
Ssoo.oo
No Change
S145.oo 1't hour
S73.00 /add' I hour
S157.00 1't hour
S79.00/add'I hour
No Change
No Change
5249.00 1't hour
S12s.00/ add' I
hour
5284.00 1't hour
s142.00/ add' I
hour
Page 41
INDOOR FACITITIES
Group C
Burlingame Residents
Non-Residents
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 33-2008
No Charge
No Change
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACTLTTY/SERVTCE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Non-Residents
Burlingame Non-Profi t Meetings
Non Resident Non-Profit Meetings
Group C
Burlingame Residents
Non-Residents
Facility Room Deposit
No Charge
S110.00 1't hour
555.00 /add' I hour
S118.oo 1" hour
S59.00/add'I hour
S142.oo 1't hour
571.00/add' I hour
5154.00 1't hour
S77.oo/add' I hour
5200.00 Per Room
50% discount on
deposit of lounge if
2nd lounge is
rented at the same
time
50% d iscou nt on
deposit of kitchen
if rented with
another room
No Change
S112.00 1't hour
556.00 /add' I hour
S121.oo 1'3t hour
S60.00/add' I hour
$20 per hour
S22 per hour
5145.oo l't hour
S73.oo/add'I hour
S157.00 1't hour
S79.00/add' I hour
No Change
Page 42
Other Recreation Center Rooms
Group A
Group B
Burlingame Residents
FACTLTTY/SERVTCE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Kitchen
Group A
Group B
Burlingame Residents
Non-Residents
Group C
Burlingame Residents
Non-Residents
Additional Rental Charges:
Tables/Chairs-up to 50
Tables/Charis-51 to 100
Tables/Chairs-over 100
Coffee Pots
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 33-2008
No Charge
S16.00 per hour
S20.00 per hour
$32.00 per hour
S38.00 per hour
s1s.oo
s2s.00
s40.00
$12.00 per pot
No Change
S17.00 per hour
S21.00 per hour
$33.00 per hour
539.00 per hour
s17.00
s26.00
s41.00
$t3.oo per pot
Building Attendant'Resolution No. 33-2008 539.00 per hour $40.00 per hour
Field Attendant Resolution No. 41-2008 $39.00 per hour $40.00 per hour
Resolution No. 27-2006 S100.00 per event S102.oo per event
weekday Custodian Resolution No. 31-2003 530.00 per hour 531.00 per hour
Extra, Non-Scheduled Hours Resolution No. 27-2006 S25o.oo per hour S255.00 per hour
Security Personnel Resolution No. 33-2008 S118.00 per hour S121.00 per hour
wine/beer to be served S30.00 additional S31.00 additional
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
'Building Attendant or Security will be on duty 30 minutes prior to and 30 minutes after duration of activities at Recreation
Center. Security fee will be charged for all private parties over 150 persons or serving alcoholic beverages.
Page 43
Weekend Custodian
Resolution No. 31-2003
PARKS & RECREATION
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACtLtTY/SERVTCE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Large Special Event Deposit for
Athletic Fields:
Less than 100 in attendance
More than 100 in attendance
Group A-1: Field Use per Season
by Burlingame-based non-profi t
youth sports group.
Fields used by Accredited
Burlingame-based non-profit youth
sports groups
S250.00 per event
S500.00 per event
Sto.oo per
Resident
$85.00 per Non-
Resident plus S3.00
per hour per field
for Resident
Sroups,
59.00 per hour per
field for groups less
than 50% Resident
Security Deposit
Ssoo.oo
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
PaEe 44
OUTDOOR FACILITIES
Resolution No. 27-2011
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACtUTY/SERVTCE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Burlinea me HiEh School
Stadium Field
Group A and A1
Group B
Burlingame residents
Non-residents
Group C
Burlingame residents
Non-residents
Stadium Track (Track only)
Group A and A1
Group B
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Group C
Burlingame residents
Non-residents
Stadium Lights
Group A and A1
Group B
Burlingame residents
Non-residents
Group C
Burlingame residents
Non-residents
N/A SMUHSD CONTRACT EXPIRED JULY 1,
20tt.
THE CITY OF BURTINGAME
NO TONGER
RENTS BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOT
FACITITIES
Page 45
.,1d
PARKS & RECREATION
REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Group C
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Resolution No. 31-2003
Resolution No. 61-2006
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 61-2006
Resolution No. 33-2008
Osbere Field
Group A and A1
Group B
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Group C
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Resolution No. 31-2003 FEES ARE SET BY THE BURLINGAME
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Bavside Ball Fields f1 and #2
Group A
Group B
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Group c
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Bayside Field Lights
Resolution No. 31-2003
Resolution No. 61-2006
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 31-2003
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 24-2010
No Charge
$20.00 per hour
$30.00 per hour
530.00 per hour
S50.00 per hour
530.00 per hour
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
535.00 per hour
Page 46
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
FACTUTY/SERVtCE
Franklin Field
Group A and A1
Group B
Burlingame residents
Non-residents
FEES ARE SET BY THE BURTINGAME
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Resolution No. 61-2006
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 61-2006
Resolution No. 33-2008
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Group C
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Resolution No. 31-2003
Resolution No. 61-2006
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 61-2006
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 24-2010
No Charge
S15.00 per hour
525.00 per hour
525.00 per hour
$40.00 per hour
$30.00 per hour
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
S35.00 per hour
Bav Ball Fields #3 and #4 for
Soccer
Group A
Group B
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Group C
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Bayside Field Lights
Resolution No. 31-2003
Resolution No. 61-2006
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 61-2006
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 24-2010
No Charge
$20.00 per hour
$30.00 per hour
$30.00 per hour
S50.oo per hour
$30.00 per hour
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
FAC|rlrysERVrCE
Bavside Ball Fields #3,#4 and S5 for
Softball or Baseball
Group A
Group B
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Bayside Field [ights
$35.00 per hour
P age 47
FiscalYear 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
navaca Park
Group A
Group B
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Group C
Burlingame Residents
Resolution No. 31-2003
Resolution No. 61-2006
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 31-2003
Resolution No. 33-2008
No Charge
$20.00 per hour
530.00 per hour
$30.00 per hour
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
Murr Field
Group A
Group B
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Group C
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Murray Field tights
Resolution No. 31-2003
Resolution No. 61-2006
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 61-2006
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 24-2010
No Charge
$50.00 per hour
$70.00 per hour
S30.oo per hour
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
$35.00 per hour
Resolution No. 31-2003
Resolution No. 51-2006
Resolution No. 33-2008
No Charge
S20.00 per hour
530.00 per hour
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
FACTUTY/SERVICE
Non-residents 550.00 per hour
$30.00 per hour
$50.00 per hour
Rav Park Ball Fields #1 or #2
Group A
Group B
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Group C
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Resolution No. 31-2003
Resolution No. 33-2008
$30.00 per hour
S50.oo per hour
Page 48
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Non-residents
Group C
Burlingame Residents
Washington Park Lights
Resolution No. 41-2008
Resolution No. 41-2008
Resolution No. 41-2008
Resolution No. 24-2010
No Charge
$30.00 per hour +
field attendant
550.00 per hour +
field attenda nt
$50.00 per hour +
field attendant
$70.00 per hour +
field attendant
$30.00 per hour
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
$35.00 per hour
Non-residents
Group C
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Resolution No. 31-2003
Resolution No. 61-2006
Resolution No. 61-2006
Resolution No. 33-2007
Resolution No. 33-2008
No Charge
$15.00 per hour
$30.00 per hour
$40.00 per hour
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
PaBe 49
FACTUTY/SERVTCE
Washinston Park Main Ball Field
for Baseball
Group A
Group B
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Resolution No. 41-2008
Resolution No. 41-2008
WashinEton Park BullPen
Group A
Group B
Burlingame Residents
$20.00 per hour
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
washinsto n Park Main Ball field
Outfield for Soccer
Group A
Group B
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Group C
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Washington Park Lights
Resolution No. 31-2003
Resolution No. 61-2006
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 61-2006
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 24-2010
No Charge
530.00 per hour
$50.00 per hour
$70.00 per hour
530.00per hour
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
$35.00 per hour
Washin on Park Small Ball Field
Group A
Group B
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Group C
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Washington Small Lights
Resolution No. 31-2003
Resolution No. 61-2006
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 61-2006
Resolution No. 33-2008
No Charge
S15.00 per hour
$25.00 per hour
$25.00 per hour
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No change
$35.00 per hour
Page 50
FACTLTw/SERVTCE
$50.00 per hour
$40.00 per hour
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
FACTLtw/SERVrCE REFERENCE NEW FEE
Tennis Courts
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
For Profit Rental
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Resolution No. 31-2003
Resolution No. 61-2006
Resolution No. 103-2009
Resolution No. 103-2009
530.00 for 4
hours/per court
550.00 for 4
hours/per court
$16.00 per
hour/per cou rt
520.00 per
hour/per court
S32.00 for 4
hours/per court
552.00 for 4
hours/per cou rt
$18.00 per
hour/per court
$22.00 per
hou r/per court
As of September 2011, the City of Burlingame contracts with Burlingame Aquatic Club to operate the pool
PICNIC PERMITS
West-end of Washington Park
(for Burlingame non-profit grouPs
onlyl
Resolution No. 27-2011 No Change
Electrical Service Hook-uP at
West-end of Washin6on Park
Resolution No. 32-2009 S7s.oo No Change
Page 51
PARKS & RECREATION
CURRENT FEE
AQUATIC CENTER (POOL)
S425.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACTLTTY/SERVtCE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Small Picnic Area
Burlingame Residents
Non-residents
Resolution No. 33-2008
Resolution No. 33-2008
s100.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
S135.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
No Change
No Change
Resolution No. 24-2010 S200.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
S250.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
No Change
No Change
Non-profi t Group Picnic Fees:
cuernavaca & Ray Parks
Resolution No. 103-2009 s95.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
No Change
Bot h washinston Park Picnic Areas
Burlingame Residents
Non-Residents
s275.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
S350.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
No Change
No Change
Page 52
Large Picnic Area
Burlingame Residents
Non-Residents Resolution No. 24-2010
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FAC|rtrysERVlCE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Washin on Park Bocce Ball Cou rts
(reservations)
Burlingame Residents
Non-Residents
Rental of Bocce Ball and
Horseshoes
Resolution 34-2013
Resolution 34-2OL3
S25.00/hour per
court
No Deposit
S30.oo/hour per
cou rt
No Deposit
s10.00 Flat Rate +
S40.oo Refundable
deposit
No Change
No Change
No Change
Washinston Park Horseshoe Pits
(reservations)
Burlingame Residents
Non-Residents
Resolution 34-2013
Resolution 34-2Ot3
S25.00/hour per
court
No Deposit
S30.00/hour per
court
No Deposit
No Change
No Change
Page 53
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACturY/sERvlcE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Rental of P ark Space for Pr ivate
Classes (Exercise Boot CamDs,
Stroller Exercise Classes & Other
Priva te Usesl
Burlingame residents
Non-residents
Resolution No. 103-2009
Resolution No. 103-2009
$16.00 per hour
$20.00 per hour
No Change
No Change
Burlingame residents
Non-residents Resolution 24-2OIO
S100.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
No Change
No Change
Non-P Communitv Grou ps
Equip ment Rental Fees
Tables
Chairs
Tents
Risers
Resolution No. 32-2009 $2.00 per table
$1.00 per chair
S10.00 per tent
$25.00 per riser
$4.00 per table
$2.00 per chair
$20.00 per tent
$30.00 per riser
Page 54
Villaee Park Picnic Fee (3 tables)
Resolution 24-2OLO
s135.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACtLtTY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
lnflatabl e Jump House
Washingon Park
Recreation Center Patio
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
S100.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit (Must
be done in
conjunction with a
picnic permit)
No Change
No Change
Wedding Ceremonv
Washington Park Rose Garden
With Recreation Center Rental
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
S100.00 residents
S15o.oo non-
residents
S50.00 residents
Sloo.oo non-
residents
No Change
No Change
Page 55
S100.00 Permit Fee
No Deposit (Must
be in conju nction
with rental of
Lounge ll)
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACTLtW/SERVTCE REFERENCE NEW FEE
Photo S in Parks
Application Fee
Rental Fee Per Day
Student Photo Shoot
Film Shoot in Parks
Application Fee
Commercial or CorPorate
Feature Film/Documentary
Resolution No. 27-2011
Resolution No. 27-2011
S100.00 non-
refundable fee
S30o.oo for 4
hours/S50o.oo for
5-8 hours
S50.00 non-
refundable fee
$125.00 per day
No Charge or
application fee
S250.00 non-
refundable fee
$400.00 per day
5600.00 per day
PaBe 56
CURRENT FEE
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Brochure Ads
lapace
,.14 page
tl2 page
Full page
Full Page lnside Front Cover
Full Page lnside Back cover
Full Page Back Cover
Discount for Non-Profits
Resolution No. 27-2011 l issue/3 issues (1
year)
s6e.oo/s173.00
5L27 .O0/3r7.OO
s23o.o0/5s7s.00
s443.oo/s1,108.00
ssoo.oo/s 1,2oo.oo
Ss47.oo/S1,368.00
s633.00/s1,s83.00
$75.00 per hour
25% resident
grou ps
0% non-resident
8ro u ps
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
CLASSES
Class Fees Resolution No. 31-2003 To be set based on
class provider and
materialsfiacilities
provided
No Change
Retistration Fees Resolution No. 24-2010 Srz.oo No Change
Page 57
FACTLTW/SERVTCE
Layout
FiscalYear 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
PARKS & RECREATION
FACtLITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Non-resident Fee on Classes Resolution No. 31-2003 Add 20% to class
fee rounded to
nearest dollar
No Change
Senior discount - Burlingame
residents age 65 and over
Resolution No. 103-2009 25% off class fee
on classes held at
Recreation Center
No Change
Resolution No. 31-2003 Waive non-
resident fee
No Change
Registration cancellation charge Resolution No. 33-2008 $7.00 per class or
event
TR EE AND PARKS FEES
Memorial tree plantings Resolution No. 33-2008 S17s.oo s200.00
Memorial Bench - Washington
Park
Memorial Bench - BaYside Park
Resolution No. 27-2011 s1,8s0.00 s2,000.00
S2,2oo.oo
Additional street tree Plantings
15 gallon/24 box size
Resolution No. 32-2009 ses.oo/s2oo.oo No Change
Protected Tree Removal
Application Fee Resolution No. 33-2008 s7s.oo No Change
Page 58
Senior discount - non-residents
age 65 and over
$8.00 per class or
event
s1,8s0.00
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
FACtUw/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Arborist's plan review for
landscaping requirements on
planning applications
(See also planning fee schedule)
Resolution No. 33-2008 s163.00 s226.00
Arborist check of construction
plans and inspection of landscaPe
requirements on building Permit
submittals
Resolution No. 33-2008 s163.00 s226.00
Appeal to City Council from
Beautifi cation Commission
decision (does not include noticing
costs)
Resolution No. 33-2008 s170.00 No Change
Noticing, City Council APPeal Resolution No. 33-2008 s8s.oo No Change
Street Banner Hanter s1oo.00 No Change
Pri vate Tree Em n W rk
Business Hours (M-F; 7-3:30!
After Hours (Weekends &
Holidays)
$89.00 per hour
$72.00 per hour
Page 59
PARKS & RECREATION
Resolution No. 24-2010
$69.50 per hour
$91.50 per hour
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
PRE-APPLICATIONS
Preliminary Plan Check, New Construction'Resolution No. 27-2011 s303.00 s77s.00
Preliminary Plan Check, Remodel'Resolution No. 27-2011 5r1t.oo s39o.0o
zoning Verifi cation/Property Profile Letter New Fee Sso.oo
APPLICATIONS
Ambiguity/Determination Hearing before
Planning Commission
(applies to PlanninS, Fire, and Building
requests)
Resolution No. 33-2008 s973.00 No change
Amendment/Extension of Permits Resolution No. 27-2011 s71s.00
Appeal to Planning Commission of
administratively approved permits/appeal
to City Council of Planning Commission
decisions
Noticing to be charged seParatelY
Resolution No. 33-2008 s440.00 No change
Letal Review-substantive work by City
Attorney for development projects
requiring discretionary review before the
Planning Commission under Title 25
Resolution No. 48-2015 S140.00/hour S165.00/hour
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
'fifty percent (50%) of fee will be credited toward required application fees if and when pro.iect is submitted as a complete
application.
Page 60
s401.00
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 27-2011 No change
Condominium Permit, 4 Units or Less Resolution No. 33-2008 s1,479.00 54,47s.OO
Condominium Permit, 5 Units or More Resolution No. 33-2008 5t,737.00 5s.9s0.oo
Design Review, Addition Resolution No. 27-2011 5t,L27.OO No change
Design Review, Amendment Resolution No. 27-2011 S973.oo No ch ange
Resolution No. 27-2006 s879.00 s1,320.00
Design Review - Handling Fee Resolution No. 33-2008 S494.oo No change
Minor Amendment to Approved Project New Fee s37s.00
As-Built Variation from Approved Project New Fee s1,380.00
Design Review, New Construction Resolution No. 27-2011 s1,127.00 No change
Fence Exception Resolution No. 27-2011 s989.00 No change
Resolution No. 27-2011 s2,747.OO
Minor Modification Resolution No. 27-2011 s1,260.00
Hillside Area Construction Permit Resolution No. 27-2011 s1,s07.00
Secondary Dwelling Unit Resolution No.27-2OlL s418.00 s640.00
Reasonable Accommodation Resolution No. 27-2011 s418.00 No changeg
Re-zoning Resolution No. 27-2011 52,147.OO s6,700
Minimum deposit.
hearing until actualtime Paid.
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
Formula for ultimate calculation is design review consultant fee times hours spent- Project not set for
Page 61
S1,7s8.oo
Design Review Deposit"
General Plan Amendment
s418.00
s418.00
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee schedule
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Second Unit Amnesty Permit,
Building Official lnspection Deposit Resolution No. 27-2011 s440.00 No change
Resolution No. 27-2011 s1,7s8.00 s2,8oo.0o
Variance Resolution No 27-2011 s1,7s8.00 s3,900.00
Wireless Communications Administrative
Use Permit
s418.00 1,780.00
Plan Recheck Fee
More than two revisions to Plans Resolution No. 32- 2009
Resolution No. 32- 2009
s220.00
s494.00
S6s3.oo
S78s.oo
Environmental, Categorical Exemption Resolution No. 27-2011 S88.oo s1o9.o0
Environmental, Negative Declaration (R-1
and R-2)
$2,s27.OO ss,660.00
Environmental, Mitigated Declaration
and/or with a Responsible AgencY
Resolution No. 27-2011 Pass-through of
actual contractor
cost
Resolution No. 31-2003 35o/o ol
contract,
deposit to be
determined
by CDD
Director
20% of contract,
deposit to be
determined by
Director of
Community
Development
PLANNING
Special Use Permit
Municipal Code Chapter
25.77
Major redesign of project plans
ENVIRONMENTAL
Resolution No. 27-2011
s3,076.00
Environmental lmpact RePort
Page 62
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Environmental Posting Fee, Negative
Declaration and EIR Resolution No. 27-2011 s286.00 ss80.00
Fish & Game Fee for Negative Declaration,
whether mitigated or not (pass-through
fee)
s2,210.00 52,zlo.2s
Fish & Game Fee for Environmental lmpact
Report (pass-through fee!
Fish & Game Code 5
7tL.4
s3,069.7s S3,o7o.oo
County Clerk Processing Fee for Fish &
Game (pass-through fee)
Fish & Game Code I
7tt.4
Sso.oo No change
Resolution No. 33-2008 S181.oo s226.00
Noticing, R-1 and R-2 Resolution No. 27-2011 s198.00 s310.00
Noticing, All Other Districts Resolution No. 27-2011 s198.00 s310.00
Noticing, R-1 Design Review, Residential Resolution No. 27-2011 5274.OO s430.00
Noticing, R-1 Design Study, Residential Resolution No. 27-2011 52t4.OO s430.00
Noticin& Design Review, all other districts Resolution No. 27-2011 S274.oo S43o.oo
Noticing, Minor Modifications, Hillside
Area Construction Permits
Resolution No. 27-2011 s274.00 s360.00
Noticing, General Plan Amendment -Resolution No. 33-2008 S1,240.oo
Page 63
Fish & Game Code 5
771.4
PARKS
Arborist Review (when required)
NOTICING
s1,319.00
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
PLANNING
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW IEE
Re-zoning
Noticing, Environmental lmpact Report
Noticing, City Council Appeal Resolution No. 33-2008 s93.oo No change
Noticing, Second Unit AmnestY Resolution No. 61-2004 No change
Noticing - Wireless Communications Municipal Code Chapter
25.77.120
ss24.00 ss4s.00
SIGNS
50 square feet or less Sso.oo s1ss.00
Over 50 SF and less than 200 square feet Resolution No. 27-2011 S99.oo 5227.oo
Over 200 square feet Resolution No. 27-2011 s138.00 s2ss.00
Sign Variance Resolution No. 27-2011
Removal of lllegal Sign Resolution No. 33-2008 s11o.o0 s113.00
PUBLICATIONS
Zoning Map Resolution No. 32-2009 ss.oo
Page 64
Resolution No. 33-2008 s1,319.00 s1,240.00
S60.oo
Resolution No 27-2011
s1,692.00 s2820.00
No change
DEVELOPMENT TMPACT FEES (PLANNING)
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Restaurant
Hotel
Hotel, Extended Stay
Office, Warehouse,
Manufacturing
Retail - commercial
Car Rental
Commercial Recreation
All Other
Ord. No. 1739 (2004)s2,s36.00/rsF
S831.00/room
S807.00/room
s3,834.00/TSF
59,333.00/TSF
$59,232.00/acre
S18,382.00/acre
S1,911.00 per
p.m. peak hour
trip as detailed by
traffic study
Available on July
T,2OL6
Page 65
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
The Bavfront Development Fee is charged to all new construction/development within the
Bayfront Specific Plan Area on the east side of US 101. One-half of the fee is payable before
issuance of a building permit and the balance is payable when certificate of occupancy is requested.
Ordinance No. 1739 (2004), as amended, provides for annual adjustment based on the construction
cost index published in the Engineering News Record (ENR) as of July 1 of each year. These fees will
be included in the City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule as of July 1, 2016 based on any change in
the construction cost index.
Bavfront Development Fee
Office
s10,209.00/TSF
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING)
North Burlin game & Rollins Road Develo pment Fees are cha rged to all new construction and
development within the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Area. One-half of the fee is
payable before issuance of a building permit and the balance is payable when certificate of
occupancy is requested. Ordinance No. 1751 (2005) provides for annual adjustment beginning in
2006, based on the construction cost index published in the Engineering News Record (ENR) as of
July 1 of each year. These fees will be included in the City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule as of
July 1, 2015 based on any change in the construction cost index.
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT TEE NEW FEE
Rollins Road Area of Benefit
El Camino North Area of Benefit
Multiple family dwelling or duplex
Any use other than multiple familY
dwelling or duplex
Ord. No. 1751 (2005)
Ord. No. 1751 (2005)
Ord. No. 17s1 (2005)
50.54 per square
foot of building
$0.70 per square
foot of building
Available on
of July 1,
2016
Available on
of July 1,
20t6
Page 66
North Burlineame & Rollins Road
Development Fee
$0.54 per sq uare
foot of building
Available on
of July 1,
2016
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
The Public Facilities lmpact Fee is a general category of fees based on the uses, number of dwelling
units and/or amount of square footage to be located on the property after completion of a
development project. The fees are committed to public improvement, public services, and
community amenities affected by new development (Resolution 76-2008). No change is being
proposed for Fiscal Year 2OL6-t7.
The purpose of the fee is established upon approval of a permit for construction or reconstruction,
and is intended for improvements in one or more of the following categories:
r General Facilities & Equipment
o Libraries
o Police
o Parks & Recreation
Single Family Multifamily Office lndustrial
Fee per Dwelling
Unit
Fee per Dwelling
Unit
Fee per 1,000 sq.ft.
of Building
Fee per 1,000 sq.ft.
of Building
Fee per 1,000 sq.ft
of Building
General 5 2,1s6 s 1,636 s 640 5 930 s 30s
Library s 2,383 s 1,41s s 478 s 69s 5 228
Police 5 437 s 2s9 s 102 5 747
Parks s s90 s 118 5 r72 ss6
Traffic/Streets S 1,s73 s 1,10s 5 1,810 s 7,28s 51,146
Fire s 642 S 381 s 248 s 360 s 118
Storm Drainage 5 781 s 391 5 442 5 777 s 628
Total lmpact Fee:s3,838 s1o,3o6 52,s29
Page 67
DEVELOPMENT TMPACT FEES (PIAN NING)
. Streets & Traffic
o Fire
. Storm Drainage
commercial
s48
s 3s0
s 9,162 S 5,s37
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING)
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Resolution 48-2000 549,740.75 ss1,331.4s
Page 68
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
Burlingame Avenue Parking in Lieu Fees are applicable only to commercial properties within
Downtown Burlingame and are collected in those instances where a land-use requires additional
parking, but the site cannot physically accommodate additional spaces. The fee is based upon a per-
space, or portion thereof that is not being provided on the property. The funds are to remain in the
City's Parking fund to help defray the cost of building a City-owned and operated parking structure.
Burlinpame Avenue ParkinP in Lieu
Fees
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
POLICE
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Vehicle Release Resolution No.32-2009 S86.oo 5140.00
Resolution No.32-2009 $2.00 per page up
to 523.50
maximu m
No Change
Finterprint Rolling Fee Live scan Fee Set by State
of California Department
of Justice
S35.00 plus
appropriate State
and or Federal
processing fee
No Change
Audio Tapes 547.00 per ta pe $90.00 per tape
Videotapes/cD's/Dvo's Resolution No.32-2009 $88.00 per
videotape/CD/DVD
$90.00 per
videotape/ CDl
DVD
Photographs Resolution No.32-2009 S88.00 per roll $90.00 per roll
Clearance Letter s23.oo s2s.oo
Repossessed Vehicle Gov't Code I 41612 s1s.00 No Change
Bicycle License Resolution No. 31-2003 No Charge No Change
Page 69
Police Reports
Report Copies
Resolution No.32-2009
Resolution No. 32-2009
FiscalYear 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
POLICE
REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Preferential Parkins Permits
(Residential Permit Parkint
Program)
Charge for replacement of lost
permit
Resolution No. 22-2008
(Section 13.36.070)
Resolution No. 22-2008
(Section 13.36.070)
Resolution No. 22-2008
(Section 13.36.070)
ss1.oo
Ssr.oo
Ssr.oo
ss3.00
ss3.oo
Ss3.oo
Resolution No. 32-2009
Resolution No. 33-2007
Resolution No. 33-2007
S129.00 per hour
S124.oo per blood
test
$69.00 per breath
or urine test
$62.00 per refused
blood test
5208.00 per hour
S130.00 per blood
test
$48.00 per breath
or urine test
S130.00 Per
refused blood test
Booking Fees San Mateo County As set by County No Change
Security Service (Outside Detail)
(minimum charge of four hours)
Resolution No. 33-2008 S129.00 per hour
Alarm Permits Resolution No. 116-2003
(Secion 10.10.110)
532.00 per year No Change
SERVICE
lssuance (up to 2 permits for
same address)
Annual renewal (uP to 2 Permits
for same address)
Driving Under lnfluence (DUl)
Fees
Resolution No. 33-2007
S135.00 per hour
Page 70
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
False Alarm h r
1 to 2 false alarms
3 to 5 false alarms
6 or more false alarms
Any false alarm for which no
alarm permit has been
issued
Resolution No. 116-2003
(Section 10.10.090)
Resolution No. 116-2003
(Section 10.10.090)
Resolution No. 28-2006
No Charge
S50.00 each
S100.00 each
S50.00 (includes
cost of alarm
permits)
No Change
No Change
No Change
Amusement/Entertainment
Permit
s102.00 S3so.oo
Peddlers and Solicitors Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.24.030)
S298.00 for
investigation plus
fingerprinting fees
S87o.oo for
investigation plus
fingerprinting fees
Curb Paintint No Change
Ta nnr Salon
Application
Sale or Transfer
Renewal
Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.42.t2O\
S162.00 plus
fingerprinting fees
S108.oo plus
fingerprinting fees
S573.00 plus
fingerprinting fees
S4o8.oo plus
fingerprinting fees
Page 71
POLICE
No Change
Resolution No. 32-2009
(Sections 6.16.050 &
6.16.090)
Resolution No. 33-2007 S55.00 for
investigation
Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.42.060)
Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.42.160)
581.00 plus
fingerprinting fees
$573.00 plus
fingerprinting fees
POUCE
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Massag e Operator
Application
Sale or Transfer
Renewal
Resolution No. 32-2009
(Section 6.40.060)
Resolution No. 32-2009
(Section 6.40.120)
Resolution No. 32-2009
(Section 6.40.160)
5390.00 plus
fingerprinting fees
5329.00 plus
fingerprinting fees
S200.00 plus
fingerprinting fees
S741.oo plus
fingerprinting fees
S741.oo plus
fingerprinting fees
S463.oo plus
fingerprinting fees
Massase Practitioner
Application
Renewal Resolution No. 32-2009
(Section 6.40.160)
S378.00 plus
fingerprinting fees
5216.00 plus
fingerprinting fees
$100.00 plus
fingerprinting fees
M del Escort Servi
Application
Renewal
Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.41.100)
Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.41.130)
S162.00 plus
fingerprinting fees
S108.00 plus
fingerprinting fees
581.00 plus
fingerprinting fees
S630.00 plus
fingerp rinting fees
$630.00 plus
fingerprinting fees
5445.oo plus
fingerprinting fees
Renewal
Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.44.050)
Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.44.080)
S162.00 plus
fingerprinting fees
$81.00 plus
fingerprinting fees
$789.00 plus
fingerprinting fees
PaEe ?2
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
Resolution No. 32-2009
(Section 6.40.060)
S200.00 plus
fingerprinting fees
Sale or Transfer
Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.41.040)
Private Patrol Companv
Application
552o.oo plus
fingerprinting fees
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
POLICE
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Taxi Operator
Application Section 6.36.050
Section 6.36.190
541.00 plus
fingerprinting fees
S24.00 plus
fingerprinting fees
Business license fee
plus fingerprinting
fee
Taxi Driver
Application Section 6.36.050
Section 6.36.190
S66.00 plus
fingerprinting fees
S60.00 plus
fingerprinting fees
No Change
No Change
Taxicab Annual lnspection Section 6.36.120 S74.00 per vehicle No Change
Valet Parking Resolution No. 41-2008
(Section 6.30.040)
S603.00 plus
fingerprinting fees
Concealed WeaPon Resolution No. 32-2009 S226.00 for
investigation
S1,o25.oo for
investigation
Fortune Teller S592.00 plus
fingerprinting fees
Unruly Gathering Section 10.70.070 Cost of Hours of
Officer Response
No Change
Page 73
Renewal
Business license fee
plus fingerprinting
fee
Renewal
$162.00 plus
fingerprinting fees
Resolution No. 41-2008
(Set by Section 6.38.060)
$162.00 plus
fingerprinting fees
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
POLICE
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Application and Permit
Sidewalk Closure
Road Closure
Resolution No. 32-2009 S381.00/day City
facility fee plus
hourly rate for
security service
and equipment
usaSe
No longer charge;
fees restructu red
s100.00
S100.00 per
parcel/per day
S200.00 per
parcel/per day
Verifi cation of non-resident
"proof-of-correction" citations
Resolution No. 90-2009 No Charge No Charge
P age 74
Special Events & Street Closing
Permit
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
SEWER
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Single-family and Duplex Section 15.08.020 S258.00/unit
Fee updated based on
Engineering News Record
CPI as of IlLh5
S245.00/unit
Fee updated based
on Engineering News
Record CPI as of
7/tlt6
Multi-family Section 15.08.020 s197.00/unit
Fee updated based on
Engineering News Record
CPt as oI tl]-hs
Commercial/Retail Section 15.08.020 5412.00/thousand square
feet (rSF)
Fee updated based on
Engineering News Record
CPI as of Lll/15
S391.00/thousand
square feet (TSF)
Fee updated based
on Engineering News
Record CPI as of
urlL6
Office Section 15.08.020 s89.00/rsF
Fee updated based on
Engineering News Record
CPI as ol !/l/I5
s8s.oo/rsF
Fee updated based
on Engineering News
Record CPI as of
r/t/16
Warehouse s109.00/rsF
Fee updated based
on Engineering News
Record CPI as of
llLlL6
Page 75
SEWER CONNECTION FEES
s187.00/unit
Fee updated based
on Engineering News
Record CPI as of
7/7/76
Section 15.08.020 s11s.00/rsF
Fee updated based on
Engineering News Record
CPI as of 7/L/r5
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
SEWER
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Resta urant Section 15.08.020 s1,o2o.0o/TSF
Fee updated based on
Engineering News Record
CPI as of 1/1/15
s967.00/TSF
Fee updated based
on Engineering News
Record CPI as of
t/th6
Hotel with Restaurant S651.00/room
Fee updated based on
Engineering News Record
CPI as ol Lltl1s
56t7.oo/room
Fee updated based
on Engineering News
Record CPI as of
7/Llt6
Hotel without Restaurant Section 15.08.020 S402.00/room
Fee u pdated based on
Engineering News Record
CPt as of rll/15
S381.00/room
Fee updated based
on Engineering News
Record CPI as of
7l7lL6
INDUST RIAI WASTE DISCHARGE FEES
The fee covers two (2) samples; additional samples charged according to the Analytical Processing Fee
Schedule below.
[ight Discharger, Annual Ord. No. 1786
(2006)
s606.00 No change
Moderate Discharger, Annual Ord. No. 1785
(2006)
S1,66o.oo No change
Heavy Discharger, Annual Ord. No. 1786
(2006)
s2,318.00 No change
Page 76
Section 15.08.020
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
SEWER
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Non-Conventional Discharger,
Annual
Ord. No. 1786
(2006)
S1,239.00 No change
Groundwater Discharger Ord. No. 1786
(2006)
N o n-conventio n a I Fee
plus $6.98 per 1000
gallons discharged
No change
s160.00 No change
ANALYTICAL FEES
ln-house Testing Ord. No. 1786
(2006)
Cost No change
Contract Lab Testing Cost p lus 15%No change
Single-family or duplex Ord. No. t844-2OlO
Section 15.08.070
(Effective 7/L/2OL2l
$12.25 per thousand
gallons; if less than
thousand gallons, then
S18.86
No change
Multi-family residential Ord. No. 1844-2OLO
Section 15.08.070
(Effective L/L/20t2l
S11.45 per thousand
gallons
No change
Ord. No. I844-2OLO
Section 15.08.070
(Effective 1/U2OLZ\
532.59 per thousand
gallons
No change
Page 77
Application Processing Fee Ord. No. 1786
(2006)
Ord. No. 1786
(2006)
BIMONTHLY SEWER SERVICE CHARGES
Restaurant, other commercial
food-related uses
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
SEWER
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE
Ord. No. L844-2O7O
Section 15.08.070
(Effective L/Ll2ol2l
$21.97 per thousand
gallons
No change
Light strength commercial Ord. No. 1844-2010
Section 15.08.070
(Effective 7lll2or2l
513.53 per thousa nd
gallons
No change
lnstitutional Ord. No. 7844-2OtO
Section 15.08.070
(Effective 7lL/2012l
54.80 per thousand
gallons
No change
NEW CUSTOMERS IN SIN GLE.FAMILY O R DUPLEX CLASSIFICATION
Number of Residents
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9 or more
Section 15.08.072
(Effective L/Ll2OL2l
s47.63
Ss9.26
s72.s2
s8s.78
597.94
S101.44
s110.30
s128.46
s1so.60
No change
Page 78
NEW FEE
Heavy strength commercial
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
SERVICE RETERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
5/8" and 3/4" meter S41.80 No change
1" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2012)s71.08 No change
1 - %" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2012)s138.00 No change
2" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2012)5227.62 No change
3" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2012)s418.17 No change
4" meter S698.34
6" meter s1,392.49 No change
S" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2012)52,228.84 No change
Within the City Ord. No. 1880 (2012)$9.09 per
thousand gallons
No change
Outside the City Ord. No. 1880 (2012)No change
Page79
WATER
Water fees are set via a three year rate-setting cycle with an effective date of January 1. The following
rates are effective January 1, 2015.
MONTHLY CHARGE FOR METERS
Ord. No. 1880 (2012)
Ord. No. 1880 (2012)No change
Ord. No. 1880 (2012)
WATER CONSUMPTION
S10.13 per
thousand gallons
A
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
WATER
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Water Service Turn-On
8 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., Monday
thru Friday
3:31 p.m. to 7:59 a.m.,
Monday thru Friday
Saturday/Sunday/Holiday
Ord. No. 1880 (2012)
No Charge
S2o.oo
s6o.oo
No change
No change
No change
Penalty Fee (Past Due)
Not paid within 30 days of
billing
Ord. No. 1880 (2012)1.5% penalty No change
Service Renewal
8 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., Monday
thru Friday
3:16 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.,
Monday thru Friday
3:31 p.m. to 4:50 p.m.,
Monday thru Friday
Ord. No. 1880 (2012)s3s.oo
s4s.00
s6o.oo
No change
No change
No change
Page 80
3:15 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.,
Monday thru Friday
s6o.oo No change
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
WATER
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Maintenance of Water in Fire
Protection System Ord. No. 1880 (2012)
$1.00 per month
per inch of pipe
diameter, with
S2.00 minimum
charge
No change
Flow Test
5/S" throuth 1"
l-%" and 2"
Over 2"
Ord. No. 1880 (2012)Sso.oo
s8o.oo
S100.00 minimum
(if over S100.00,
cost of testing
plus 15%)
No change
No change
No change
ord. No. 1880 (2012)No change
Water Service Turn-on DePosit
if Delinquent on CitY Water
Account in Previous 12 months
Ord. No. 1880 (2012)550.00 or 2
months estimated
consumption,
whichever is
greater
No change
Work on City Water System ord. No. 1880 (2012)S60.00 permit
S1,500.00 bond or
deposit
No change
Page 81
Temporary Water Service
Meter charges (does not
include water consumption)
s750.00 deposit
543.00 per month
for f-inch meter
S85.00 per month
for three-inch
meters
WATER
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE
Section 15.04.030 $242.00 per
hydrant
No change
5/8" bypass meter
3/4" service with meter
1" service with meter
1-%"servicewithmeter
2" service with meter
lf larger than 2" or a length of
more than 60 feet
Ord. No. 1805 (2007)
Ord. No. 1805 (2007)
Ord. No. 1805 (2007)
Ord. No. 1805 (2007)
Ord. No. 1805 (2007)
Ord. No. 1805 (2006)
s4,1oo.0o
s4,13s.00
ss,280.00
ss,420.oo
Cost plus 15%
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
Met er Uograde
To 3/4" meter or 1" meter
(meter only)
Ord. No. 1805 (2007)s2s4.00 No change
Page 82
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
Fire Flow Test
Water Line lnstallation
S3so.oo
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
The City's agreement with San Mateo County requires that animal control fees reflect the fees adopted by the
Board of Supervisors or that the difference in fees be paid by the City if the City's fees are less (S.M.C
Ordinance No. 04628, approved July 24, 2O1.2l. These fees are included in the City of Burlingame Master Fee
Schedule, subject to changes based on any future action by the County of San Mateo. The following are
current fees as of July 1, 2015:
s s0.00
s14s.00
S 18.00
S s4.oo
s 15.00
s 4s.00
s 7.oo
s 21.00
1-year license
3-year license
1-year license with senior discount
3-year license with senior discount
1-year license
3-year license
1-year license with senior discount
3-year license with senior discount
l-year license
3-year license
1-year license with senior discount
3-year license with senior discount
Altered Cat:
Altered d oE and Wolf-Hvbrid:
Miscellaneous Fees (Doe/Wolf-Hvbrid):
Unaltered Cat:
Late Penalty
Duplicate tat
Page 83
COUNTY FEES - ANIMAL CONTROL
s 2o.oo
S ss.oo
$ g.oo
s 23.00
s 2o.oo
S 8.oo
s 7.00
s 17.s0
S s.oo
s 11.2s
Unaltered dog:
l-year license
(which includes a $1.00 surcharge on all licenses for the
Animal Population Trust Fund)
3-year license
l-year license with senior discount
3-year license with senior discount
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
COUNTY FEES - ANIMAL CONTROL
Redempt ion Charges:
Type A & B (large or medium animals - horses, cows, hogs,
sheep, etc.)
lmpound Cost
Board Cost per Day
Transportation Cost (per animall
Trailering Cost (per use!
Type C (dogs, wolf hybrids, cats) - Altered
lmpound Cost:
First Offense, licensed & wearing tag
First Offense, unlicensed & no tag
Second Offense
Third Offense
Fourth Offense
Fifth Offense
Type C (dogs, wolf hybrids, cats)-Unal red
lmpound Cost:
First Offense, licensed & wearing tag
First Offense, unlicensed & no tat
Second Offense
Third Offense
Fourth Offense
Fifth Offense
S 7.oo
S s.oo
s 12s.00
s 2s.oo
s 7o.oo
S 7o.oo
s 5o.oo
s 80.00
s 120.00
s 1s0.00
s 210.00
s 2ss.00
Page 84
Miscellaneous Fees (Catsl:
Late Penalty
Duplicate tag
s 4o.oo
S so.oo
$ go.oo
s 13s.00
s 180.00
s 22s.00
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Master Fee Schedule
COUNTY FEES . ANIMAL CONTROL
Board Cha (Per Dav):
Dogs/wolf hybrids Altered
Dogs/wolf hybrids Unaltered
Cats Altered
Cats Unaltered
Tvpe D (small-sized an lma ls-birds,
hamsters, etc.l
lmpound Cost
Board Cost Per DaY
Quarantine Fee
Dangerous Animal P€rmit tee
Field Return Fee
Property lnspection Fee
Breeding Permit Fee
Fancier Permit Fee (and/or exotic pet
fee)
Return Check Fee
Records Request Fee
*The Division of Animal Control may establish
license discounts for recognized animal rescue
organizations and adoption discounts for senior
citizens.
S 2o.oo
s 2s.oo
s 16.00
s 19.00
s 4o.oo
s 13.00
s 2s.oo
$ 0.20 per page
Surrender Euthanasia DOA Disposal
s 50.00 s s0.00 s 3o.oo
s 60.00 s s0.00 S 3o.oo
S so.oo s 40.00 S 3o.oo
S 3o.oo s 1s.00 S 22.00
s 2s.00 s 2s.00 s 2s.00
s 60.00 s 100.00 s 100.00
Page 85
Surrender, Euthanasia and Dead on
Arrival Disposal Fees:
Dog/Cat
Rabbit/Small Animal
litter of three or more
Bird/Fowl
All Exotic Animals
Farm Animal
s so.oo
s 250.00
$ ss.oo
s 100.00
S so.oo
s 100.00
20ls
FULL COST OF SERVICES
(usER FEE)
STUDY
for
FINAL REPORT
CITY
BURLINGAME
CA t. I FORN I A
March 30,2016
WOHLFORD CONSULTING
372 Florin Road, #293
Sacramento, CA 95831
(916) 205-70s0
chad@wohlfordconsultinq.com
)
ri
POR,/ITE D
ITHIS PACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROJECTBACKGROTND 2
LOCAL GOVERNMENT USER FEE ISSUES
Basic User Fee Principles 7
PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
FINDINGS AND RESULTS l6
Results for Engineering...............24
.26
I
9
llohlford Consulting March l0- 2016
fl\B 2015 FuIl Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
4
2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continu
Potential Implementation Strategies...............41
Future Updates ........44
Thank You to Cilv Staff ........47
CONCLUSION 47
Appendix l:
Appendix 2:
Appendix 3:
Appendix 4:
Appendix 5:
Cost Results for Planning
Cost Results for Building
Cost Results for Engineering
Cost Results for Police
Cost Results for Parks and Recreation
ll/ohlfurd Consulting N'tarch 30. 2016
,Gg
OTIIER ISSUES AND INFORMATION 35
Fee Setting Considerations........ ....................35
Fee Comparison Issues ................ ..................37
APPENDICES
I
ftB 2015 Futl Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Burlingame engaged Wohlford Consulting to conduct an analysis of the full costs
incurred by the City in support of a range of activities for which the City charges user fees. In
order to ensure accuracy and establish a clear nexus between the cost of those services and the
fees, the study utilized a unit cost build-up methodology to identifu the full cost for individual
fee activities. By projecting an estimated average annual volume for each fee activity, the study
also identified the annual cost of the services and the potential annual revenue for the fee
activities at full cost levels. The following table shows a summary of the results:
Summary Results
FEE SERVICE
ARf,A
FULL COST:
Annusl Cost of
Fea-Related
Services
PROJECTED
REVENTJE AT
CI'RRENT
FEES
PROJECTED
SURPLUS /
(DEFICIT)
PROJECTED
cosr
RECOVERY
RATE
Planning $ 731,000 $ 287,000 $ (444,000)39%
Building $ 470,000 $ 176,000 $ (294,000)
Engineering $ 702,000 $ 169,000 $ (s33,000)24o/o
Police $ 1,070,000 $ (883,000)t7%
Recreation & Parks $ 3,741,000 $ 2,82s,000 $ (916,000)7 60/o
TOTALS:$ 6,714,000 $ 3,644,000 $ (3,070,000)54V"
The current cost of City fee activities included in this study is approximately $6.7 million
annually. Given the current fee levels charged by the City, the potential annual revenue
(assuming a consistent activity level) is $3.6 million, which represents a current annual fund
deficit oiapproximately $3.1 million and a cost-recovery ratio of 54%o overall. In other words, if
the City sei
-fee
levels ai the full cost ofeach service, (100% cost-recovery) the City could collect
an additional 53.0 million in revenue from fee activities each year.
The reality of the local govemment fee environment, however, is that significant increases to
achieve ld0% cost recovery in a single year are often not feasible or desirable. In addition, some
of the "fee" activities, while technically possible to establish as full cost fees, are likely not
feasible to charge full cost (e.g., appeals to City Council). In recognition of this situation, City
staffwill develJp a series of recommended fees that may result in less than full cost recovery in
the first year. Arurual revenue from the recommended fees, and the actual cost-recovery ratio'
will not 6e known until City staff prepares their analyses and submits recommendations to the
City Council.
The details behind these summary figures are in the body and appendices of this report. The
appendices present the fees at full cost and indicate potential annual revenues for each fee
category.
lYohlford Consulting Page I of48 March 30,2016
$ 187,000
Aw 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Purpose and Intent
In its effort to manage resources wisely and meet service demands, the City of Burlingame
utilizes a variety oftools to ensure that it has the best information to make good decisions, fairly
and legitimately set fees, affect revenues, maintain compliance with state law and local policies,
and meet the needs of the City administration and the public. Given the limitations on raising
revenue in local govemment, the City believes that a Cost of Service Study (Study) is the most
effective way to understand the costs of its services and identifo potential fee changes and
revenue impacts.
A quality Cost of Service Study is much more than a method to identifu the cost of service and
potential fee increases. This type of analysis can also become a management tool, providing
information and perspectives that can help the City better understand its operations and financial
circumstances. Other important outcomes from the study processes and results include the
ability to:
o Calculate specific fee subsidies and overall revenue impacts of current and potential
fees;
. Identi& new fees and cost recovery strategies;
. Enhance intemal understanding ofprogram operations and support activities;
o Allow the City to compare its costs with neighboring jurisdictions;
o Quantiff productivity and staffrng shortages;
. Measure the distribution of staff effort of specific positions to individual tasks and
service areas, which can help managers more effectively prioritize work tasks;
o Ensure that the City's fees are consistent with state law;
o Ensure Crty fees are defensible to the public, interest groups, and the courts; and
. Foster a better understanding of workflow and staff involvement in specific services and
activities.
The principal goal of the Study is to determine the full cost of the development-related services
provided by the City. Other objectives of the project included:
r' Establish objective and transparent fee information
r' Develop insight and a rational basis for setting fees
r' Understand individual fee subsidies and overall funding deficits
/ Balance revenuesr' Understand the context and principles of user fees
/ Improve faimess and equityy' Ensure compliance with state law
Wohlford Consulting Page 2 of 48 March 30,2016
^lE'2015 Full Cost of Sen'ices (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Scope of the Study
The Study's scope included a review and calculation of user fees charged by the following
departments:
o CommunityDevelopmentDepartment
o Planning
o Building
o Public Works Department
o Engineering
o Police Department
o Parks and Recreation Department
The Study focused on the cost of City services at anticipated service and staffing levels. This
study was not a management study intended to identifu, evaluate, or quantifu potential cost
savings opportunities, efficiency and effectiveness improvements, performance or productivity,
staffrng or organizational structure, process changes, risk mitigation, or other factors that could
later influence operating practices and the cost of the services. The analysis did not seek to
compare the service levels, fee structures, quality, or operating practices of Burlingame to other
cities. This study also did not address potential economic or social impacts of possible fee
increases on the community.
Purpose of the Report
This report presents a summary ofthe study results and a general description ofthe approach and
methods used to determine the cost of services. Some issues are presented as background for the
results and the study processes. However, the report is not intended to document all ofthe issues
and discussions involved with the study, nor is it intended to provide persuasive discourse on the
relative merits of the tools, techniques, methods, or other approaches used in the study. The
main source of detailed information from this study is the series of worksheets and workbooks
that contain the source data and calculations that lead to the final results.
Wohlfurd Consulting Page 3 of48 March 30,2016
About Wohlford Consulting
The consultant for this study, chad wohlford, has over 28 years of experience analyzing and
managing govemment costs and operations, including 12 years of direct govemment
management and analyical service. He has personally engaged in over 240 cost analysis studies
with more than 70 different government clients (many of them for multiple projects) in
califomia and six other westem states. Before forming l{ohlfurd Consulting, Mr. wohlford
was the state director ofthe cost services practice for a large national consulting corporation.
*E 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
LOCAL GOVERNMENT USER FEE ISSUES
User Fees Defined
A User Fee is:
A fee or rate charged to an individual or group that receives a
private benefit from services provided by the City.
The defining principle behind a user fee is the nature of the individual or pivate beneht that
results from the service for which the fee is charged. With the inflexibility and categorical
requirements of many funding sources, taxes (as embodied by the General Fund) are generally
levied and used to pay for services that benefit the public as a whole (i.e., community benefit).
Of course, a number of gray areas exist to complicate the specific categorization of charges,
since many services that appear to benefit a single group may have secondary benefits to others.
It is the prerogative ofthe City Council or other goveming body to determine the final fee levels
that reflect the local policies and intent regarding cost recovery and subsidies.
A qpe of local government fees that is similar in nature, but otherwise separated from, user fees
is utility rates. Utility rates seek to recover for the usage of a particular commodity provided by
the govemment agency, such as water or sewage treatment. In contrast, the traditional user fees
addressed in this Study relate to services for which employee time is the most prominent feature
of the service and regulatory approval is the normal product of the transaction.
Background
As part of an overall funding strategy, local govemment relies upon user fees to fund programs
and services that provide limited or no direct benefit to the community as a whole' With rising
demands for services and restrictions on most other funding sources, cities have increased
scrutiny of subsidies provided by the General Fund to other funds and to service recipients that
reap a disproportionate share of the benefits. To the extent that the government uses general tax
monies (General Fund) to provide an individual with a private benefit and not require the
individuat to pay the cost of the service (and, therefore, receive a subsidy), the govemment is
unable to use those resourcss to provide benefits to the community as a whole. In effect, then,
the govemment is using community funds to pay for a private benefit. Unlike other revenue
sources, cities have greater control over the amount ofuser fees they charge to recover costs.
ll/ohlford Consulting Page 4 of48 March 30, 2016
Another common type of fees in local government is Development Impact Fees (DIF or AB
1600 fees). These fees are often confused with user fees, since DIF's are authorized by some of
the same state statutes and also relate to development. However, DIFs are intended to recover
the cost for additional infraskuctue that becomes necessary due to new development. The fees
collected for development impacts can only be used for capital projects-not ongoing operations.
User fees are intended to fund the current operations of the departments that provide the services.
&w 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Impetus for User Fees and Increased Scrutiny
Prior to Proposition 13, Califomia cities were not as concemed as they are today with potential
subsidies and recovering the cost of their services from individual fee payers. In times of fiscal
shortages, cities could raise property taxes, which funded everything from police and recreation
to development-related services. However, this situation changed with the passage of
Proposition 13 in 1978.
Proposition 13 ushered in the era of revenue limitation in California local govemment. In
subsequent years, the state saw a series of additional limitations to local govemment revenues.
Proposition 4 (1979) defined the difference between a tax and a fee: a fee can be no greater than
the cost of providing the service; and Proposition 218 (1996) further limited the imposition of
taxes for certain classes of fees. As a result, cities were required to secure a supermajority vote
in order to enact or increase taxes. Since significant resistance usually emerges to any efforts to
raise local govemment taxes, cities have little control and very few successful options for new
revenues.
To compound the revenue problems faced by local govemment, the state of Califomia took a
series of actions in the 1990's and 2000's to improve the state's fiscal situation at the expense
of local govemment. The "Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund" (ERAF) take-away of
property taxes and the reduction of Vehicle License Fees severely reduced local tax revenues.
Cities (and counties) faced sigrrificant funding troubles in the face of rising and sometimes
uncontrollable costs, increased citizen demands, and continued imposition of state mandates.
The flexibility of local govemment budgets to address their own priorities was hampered by
categorical grants, earmarked funds, mandates, maintenance of effort requirements, and funding
match requtements. As expected, cities and counties sought relief.
To cope with the funding shortages, local government was forced to enact service reductions,
seek reimbursement from the state for more and more mandated services (SB 90 Mandated Cost
Reimbursement), and impose a wider range and higher levels of user fees and impact fees. In
tum, to placate local govemment and transfer some control and responsibility, the state delegated
more authority to charge user fees. The state also codified limitations to user fee levels and
administration and put more ofthe responsibility and liability for user fees to the local level.
With $eater need and authority to charge fees, many local governments took to the concept
readily and enacted new and increased fees. After a series of real and/or perceived abuses, a
focused and influential user fee backlash occurred in the mid-1990's that requted further
clarihcation and limitation ofuser fee practices. Special interest groups challenged the fees in a
number of cities and counties, resulting in a series of lawsuits, special studies, and formal
opinions from the California Attomey General (1995) and Legislative Counsel of Califomia
(1ee7).
The end result ofall ofthese user fee actions is an environment ofsignificant scrutiny ofany and
all fee actions. Local govemment has been forced to pay greater attention to the methods and
lYohlford Consulting Page 5 of48 March 30,2016
^g 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Most Recent C se Pronosition 26
In 2010 the trend to limit fee progression continued when Califomia voters approved Proposition
26. This measure attempted to further define and clarifu which local government charges are to
be considered taxes (subject to public vote) and which are fees (subject only to city council or
board of supervisors approval). In summary, the measure established that any "levy, charge, or
exaction of any kind imposed by a local govemment" is a tax, unless it falls into one of seven
categories (exceptions):
(1) A charge imposed for a specific benefit confened 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 govemment of conferring the benefit
or ganting the privilege.
(2) A charge imposed for a specific goverrunent 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.
(3) A charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local govemment
for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and
audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative
enforcement and adjudication thereofl
(4) A charge imposed for entrance to or use of local govemment property or the
purchase rental or lease of local govemment property.
(5) A frne, penalty, or other monetary charge imposed by the judicial branch of
government or a local govemment as a result of a violation of law, including
late payment fees, fees imposed under administrative citation ordinances,
parking violations, etc.
(6) A charge imposed as a condition of property development.
(7) Assessments and property related fees imposed in accordance with the
provisions of Article XIII D (Proposition 218).
ll/ohlfurd Consulting Page 6 of48 March 30,2016
bases for new fees, since they can be readily challenged. The focus of fee-setting decisions has
shifted from the revenue needs to the actual cost of the services provided. "Pay to play"
principles have become more prominent as a way to ensure equity and faimess for all citizens.
In addition, the issue of subsidies has come to the forefront, since it has become less tolerable to
use general taxpayer funds to subsidize the private activities and profits of developers (for
example) and other individual beneficiaries of city services-at the expense of more public
safety and social services.
^g 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
According to analyses by the League of Califurnia Cities, the "vast majority of.fees that cities
would seek to adopt wili most lik;ly fall into one or more of these exemptions."r As a specific
example, also according to this analysis, "most fees culre-ntly imposed by local planning and
building departments will be exanpt from Proposition 26"' under exception numbers one, two,
three or six.
As a cost of services study, this analysis sought to evaluate the cost of a wide range of services
and activities conducted by the various departrnents regardless of whether the services are
associated with specific fees. While this study includes cost analysis of services that could be
considered for fee adoptions, it does not, in and of itself, establish fees or fee levels for the City
of Burlingame, which is the purview of the City Council. If recommended fees are provided in
the study, the types of fees and charges that are likely to be considered "taxes" under Proposition
26 are normally and intentionally excluded. (Note: In rare instances where a recommendation
would be provided to set a cost recovery level for a service considered a "tax" under Proposition
26 definitions, the recommendation assumes that the City will implement those taxes in
compliance with state law. There ate no such instances in this srudy for the City of Burlingame.)
While the study evaluates the cost ofmany direct services, including some that are unrecoverable
and/or may not ever become recommended fees, the fees likely to be adopted are designed to
recover the reasonable cost of providing the service to the individual fee payers. As noted above
and as defined in Proposition 26, these fees fall within the definitions of the exceptions. Due to
its relatively recent enactment, however, Proposition 26 has not yet been subject to review by the
courts, some uncertainties exist regarding its application. Prior to any new fee implementation, it
would be prudent for the City's own legal counsel to evaluate the impact of Proposition 26 (and
all other related laws) to ensure full compliance with state law.
Basic User Fee Principles
The definition ofa user fee, the modem environment for their existence and administration, and
general public administration concepts all affect a Cost of Service Snrdy. Wohlford Consulting
considered a variety of related principles to assist the City of Burlingame in the determination of
user fee structures, service costs, and implementation. Under these principles, User Fees should
be:
Based on the Cost of Services:/ Not arbitrary/ Not unintentionally subsidized/ Not unfairly subsidized
Fair and Equitable
Consistent with City Goals / Objectives
Compliant with State Law
Dynamic (for updates & anomalies)
I Liingwith Proposition 26 of2010: Many Local Fees Will Fit Within Seven Categoies of Exemptions, November
2010, Page I
2 Proposition 26 Implementation Guide, April 201I, Page 43
ll/ohlford Consulting Page 7 of48 March 30.2016
P-',r,w 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL RJPORT
For most ofthe development-related user fees, state law establishes that "...fees may not exceed
the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged..."
(Govemment Code $66014). The "fee" exceptions in Proposition 26 also state that the charge
must "not exceed the reasonable costs" to provide the service. This general admonition is the
dominating principle in this Cost of Service Study. The methodology, approach, data collection,
quality control, and other efforts of the study are intended to establish compliance with this
principle. The costs calculated in the study represent the estimated reasonable full cost for each
service and, therefore, the maximum fee the City may charge for its services.
lYoh$ord Consulting Page 8 of48 March 30, 2016
.F ,iw 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
Conceptual Approach
The basic concept of a Cost of Service Study is to determine the full cost of each service
provided by the City for which the City charges a user fee. The full cost may not necessarily
become the City's fee, but it serves as the objective basis upon which the City can make
informed decisions regarding irnal fee levels.
In order to determine the full cost for each fee service, the cost analysis incorporates the
following "full cost" components:
A critical method to ensure full cost recovery rates is to establish annual billabie (productive /
available) hours for staff. The Study reduces the full-time annual hours (2,080) for each position
classification by non-billable hours, such as holiday, vacation, and sick leave, staff meetings,
mandated breaks, and training. In studies conducted by Wohlford Consulting, the typical
number of billable hours for the average full-time employee is approximately 1,400 hours per
year, but this figure might normally range from 1,200 to 1,500, depending on the type of
position. The Burlingame study calculated a billable hour total for each position classification in
the study. By using the billable hours, rather than the full 2,080 hours of full-time pay, the Study
ensures that hourly rates and the resultant costs reflect the levels necessary to recover the full
cost of services in a particular year given the practical availability ofstaffto provide services.
The standard fee limitation established in California law for property-related (non-discretionary)
fees is the "estimated, reasonable cost" principle. In order to maintain compliance with the letter
and spirit of this standard, every major component of the fee study process included a related
review. The use of budget frgures and time estimates indicates reliance upon estimates for some
data. In other areas, the study includes actual known figures that exceed the estimated,
reasonable standard. The key to the defensibility ol the Study, therefore, is a dedication to the
reasonableness of the data and results. The quality control measures implemented ensure the
Study satisfies the reasonableness standard. The study does not utilize arbitrary data or other
information that would not satisfr the estimated/reasonable standard.
Wohlford Consulting Page 9 of48 March 30.2016
. Direct Salaries & Benefits
o Services and Supplies
o Indirect and Support Activities
. Supervision and Support
o Cross-DepartmentSupport
. DeparhnentAdministration
. Cit),wide Administration (Cost Allocation Plan)
o Facility Use
. Capital(arurualized)
. Anticipated Growth
*
€
2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
In those cases where it was possible to establish reasonably consistent time/workload standards
for specific services, the analysis develops the cost of the service as a "flat" or "fixed" fee. In
addition to providing consistent cost information, this approach is the most common method for
developing the full cost of City services.
The alternative to fixed fees is to tack actual staff time for every staff member for every service.
This approach creates an administrative burden and leaves the City and the fee payer unable to
predict the final fee amount. This altemate "real time" billing approach is appropriate, however,
when the fee activity varies widely between occurrences and would thus cause fixed fees to be
unfair and unreasonable in a significant number ofcases. In those cases where real-time billing
is recommended, the City will require a deposit to ensure a minimum fee is received. The Study
establishes some fees as "real time" billing charges when necessary @rimarily in the Planning
fees) and calculates potential deposit levels based upon staff time estimates for common service
levels.
The cost figures used as the basis for the study were from the City of Burlingame's FY 2014-15
final approved budget.
Summary Steps of the Study
The methodology used to determine individual user fee costs is fairly straightforward. This
analysis employs a "unit cost build-up" approach to determine the cost of individual services.
The approach uses the following factors:
Staff time to complete activities and services
Direct cost of individual staffpositions (converted to productive hourly rates)
Rational distribution of overhead and support costs
Multiplying the first two factors (# of hours by hourly rate) identifies the direct cost for each
service. By distributing the remaining indirect/overhead costs, the analysis establishes the full
cost. The following list provides a summary of the study process steps:
Fee Study Process Outline
1. Establish the inventory of fee services (current and potential)
2. Identifu the staffpositions that work on each fee service
3. Calculate the direct productive hourly rate for each position
4. Determine the time necessary for each position to perfonn fee tasks
5 . Calculate the direct cost of the staff time for each fee
6. Distribute indirect and overhead costs to each fee
7. Sub-allocate supporting activities to fee services
8. Perform quality control processes (constant)
9. Calculate revenue impacts
10. Perform the "gap analysis" (unit and total subsidieVdefrcits)
I 1. Perfiorm review processes
12. Document and present results
ll/ohlford Consulting Page l0 of48 March 30. 2016
&E
To ensure a high degree of accuracy and thoroughness for the study, each of these steps in the
process involves a rigorous set of subtasks, iterations, reviews, and quality control requtements.
Both City staff and the consultant were involved with the performance and,/or review of each of
these steps.
Simplifted Unit Cost Calculation
( hy p ot heti c a I exam p le)
The above table of hypothetical data indicates that Fee #l takes staff a total of four hours to
complete the necessary services, so at $100 per hour, the direct staff cost is $400 per unit. The
addition of S50 for indirect and overhead costs brings the total unit cost to $450. With 10 units a
year, the total annual cost for the service is $4,500.
It is important to note that this simple example indicates only a single position at four hours
consumed per unit. The actual time analysis is much more detailed, and includes individual time
estimates for each employee who works on each service for which the City charges a fee.
By multiplying the unit costs by the annual number of fee activities, the analysis estimates the
total annual cost ol the fee-related activities. By using the same annual activity volumes and
muttiplying them by current fees, the Study establishes potential cost recovery from current fees.
The difference between the two figures is the actual cost-crlrent fee gap. If the current fees are
greater than the actual cost, the gap is an over collection or profit. If the full cost is greater than
Time to
Complete
I
Activity
(hours)
x
Productive
Hourly
Rate
Full Cost
(per Unit
of Fee
Activity)
x
Annual
Volume
of
ActiYiry
Annual
Cost or
Potential
Annual
Revenue
Service ("Fee" or
Program) /
Activity
l0FEE #I:
0.5 s 100 $s0 l0Intake
I $ 100 $ r00 l0Plan Check
$ 2,0002$ 100 $ 200 l0Inspection
l0 $ s000.5 $ t00 $50Filing
104s 100 $ 400Salaries &
Benefits Totol:
$s0 l0 $ s00Indirect Costs
$ 450 l0 $ 4,500TOTAL COST
IIIII
I
TI
TIII
TIIt
II
T
T
TIII
I
T
T
T
TIIIII
ll/ohlford Consulting Page l1 of48 March 30, 2016
2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
The following table illustrates the methodology using hypothetical information in a simplified
format:
s 500
$ 1,000
$ 1,000
*w 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
the current fees, the gap represents a subsidy, or individual fee deficit. The following table
illustrates a simplified example ofa gap analysis:
Simplified Annual Deficit/Gap Analysis
(hypothetical example)
The above table indicates that Fee #1 is cunently subsidized $3,500 per year, while the City is
chargrng fee payers $500 more per year than the associated cost for the service represented by
Fee #3.
Basic Assumptions and Standards
The study relied upon a series of underlying assumptions and basic considerations to achieve the
results. These issues are described below:
Time
Estimates:One of the principal building blocks of the cost analysis is the estimate of time
that represents City staff workload related to each fee service and/or subordinate
activity. The use of staff-provided time estimates was necessary in the absence of
actual time data, such as the kind that could be developed through a long-term
time and motion study or other more formal methods. If conscientiously
considered by qualified staff, time estimates satisry the requirement that a non-
discretionary fee must not exceed the "...estimated reasonable cost of providing
the service for which the fee is charged..." (GC $ 66014 a). For this Study,
Department staff provided time estimates that represent a normal level of effort
for each fee activity, as determined by past experience. This data was reviewed
by other experienced staff in the organization, in order to utilize other
perspectives and experiences and further ensure reasonableness. This approach is
"industry standard" for cost of service and user fee analysis.
x Current
Fee
Annual
Cost
Recovery
@ Current
Fee
Annual
Cost
Recovery
@Full
Cost
Current
Annual
@eficit) /
Surplus
Fee
Annual
Volume
of
Activity
$ 1,000 $ 4,s00 $ (3,500)Fee #l 10 $ r00
$ 2,000 $ (87s)$7s $ r,r25Fee #2
$ 500$s0 $ 1,000Fee #3 20
$2s $ 62s $ 100 s 525Fee #4 ,<
$ 3,750 $ 7,100 $ (3,3s0)Total:
I
TIII
IIIII
I
T
T
TI
TIIII
ll'ohlford Consulting Page l2 of48 March 30, 2016
l5
$ 500
ft
€,
2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Full Cost:The study determines the fuIl cost of services. To this end, the analysis includes
all direct costs for the department services, such as the salaries and benefrts ofthe
employees who perform the services. The analysis also includes the appropriate
distribution of legitimate indirect and overhead costs that support the operations
and personnel that perform the services. These costs include general supplies and
services, utilities, insurance, facility and equipment costs, technology upgrades,
division and department overhead, support from other departments, reserve
contributions, annualized capital costs, armualized supporting plan maintenance
(e.g., Burlingame General Plan Update), and citywide overhead-all whenever
applicable. Citywide overhead is comprised of central servico costs, such as city
managsr, finance, city attorney, and human resources, as determined through the
City's Cost Allocation Plan (or CAP). These costs are universally accepted as
components to be included in service cost (fee) calculations, because the
underlying services provide the organizational and operational support necessary
for the employees and administrative infrastructure to exist and conduct the fee
activities. It is important to note that all of these costs are distributed to the fee-
related services, as well as the non-fee-related services. In other words, the costs
for fee-related services are not burdened with all of the cost, but only their fair
share of the cost. The costs assigned to most direct non-fee services are
considered unrecoverable.
Non-Fee
Seruices:As a fulI cost of service analysis, the study for each division/fee area also
calculates the cost of non-fee services. These services include areas such as
public information, CIP activities, and support to other City departments, which
do not have associated fees. The purpose of including these other services is to
ensure the fair and appropriate distribution of overhead and indirect costs to all
areas, instead of concentrating these costs only on the fee-related activities. This
approach also allows the analysis to distribute staff hours across all activities to
ensure a true picture of the utilization of staff time and cost and provide a quality
control check. The detailed study results in the appendices indicate whether a
summary total includes "All Services" (including non-fee categories) or "Fee
Services Only'' (excluding non-fee services). The figures in the body of this
report only include the "Fee Services" totals.
Sert ice Level
Assumptions: The analysis is based upon the City's current organization and business practices.
The study assumed continued consistency in the time consumption for each
service, as well as future staffrng, quality, productivity, efficiency, and all other
qualitative and quantitative standards.
The analysis is also based upon a level of service determined by Department
management to be the minimum professional standard. The study assumed
consistency in the future time consumption for each service, as well as future
staffing, quality, productivity, efhciency, and all other qualitative and quantitative
standards.
ll'ohlford Consulting Page 13 of48 March 30, 2016
/rnB 2015 FuIl Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Consistent
Ilorkload:Most of the service costs in this study were developed as "flat" or fixed fees.
Under this approach, the Study calculates the cost of the services after assuming
that all services for a specific fee will require the same workload (time),
regardless of the characteristics of the particular fee activity or the applicant.
Time estimates that reflect the "typical" level of effort required for a particular fee
activity. The flat fee approach ignores the variance in time that may exist from
applicant to applicant, due to qualitative or other differences in the applicants
themselves or their submitted materials. The overall efficacy of this approach
relies upon the assumption that the variances will average out over the course of
time, resulting in a consistent and reasonably fair fee for all.
A deficit exists when the cost of a particular service is greater than the fee
charged and recovered for that service. This deficit creates the need for a subsidy
from another funding source, so the use of either term in this report is appropriate
for the same meaning.
Individual fee subsidies can take different forms. In cases where different size
fees within a category are set at different cost-recovery levels, one fee payer may
subsidize another for the same type of service. This siruation exists, because the
individual fees are not each priced to recover the individual costs of the services
(i.e., one payer is overcharged and one is undercharged). In these instances, there
is a basic imbalance and/or unfairness between fee payers built into the system. If
all fees are set to recover less than full cost, each fee payer receives a subsidy
from another funding source, such as the General Fund or another fund balance.
The individual fee subsidies add up to an overall annual funding deficit for the
Departments. The overall cost of services must be borne by a funding source, so
the concept of a subsidy needs to be carefully considered. In local govemment,
subsidies are normally covered by General Fund revenues, since most other
funding sources are limited in what they can be used to fund. A reliance upon
Ceneral Fund revenues to fund private-benefit services, such as building
inspections, can create criticism, since it reduces the availability ofthose revenues
for other public benefit services, such as public safety. However, subsidies can
also reflect positive public policy goals, since they can be used to encourage
certain desired activities.
This Snrdy identifies existing subsidies for individual fee activities, as well as the
resulting annual operating deficits for the affected departrnents. The purpose of
the subsidy (gap) analysis is to inform the City regarding current subsidy levels
and give City leaders information to help them make informed fee setting and
policy decisions.
lYohlford Consulting Page 14 of48 March 30, 2016
Subsidy:
^g 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Casrs vs
Fees:The Study and appendices reference "fees" in titles and descriptions. In the
context of the full cost analysis, the terms "cost" and "fees" are interchangeable.
The full cost of a service serves as the potential fee until the City has an
oppomrnity to review the results and establish new fee levels for implementation.
This study does not presume to establish City fees, since the decisions about fee
levels are the purview of the City Council and require additional information
(e.g., community input, economic impacts, etc.) that was not evaluated as part of
this study.
Qualilv Control
The quality of a cost of service study is dependent on the data that is used for the analysis. All
study components are interrelated, so it is critical that the Study utilize good data. To avoid
accuracy problems and other quality flaws, the study incorporated a rigorous quality control
process with checks at every step in the analysis.
The quality control measures ensure that the study covers all of the issues, appropriately
accounted for positions and resources in the models, and factors all other data fairly and
accurately in the study. The elements of the quality control process used for the User Fee
calculations include:
Quality Control Steps / Initiatives
/ Involvement of knowledgeable
City staff and managers
/ Clear instructions and guidance
to City staff and managersy' Process checklists
/ Reasonableness tests and
validation
Normalcy/expectation ranges
(data inputs and results)
Challenge and questioning
Lltilization of staff hours
FTE balancing
Internal and extemal reviews
Cross-checking
lVohlford Consulting Page l5 of48 March 30.2016
*E 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
FINDINGS AND RESULTS
Summary
In a cost of service (user fee) analysis, the principal output and findings are the full cost figures
for the fee activities. The process for development of recommended fee levels for consideration
by the City Council will occur later. The appendices show unit fees individually by fee type:
Planning, Building, Engineering, Police, and Recreatior/Parks. In order to put the results in
context, the analysis also extrapolated the unit fees into a one-year period, which indicates the
potential revenue impacts to the City and individual departments.
The current cost of City fee activities included in this study is approximately $6.7 million
annually. Given the current fee levels charged by the City, the potential annual revenue
(assuming a consistent activity level) is $3.6 million, which represents a current annual fund
deficit of approximately $3.1 million and a cost-recovery ratio of 54o/o overall. In other words, if
the City set fee levels at the full cost ofeach service, (100% cost-recovery) the City could collect
an additional $3.1 million in revenue from fee activities each year.
The following table illustrates these results
FEE.{RE.{
FULL COST:
Annual Cost of
Fee-Related
Services
PROJECTED
RE\'ENUE AT
CURRENT
FEES
PROJECTED
SURPLUS /
(DEFICIT)
PROJECTED
cosT
R.ECOVERY
RATE
Planning S 73 I 0 00 $ 287,000 s (444,000)39%
Building $ 470,000 $ 176,000 s (294,000)37o/o
Engineering $ 702,000 $ 169,000 $ (533,000)24o/o
Police $ 1,070,000 $ 187,000 $ (883,000)17o/o
$ 3,741,000 $ 2,82s,000 $ (916,000)76%
TOTALS:$ 6,714,000 $ 3,644,000 $ (3,070,000)54Yo
It should be noted that the full cost figures presented in the table reflect only the total annual cost
of the fee-related activities included in this sutdy. Each Departrnent or Division also has a
number of non-fee activities that are not included in this table. Therefore, the table's focused
cost figures will not match any budgets or other financial documents that include every
component ofthe Departrnents or Divisions.
As the table shows, each Department has a current annual funding deficit. Without fee increases,
the General Fund will need to offset the cost versus fee revenue gap by approximately $3.1
million annually.
ll/ohford Consulting Page 16 of48 March 30,2016
Summary Results
Recreation & Parks
l€!e;rw 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Another way to view these results is to consider the funding sources for the full cost of fee-
related activities. In the following graph, the bottom portion of each department indicates the
amount ofthe fees funded by current fees, and the upper portion represents the funding provided
by the General Fund.
Current Funding Sources of Fee Services
s4,000,000
s3,s00,00o
s3,000,000
52,s00,000
s2,000,000
s1,s00,000
s1,000,000
ss00,000
s-
\ GENERAL FUND SUBSIDY
I PROJECTED REVENUE
FROM CURRENT FEES
*".& -"t*
^c
,.""
q-o-
The appendices contain the unit cost and summary results for each fee area. To produce the
results, the Study utilized a collection of analyical models and worksheets that calculate and
document the cost of fee activities. Versions of these worksheets in pdf and/or Excel format
comprise the background documentation ofthe study and were provided separately to the City.
Definition of Results
The results of this Study reflect the full cosl of fee-related services provided by the City. The
results are not necessarily the fees that the City will charge. The City Council has the authority
and responsibility to set the fee levels following receipt of staff recommendations, public
meetings, and deliberations.
Potential Cost Increases from Prior Studies and Fee-Setting
The cost analysis identifies significant gaps (deficits) between the full cost of individual servtces
(as calculated in the Study) and almost all current fees for those services.
lYoh$ord Consulting Page l7 of48 March 30, 2016
*S"-"'i"-."f
AE
The City of Burlingame has enacted fee changes in the past, primarily based upon inllationary
(CPI) increases, but it has been more than eight years since the most recent fee or cost analysis
was performed. Even if the City established user fees ^t l00yo of full cost identified in a
previous study, and regularly applied an inflation factor, there are a variety of reasons why the
cost calculations in this study would identift significant gaps between the current fees and full
cost recovery. ffis snrdy did not attempt to evaluate and quantify factors that resulted in the
gap, but common variables include:
o Current fees may not have been previously set at full cost (policy decisions).
o Increases in per-unit workload (i.e., time required to complete tasks) due to new codes
and regulations that add complexity and additional required checks and services to tasks
(e.g., AB 1881 Landscaping Requirements, stormwater permits, etc.).
o Increases in City costs that exceed inllationary measures (e.g., Consumer Price Index)
such as:
o Employee salaries (COLA's, step increases)
o Employee benefits (PERS, healthcare)
o Services and supplies (electricity, fuel, insurance)
o Citywide overhead costs (Cost Allocation Plan results)
r Inclusion ofnew costs not in existence or identified in the previous study, such as:
o Intemal administrative and supervision costs (department and division overhead)
o Annualized capital or asset replacement costs
o Cross-departrnent support costs
o Support functions authorized to be included in user fees (e.g., code enforcement
costs in building and plaruring fees; general plan update costs)
. Changes in technology and/or business processes
r Improved analyical methodologies with enhanced rigor and comprehensiveness
. Improved recognition of the role and treatment of productive / billable hours factors
(direct vs. indirect work hours)
o Potential decreases due to strear ining/expenditure reductions
Considerations Concerning Recommended Fees
If the City's primary goal is to maximize cost recovery from user fees, Wohlford Consulting
would recommend setting user fees at 100% of the full cost identified in the study, with few
exceptioos. This approach would reduce the burden on external funding sources. This position
reflects a philosophy that fee payers should pay the full share for the services they consume from
the city for their private benelit.
Maximizing cost recovery may not be the only goal of a cost of service study, however, and
sometimes full-cost recovery is not needed, desired, or appropriate. Other City and department
goals, City Council priorities, policy initiatives, past experience, implementation issues,
community expectations, and other intemal and extemal factors may influence staff
recommendations and City Council decisions.
Wohlford Consulting March 30.2016
2015 Futl Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Page 18 of48
&w 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
In recognition of these other issues, staff will work to develop recommended fees that address
the City's current needs. Wohlford Consulting anticipates that the City Council may provide
further direction to staff regarding acceptable fee levels. In the meantime, the cost recovery
results shown in the Study are based upon full cost calculations and do not reflect any specific or
general fee recommendations provided by Wohlford Consulting.
Limitations for Use of Revenue Results
The annual results are based upon an estimated annual volume of activity. The purpose of these
total figures is to provide a sense of scale that puts the fund deficit and other results in context.
These figures are not perfect, since a number of variables will ultimately alter the final cost
recovery totals. Variables include:
. Fees set at less than full cost
o Increased or decreased activity from assumed levels
. Change in the blend ofservice types and fees
o Timing of the implementation of the fees and revenue collection
. Service activities and fee collections that cross multiple fiscal yean
o Project tasks (activity volume count) and fee collection which occur in different years
This Study presents the potential cost recovery figures and annual costs only to provide a basis
for comparison of current fee levels to full cost (as well as a basis to establish recommended
fees). Since the impacts of these variable factors are unknown, Wohlford Consulting cautions
the City against using the annualized figures for the purpose of revenue projections or other
budgeting decisions.
Ll/ohlfurd Consulting Page 19 of48 March 30, 2016
&w 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Results for Planning
FULL COST:
Annual Cost of
Fee.Related
Services
PROJECTED
REVENUE AT
CURRENT FEES
PROJECTED
SURPLUS /
(DEFICIT)
PROJECTED
COST
RECOVERY
RATE
$ 287,000 $ (444,000)39o/o
Summarv
Planning Division staff and the consultant worked together to develop the fees through a
unit cost build-up approach, whereby the analysis calculated the cost of each unit of
service (e.g., plan check and/or inspection process) using staff time and productive hourly
rates. To develop the annual deficit or surplus figures, the analysis multiplied the unit
costs and current unit fees by the anticipated annual volume ofeach service.
The cost analysis for Planning revealed an overall armual funding defcit of
approximately $444,000 for fee-related activities, with an overall cost-recovery rate of
39o/o. In addition, almost all (56 out of 59 fees, or 95%, by tally) of the current fees are
less than the fulI cost of providing the services, thus providing a subsidy to fee payers.
The remaining fees (5%) are curently set equal to or higher than full cost. [n other
words, if the City elects to set all fees to recover full cost (and no more), most of the
current fees would increase, and a few would be reduced. Overall, since the annual
volume of permit activity applies more heavily to those fees that are currently under-
charged (subsidized), the City would experience an overall increase in annual revenue of
approximately $444,000.
Another important finding of the cost analysis is that all five of the current hourly rates
for positions included in the study for Planning are less than the full cost for providing a
productive hour of each position's time-up to 63% less and averaging 56% less. In
instances where Plarming would rely upon hourly rates (e.g., charges against deposits),
sulficient staffrates are critical for cost-recovery.
Appendix I contains the detailed results for Planning fee activities
Potential Revenue Gro wth from Planninp Fees
The cost results for Planning indicate the potential for additional revenue-as much as
5444,000 annually if fees are increased to full cost. Only two potential new fees were
included in the analysis, and with only about $l1,000 in annual cost associated with those
fees, almost all ofthe potential increase is associated with full costs that are greater than
the current fees for those services. This revenue is aftainable if the City sets fees at the
full cost levels. To the extent that the City does not increase all fees to their full cost
levels, the City will not realize the associated additional annual revenue.
ll'ohfford Consulting Page 20 of48 March 30, 2016
$ 731,000
*w
The cost results for Planning indicate a potential for signifrcant additional revenue-as
much as $444,000 armually if fees are increased to full cost. In some municipal
situations, only a reduced portion of this kind ofpotential revenue is likely to be realized,
due to "fee" areas that are traditionally heavily subsidized, such as appeals or historical
review. In this Planning analysis, we did not include any fees/services related to
historical review, and the annual cost included for appeals was less than $10,000
annually. Therefore, almost all of the $444,000 in potential revenue is attainable if the
City sets fees at the full cost levels. To the extent that the City does not increase all fees
to their full cost levels, the City will not realize the associated additional annual revenue.
lYoh$ord Consulting Page 21 of48 March 30,2016
2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Potential Cost-Recoverv / Revenue Limitations
Impact of Fee Activity Levels
If the City increases its fees to the full cost levels, revenue from Planning fees could
increase by the amount described. However, it is important to note that fee service
activity levels will have the greatest impact on the final revenues resulting from fee
changes. Regardless of fee levels, the annual volume of fees (permits and services
provided) will principally drive the revenues. The Department provided an estimate of
anticipated volumes based upon their recent experience and ongoing assumptions. The
potential for additional cost recovery is based on a consistent comparison between the
current fees and the full cost fees at the same activity levels. Consequently, if service
demands and the resultant fee workload decline, the City would experience an overall
drop in Planning fee revenues that is unconnected to the results ofthis study.
.ri*2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Results for Building
FULL COST:
Antrual Cost of
Fee-Related
Services
PROJECTED
REVENI]E AT
CURRENT FEES
PROJECTED
STJRPLUS /
(DEFICIT)
PROJECTED
COST
RECOVERY
RATE
$ 470,000 $ 176,000 $ (294,000)37Yo
Summary
The Burlingame Building Division currently utilizes the valuation-based approach for
determining fees charged to development projects. This is a comrnon approach employed
by municipalities throughout California and the United States. Under this approach, the
fees charged by the City are set based upon the "value" of a particular project, usually
based upon a standardized table for new construction (new buildings / occupancies) and
actual or estimated construction costs for other construction or building activities.
At the time of the study, the Building Division expressed overall satisfaction with the
cost-recovery performance of the valuation-based fees for new construction and most
other project O?es. However, the City expressed a desire to establish a series of fixed
unit fees for certain routine project types, with those fees based upon the full cost of
providing the services related to the fees.
To calculate the full cost of these fee-related services, Building staff and the consultant
worked together using a unit cost build-up approach, whereby the analysis calculated the
cost of each unit of service (e.g., plan check and/or inspection process) using staff time
and productive hourly rates. To develop the annual deficit or surplus figures, the analysis
multiplied the unit costs and current unit fees by the anticipated annual volume of each
service.
The cost analysis for Building revealed an overall annual funding deficit of
approximately $294,000 for these fee-related activities, with an overall cost-recovery rate
of 37%. Furthermore, the analysis revealed that all but one (32 out of 33, by tally, or
97%) of the current fees are less than the full cost of providing the services, thus
providing a subsidy to fee payers. The one remaining fee (3%) is set 2% greater than full
cost (less than $9.00 over). ln other words, if the City elects to set all fees to recover full
cost (and no more), all but one of the current fees would increase, and one would be
reduced slightly. Overall, the City could experience an overall increase in annual
revenue of approximately $294,000.
The cost analysis shows that all seven of the City's current staff hourly rates in Building
are less than the full cost for providing a productive hour of each position's time-up to
59% less and averaging 46% less. ln instances where Building would rely upon hourly
rates, sufficient staffmtes are critical for cost-recovery.
l{ohlfurd Consulting Page 22 of 48 March 30,2016
llrE 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
These cost results represent only the unit fees evaluated in this study. The cost-recovery
performance of the remainder of the Building Division, including the valuation-based
fees, was not evaluated in this study.
Appendix 2 contains the detailed results for Building and Safety.
Imoact of Fee Acti vitv Levels
To the extent that the City increases its fees to the full cost levels, revenue from the
selected building pemrits could increase by the amount described. However, it is
important to note that permit activity levels will have the greatest impact on the final
revenues resulting from fee changes. Regardless of fee levels, the annual volume of fees
(permits) will principally drive the revenues. The Division provided an estimate of
anticipated volumes based upon their recent experience and ongoing assumptions. The
potential for additional cost recovery is based on a consistent comparison between the
current fees and the full cost fees at the same activity levels. Consequently, if
development activity and the resultant fee workload decline, the City would experience
an overall drop in Building fee revenues that is unconnected to the results of this study.
In addition, changes in the annual workload or service costs for valuation-based fees may
have a greater impact on overall revenues, which is not accounted for in this study or its
results.
Potential ew Fees
Every service evaluated as part of the Building Fee srudy is either a current service
without an existing fee or a grouping/restmcturing of existing services into new potential
fee categories. City staff will determine later whether to propose the establishment of
new fees for these services and structures.
ll'ohlford ConsuMng March 30.2016Page 23 of48
&w 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Results for Engineering
FIII,L COST:
Annual Cost of
Fee.Related
Services
PROJECTED
REVENUE AT
CURRENT FEES
PROJECTED
SURPLUS /
(DETICIT)
PROJECTED
COST
RXCOVERY
RATE
$ 7o2,ooo $ 169,000 $ (533,000)24Yo
To calculate the full cost of Engineering fee-related services, Department staff and the
consultant worked together using a unit cost build-up approach, whereby the analysis
calculated the cost of each unit of service using staff time and productive hourly rates.
To develop the annual deficit or surplus figures, the analysis multiplied the unit costs and
current unit fees by the anticipated annual volume ofeach service.
The analysis revealed that 93yo (53 out of 57 fees, by tally) of the current fees are less
than the full cost of providing the services, thus providing a subsidy to fee payers. The
remaining fees (7o/o) are currently set equal to or higher than full cost. [n other words, if
the City elects to set all fees to recover full cost (and no more), most of the current fees
would increase, and a few others would be reduced. Overall, since the annual volume of
permit activity applies more heavily to those fees that are currently under-charged
(subsidized), the City would experience an overall increase in annual revenue of
approximately $533,000
Another impotant finding ofthe cost analysis is that all l1 ofthe current hourly rates for
positions included in the study for Engineering are less than the full cost for providing a
productive hour of each position's time-up to 60% less and averaging 54% less. In
instances where the Department would rely upon hourly rates, sufficient staff rates are
critical for cost-recovery.
ll/ohlford Consulting Page 24 of 48 March 30, 2016
Summarv
The cost analysis for Engineering revealed an overall annual funding deficit of
approximately $533,000 for all fee-related activities combined, with an overall cost-
recovery rate of 24%o. This overall deficit is the net result of a mix of cost-recovery
circumstances within the various Public Works fee categories.
Potential Cost-Recoverv / Revenue Limitations
The cost results for Engineering indicate a potential for significant additional revenue
as much as $533,000 arurually if fees are increased to fulI cost. This potential revenue
includes costs that are dkectly associated with Engineering fees, but the revenue also
includes $334,000 in costs associated with Engineering support to the fee services
charged by Planning and Building (i.e., review of the same plans). Therefore, this
revenue is fully attainable only if the City sets fees at the full cost levels for Engineering
cnd includes the appropriate costs for the support costs in the other division fees or
AE 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
establishes separate fees for Engineering to charge for the related services (added to the
Planning and/or Building unit fees). To the extent that the City does not set all fees to
their full cost levels, the City will not realize the associated additional annual revenue.
Appendix 3 contains the detailed results for Public Works fee activities
Impact of Fee Activity Levels
To the extent that the City increases its fees to the full cost levels, revenue from Public
Works fee collections could increase by the amount described. However, it is important
to note that activity levels will have the greatest impact on the final revenues resulting
from fee changes. Regardless of fee levels, the annual volume of fees (permits) will
principally drive the revenues. The Deparunent provided an estimate of anticipated
volumes based upon their recent experience and ongoing assumptions. The potential for
additional cost recovery is based on a consistent comparison between the current fees and
the full cost fees at the same activity levels. Consequently, if development activity and
other Public Works-related activities decline, along with the resultant fee workload, the
City would experience an overall drop in Public Works fee revenues that is unconnected
to the results ofthis study.
Page 25 of48 March 30,2016Wohlford ConsuWng
,^E 2015 Full Cost of Sen'ices (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Results for Police
FULL COST:
Atrtrual Cost of
Fee.Rel8ted
Services
PROJECTED
REITNUE AT
CURRENT FEES
PROJECTED
SURPLUS /
(DEFICIT)
PROJECTED
cosT
RECOVERY
RATE
$ 1,070,000 s 187,000 $ (883,000)170
Police staff and the consultant worked together to develop the fees through a unit cost
build-up approach, whereby the analysis calculated the cost of each unit of service using
staff time and productive hourly rates. To develop the annual deficit or surplus figures,
the analysis multiplied the unit costs and current rrnit fees by the anticipated annual
volume of each service.
The cost analysis for Police revealed an overall annual funding defcit of approximately
$1,070,000 for fee-related activities, with an overall cost-recovery rate of lloh. Every
one (58 out of 58, by tally) of the current fees are less than the full cost of providing the
services, thus providing a subsidy to fee payers. In other words, if the City elects to set
all fees to recover full cost (and no more), the City would experience an overall increase
in anr:ual revenue of approximately $1,070,000.
All nine of the current hourly rates for positions included in the study for Police are less
than the full cost for providing a productive hour of each position's time-up to 63% less
and averaging 36% less. [n instances where the Departrnent would rely upon hourly
rates, sufficient staff rates are critical for cost-recovery.
Appendix 4 contains the detailed results for Police fee activities.
The cost results for Police indicate a huge potential for additional revenue-as much as
$1,070,000 annually-if fees are increased to full cost. Unfornrnately, a significant
portion of this potential revenue is unlikely to be realized, for several reasons:
$319,000 of the potential revenue increase is for cost of the first two False Alarm
Response fees (Fee #39 in the study). The City's current policy is to 4q1 charge
for the first two false alarm responses. Unless the City's policy changes, this cost
wilI remain uncollected.
2. $107,000 of the increase is for copies of Police Reports (Fee #9 in the study) and
other public records. Although there is a fee listed, the City does not currently
charge for Police Reports. Based on general experience, Wohlford Consulting
does not anticipate that the City will enact a fee for this service. so we anticipate
ll/ohlfurd Consulting March 30. 2016
Summarv
Potential Cost-Recovery / Revenue Limitations
Page 26 of48
Ag
that the actual revenues collected will be zero for this service and the other public
records-related fees will remain unchanged.
3. The potential revenue includes $27,000 in cost for services currently provided to
the community for free and that are traditionally not represented by fees,
including Firearm/Ammunition Tum-in, Prescription Medication Tum-in,
Community Presentations, and Station Tours.
4. The cost for issuing Residential Parking Permits is $21,000 greater than the
current fees. This fee is tlpically set at a market rate, so Wohlford Consulting
anticipates no change in this fee as the result of this study.
5. The potential revenue includes $3,000 for Bicycle Licenses and $45,000 for
Citation Sigrr Offs for residents. The City does not culrently charge for these
iterns as a matter of policy. Unless the City's policy changes, this cost will
remain uncollected.
If we rernove the potential impact from for the items described above, the totals for
Police look more like the following:
Probable Modified Results for Police
PROJECTED
RE\'ENUE AT
MODIFIED FULL
COST
PROJECTED
REVENTJE AT
CTJRRENT FEES
PROJECTED
SURPLUS /
(DEFICIT)
PROJECTED
COST
RECOVERY
RATE
$ 548,000 $ 187,000 $ (361,000)34o/o
While the analysis indicated a potential for over a million dollars in additional annual
revenue, a more realistic possibility is $274,000. This revised total still would require an
increase of all other fees a 100% cost-recovery level, or the City will not realize the
associated additional annual revenue.
lYohlford Consulting Page 27 of48 March 30, 2016
2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Impact of Fee Activity Levels
To the extent that the City increases its fees to the full cost levels, revenue from Police
fees could increase by the amount described. However, it is important to note that fee
service activity levels will have the greatest impact on the final revenues resulting from
fee changes. Regardless of fee levels, the annual volume of fees (number of services
provided) will principally drive the revenues. The Departraent provided an estimate of
anticipated volumes based upon their recent experience and ongoing assumptions. The
potential for additional cost recovery is based on a consistent comparison between the
current fees and the full cost fees at the same activity levels. Consequently, if service
demands and the resultant fee workload decline, the City would experience an overall
drop in Police fee revenues that is unconnected to the results of this study.
^E 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Results for Parks and Recreation
FULL COST:
Annual Cost of
Fee-Related
Services
PROJECTED
REVENUE AT
CURRENT FEES
PROJECTED
SURPLUS /
(DEFICIT)
PROJECTED
cosr
RECOVERY
RATE
$ 3,741,000 $ 2,82s,000 $ (916,000)7 60h
In order to determine the cost for each program, the Parks and Recreation staff and the
consultant worked together to determine the distribution of staff to the various programs,
including fee-related and non-fee-related programs. In addition, the study apportioned
direct expenses, support activities, and overhead services. The result was a distribution
of all department costs to the programs. These costs were compared to the actual
revenues associated with each program to determine the cost-recovery achieved for each
program, as expressed by a percentage. For example, a program that cost $2 per year and
brought in $l in revenue would have a cost recovery performance of 50%. Conversely,
the program could raise fees an average of 100% to achieve full cost recovery.
Overall, the Parks and Recreation Department maintains an annual subsidy of roughly
$916,000 for fee-related services and activities, for an average cost-recovery rate of 7670.
The cost-recovery rate for the Recreation Division was 79%o, and the rate for Parks was
4l%. Individually, the cost-recovery rates for the programs vary over a wide range: 0olo
to 126%;o.
Of the 64 individual fee-related activities (e.g., Softball, Youth Art), 55 of them (86%)
recover less than full cost. The lsrplning 9 activities are at or above full cost recovery.
The individual activities are gouped into l7 different program areas (e.g., Sports, Leisure
Classes), and 14 of 17 (82o/o) ofthose program areas recover less than 100% of full cost.
Only Leisure / Fitness, Enrichment, and Preschool programs recover full cost or greater.
lYohlfurd Consulting Page 28 of48 March 30,2016
Summarv
The cost analysis of Parks and Recreation activities did not follow the rypical unit-based
approach used for the other fee areas in this study. The unit costs for these O?es of
progrlms are affected significantly by the participation numbers, which can vary
significantly in each instance. Attempts to determine individual unit costs can result in
unreliable or misleading findings with little objective value to the City. Therefore,
instead, the cost analysis for the Parks and Recreation Department consisted of a
comparison of the overall full cost and revenue of each progtam area. This method
identified the cost-recovery performance of each program, as represented by a cost-
recovery percentage. The inverse of this percentage establishes a factor the departrnent
can apply to all program fees to determine the levels necessary to achieve full cost
recovery. The City can use these results to identifu the parameters for potential fee
changes in each program.
&E 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Appendix 5 provides a breakdown ofthe cost-recovery rates for individual programs and
actrvrtles
Results Ouali and Clarification
It is important to note that the consultant alone made the determination of which
programs are considered "fee-related" for inclusion in the overall results. This
determination is entirely based upon whether a crslomer could be identified and could be
charged a fee, regardless of whether such a fee would be acceptable to the citizens or the
City or whether such a fee would even be considered by the Department (e.g., Music in
the Park). Consequently, these results do not constitute any recommendations by the
consultant or known intentions of the City.
As mentioned previously, the cost results presented herein are limited to the fee-related
programs. The results from the study itsetf, and the associated documentation, also
include the costs for programs and services in the Department that are not related to fees
and have no extemal revenue, such as parks maintenance and operations. These non-fee
programs were included in the analysis to ensure the complete and proper distribution of
all costs, including staff time and overhead. When non-fee programs and activities are
included in the results, the overall cost-recovery rate for the Department is 35%.
Findin s and Comments
The results for the departrnent are typical. City departments throughout the state that
provide recreational and parks-related services almost always operate with signifrcant
subsidies, with varying degrees of subsidization among the progmms.
The results from the Parks and Recreation cost analysis indicate that the City could raise
almost all program and service fees by a significant amount, and still not exceed the full
cost of services. However, it is most common for cities and counties to establish these
types of fees based on detailed market comparisons and actual staff experience that
determine a more subjective basis for setting fees at levels the community will accept and
continue to utilize the services. Consequently, the results from this srudy should not be
construed to suggest any recommended fees or cost-recovery levels, but only to provide
information about potential parameters for fee changes within the Department.
It should also be noted that all discussions in this report regarding the potential (or
desirability) for full cost recovery do not apply to Parks and Recreation Services as a
whole. Wohlford Consulting recognizes that park and recreation programs occupy a
unique service niche in local govemment. A breadth of recreation and park services
provides a general community benefit that vr'arrants a significant measure of
subsidization. While some individual programs, and even some program areas, may be
able to achieve full cost recovery, these situations are rare. Normally, market/economic
and social/political pressures will dictate or heavily influence the fee levels for these
discretionary programs. It is generally accepted among recreation professionals that
attempts to charge full cost for most programs will result in large-scale reductions in
ll'ohlford Consulting Page 29 of48 March 30,2016
^B 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
participation, which will force elimination of those programs entirely. In additior! some
programs are offered on a "pilot" basis at subsidized levels to determine initial interest
and how favorably the program would be received overall.
Imoact of Fee Activitv Levels
For most fee-related departrnents, the annual activity levels sigrrificantly affect cost-
recovery performance, because most of the costs are fixed, such as permanent staff and
associated exporditures, so reductions in activity result in revenue declines without
corresponding cost decreases. However, Parks and Recreation cost-recovery
performance is not as sensitive to activity level changes. Parks and Recreation services
rely significantly on contracted service providers, temporary and part+ime staff, and
other flexible expenditures. Often, this flexible staffing is contingent upon the need for
services, as dictated by participants and other factors. Consequently, reductions in
demand cause reductions in services, which result in corresponding reductions in cost and
revenue. To the extent that these reductions are equal, the overall cost-recovery ofParks
and Recreation would be unaffected. In other words, gross revenues would change, of
course, but the revenue changes would be offset by changes in cost.
Results for Staff Hourly Rates (Cost Recovery Rates)
The study results include a series of"Full Cost Recovery Rates" associated with various
position classifications (e.g., Senior Planner). These rates are calculated to recover 100o/o
of each position's fully loaded cost within the hours available to perlorm billable/direct
services to customers and other direct department activities (both fee and non-fee). The
cost components factored into these rates are the same as the costs included in the unit
fees, as described in the "Full Cost" section above. In addition, these rates take into
account the available billable hours for each position.
For example, if a position's fully burdened cost is $150,000, and the position's billable
hours are 1,500, the full cost recovery rate would be $100 per hour.
These rates should not be confused with pay or other compensation rates. Due to the cost
burden added to these rates (e.g., overhead, operating expenditures, indfuect costs) and
use ofbillable hours, a Full Cost Recovery rate typically ranges from three to four times
the hourly pay rate of the employee.
The City can use these rates to recover full department costs whenever a real-time billing
situation is present. A salary-only or salary+benefits rate would fail to recover the full
cost ofthe position.
Finding: The full cost-recovery rate for every position classification evaluated in this
study is higher than the current hourly rates used by the City.
Page 30 of48 March 30, 2016
Full Cost Recoverv Hourlv Rates
Wohford Consulting
&E 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
The study results include some "blended" hourly rates that are not specific to any
particular position, but refer to a general service category (e.g., "Standard (Blended)
Building Plan Check Hourly Rate"). These rates enable the department to utilize a
general rate when specific employee rates are not feasible or desirable, such as when the
department is attempting to provide an estimate of cost when the actual employee
assignments or project complexity is not fully known.
For some fee-related services (especially anomalous situations) a department may choose
to track actual staff time consumed by the project and charge full cost-recovery hourly
rates to establish the specihc fee level. This "real-time billing" process may require the
applicant to pay an initial deposit (i.e., down payment) to ensure that the City will collect
a base amount ol fees for the project. If the project consumes more time/cost than the
initial deposit, the department will request an additional infusion of funds from the
applicant. tlltimately, the applicant will pay the full cost of all staff time devoted to the
project.
This cost analysis calculated the typical cost ofeach service, which appears in the results
as the resultant fu[ cost. If this City wants to establish deposits, instead of fxed fees, the
unit costs identified in this study can serve as the deposit levels. When considering fee
setting, the City does not need to establish the deposit at this level to ensure full cost
recovery, because the fees charged will be based upon the actual time consumed-not the
deposit level. The deposit merely serves as the first payment.
The City nray choose to use the results from the cost study as the basis to set the deposit
levels, since they represent "typical" projects. This approach may not be desirable,
however, because it could result in a greater number of necessary refunds of
overpayments, and because it would "front load" fee payments for projects which have a
longer review process.
Issues Resardine Com with Extemal Hourlv Rates
City hourly rates are occasionally compared to the rates charged by private contractors or
other extemal agencies, in order to ascertain the "reasonableness" of the cities' rates.
Although an attempt is usually made to compare equivalent positions, the city rates are
commonly higher than those from private enterprises. There are a variety of valid
lYohlford Consulting Page 3l of48 March 30, 2016
Blended Rates
The study calculated each blended rate by using portions of the hourly cost of multiple
positions that are typically involved in hourly fees. Al[ of the portions combined to equal
one hour. To determine the relative portions from each position, the study used a ratio
that generally corresponds to the typical work assignments of those employees. (i.e.,
non-fee-related positions are excluded.)
Variable (Hourly) Fee Deoosits
t\lE'
reasons for the differences in rates, which contribute to the potential assessment of
whether the rates are reasonable-
Most significantly, the differences are due to the fact that private firms typically do not
have to account for the same underlying costs as a govemment agency, including:
o Permit system (purchase and maintenance)
r Plaruring Commission and City Council support/meetings (attendance, status
reports, etc.)
o General Plan, Zoning Code, Housing Element, Municipal Service Review, and
Sphere of Inlluence updates
o Code enforcement
o Public information (pre-project support)
o Routine non-technical training (e.g., sexual harassment, workplace violence)
o Administrative oversight tasks (e.g., Economic Interest statements)
r Fee studies performed by outside contractors
. Employer contributions to defined beneflt retirement plans (vs. 401 or no plan)
. Competitive comprehensive health insurance coverage and post-ernployment
benefits
. Recruitment processes that require extra steps (e.g., exams and formal
applications) to ensure faimess and equity, and review processes to prevent issues
such as nepotism. (Private firms can use whatever processes they want and can
hire anybody they want.)
r Purchasing processes that require extra steps to ensure faimess and protect public
money (i.e., formal bidding processes). (Private firms can purchase however they
choose.)
. Additional administrative support, such as a Finance departrnent that must track
public funds and prepare/publish reports with greater detail than required in
private firms (to protect public money and ensure public access to information).
AII ofthe above costs (some partially) may be allocated to City fees and cost-recovery
rates established in the studies (with exceptions for some positions). Consequently, even
when salaries are equal, total City ernployee costs are greater than private firm employee
costs. Even if the City "privatized" some or all of the fee services, most of these costs
would still exist in the City and would have to be recovered. Therefore, private firms
would have to either raise their rates or bill for more hours----or the City would have to
add a premium/surcharge to the private fees. Either way, the cost would be greater than
simple public-private rate comparisons would indicate.
ll'ohlford Consulting Page 32 of48 March 30. 2016
2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Even when the services and products are similar, there are significant differences in the
costs and operations between government agencies and private enterprises. The
differences are most evident in their organizational missions, cost structures, and service
levels.
^w 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
In addition, the fees (based on worker time) also have the following built into them:
. Review and approval processes to ensure accountability and protect the public.
. Systems and processes designed for faimess and equity among customers (can
create inefficiencies). (Private firms can provide different service levels to
different customers.)
o Standard fees must also include services to difficult projects and customers,
because the City must serve everyone equally and cannot refuse to serve any
customers. (Private frms can avoid '\rnprofitable" customers.)
In summary, private enterprises generally do not have the same level of cost inputs that
need to be recovered in rates charged by a city, in order to recover costs and avoid
subsidies from non-fee sources.
Other Beneficial Outcomes of the Study
Although it is the primary focus of the Study, the cost analysis is not the only part of this effort
that can benefit the City. A series of secondary outcomes and benefits resulted from the steps of
the processes used in the Study, the analysis of data, and the myriad ofdiscussions between the
consultant and staff.
Since these secondary benefits are not the focus of the Study, the descriptions presented below
are not intended to fully explain and document all of the elements and benefits of these
outcomes. Instead, the intent of the descriptions is to briefly describe their existence and to
encourage follow-up in some c.rses.
Orientation and Training
The long-term success of the project is affected by the ability of City staffto continue to
understand, use, and explain the study methodologies and results after the study
concludes. Consequently, as part of the study process, staff spent a considerable amount
of time working with the consultant to learn the conceptual and practical elements ofthe
data collection, analysis, and calculations. This informal training process not only
ensures the future success of the project, but it also facilitated effective data collection
and the City's intemal review ofthe results.
Management Information
The processes of data collection, analysis, and validation produce beneficial management
information. The background documentation and fee models, as well as the discussions
with the consultant, highlighted information that is beneficial for managers who wish to
pursue additional in-house analysis. Department managers have access to the auxiliary
information developed and documented during the Study, including current and potential:
ll/ohlfurd Consulting Page 33 of48 March 30,2016
AE 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
. Utilization of Time and Staff (productivity and sta{fing needs). Revenue lmpacts (potential new revenue). Distribution of StaffEffort across Services (who does what and for how long). Total Time for Each Service (workload impacts). General Staff Productivity (direct vs. indirect activities)
Intaneibles
During the course of this Study, the consultant provided City staff and management with
experience-based advice intended to help the City best achieve its current and future fee
objectives. Staff and the consultant discussed implementation strategies and alternatives,
furure steps, common questions and complaints, public policy considerations, economic
considerations, legal considerations, how to address criticism and support the study, other
analysis needed, and update techniques. These discussions and the other contributions
from the consultant do not necessarily appear elsewhere in the formal documentation,
such as this report.
l/'ohlford Consulting Page 34 of48 March 30,2016
2015 Full Cost of Sen'ices (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
OTHER ISSUf,S AND INFORMATION
Fee Setting Considerations
The principal goal of this Study is to identifu the cost of City services to help the City make
informed decisions regarding fee levels and charges. Determining appropriate fee levels is an
involved and dynamic process. Staff must consider many issues in formulating
recommendations, and the City Council must consider those issues and more in making final
decisions.
City staffwill develop fee level recommendations to present to the City Council. Unfortunately,
there are no hard and fast rules to guide the City, since the most important issues are subject to
administrative and political discretion. To assist the City's deliberations, Wohlford Consulting
offers the following general considerations:
Subsidization
Recalling the definition ofa user fee helps guide decisions regarding subsidization. One
general principle is that individuals or groups that receive a purely private benefit should
pay 100% of the full cost of the services. In confiast, services that provide a purely
public benefit should be funded entirely by tax dollars. The complicating reality for local
govemment is that a large number of services fall into the range between these two
extremes. The following graphic illustrates the potential decision basis:
Source of Service Funding
(1)
(21
(3)
Building Permits
Youth Programs
Long Range
Planning
Police Patrol(4)
100% Some Somo 100%Private Public Prlvate Publlc
Benefit (llBenelit (2)Benefit (3) Benefit (4)
A common justification for subsidizing certain fees with general fund contributions is
that some fee-related services provide a "public benefit" to the larger community, in
addition to the private benefits obtained by the applicants. This approach assumes that
the subsidized development activities provide economic, cultural, quality of life, or other
community benefits that equal or exceed the costs to the City.
Taxes
(GF)Taxes
(GF)
Taxos
(GF)
lltohlfurd Consulting Page 35 of48 March 30,2016
IE
User
Fees
Us6r
Fees
User
Fees
&E 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Subsidization can also be an effective public policy tool, since it can be used to reduce
fees to encourage certain activities or allow some people to afford services they otherwise
could not at the full cost. In addition, subsidies may be appropriate to allow citizens
access to services (such as appeals) without burdensome costs.
Regardless ofthe intent, it is important for City leaders and the public to understand that
subsidies must be covered by another revenue source, such as the General Fund.
Therefore, the general taxpayer will potentially help to fund private benefits, and/or other
City services will not receive funds that would otherwise be available.
User fees are part of the fabric of City administration. The fee levels and policies should
be consistent with other established policy objectives, strategies, and statements. If the
City espouses full cost recovery, fees should reflect those standards by minimizing
subsidies. If the City has stated a desire, for example, to encourage affordable housing,
the fee structure should make allowances to encourage this tlpe of development. In
summary, other policy stances can and should influence fee decisions.
The fees should be fair and equitable to all fee payers. Some fee payers should not pay
more than the full cost, in order to subsidize the lower/subsidized fees of others. If the
City wants to provide subsidies, the extra funding should come from a general source,
such as the General Fund or other distributed revenues, not from other individual fee
payers who are already paying their fair share.
Economic principles of elasticity suggest that increased costs for services (higher fees)
will eventually depress the demand for those services. Conversely, lower fees may create
an incentive to purchase the services and encourage certain actions. Either of these
conditions may be a desirable effect to the City. However, the level of the fees that
would cause demand changes is entirely unknown, and the monopolistic nature of some
City services (i.e., citizens cannot go elsewhere for lower prices) could also influence
demand in unknown ways. The Study did not attempt to evaluate the economic or
behavioral impacts of higher fees, but the City should consider the potential impacts of
these issues when deciding on appropriate fee levels.
By following a non-profit ethic and the applicable general standards (e.g., reasonable
cost) set forth in the Govemment Code, this cost study identified the full-cost-recovery
fee levels that the City can use to establish fees in compliance with both the spirit and
ll'ohlfurd Consulting March 30,2016
Consistency with Citv Public Policv and Obiectives
Faimess and Equity
Impact on Demand (Elasticitv)
Compliance with Leeal Standards
Page 36 of48
A
€
2015 FulI Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
letter of established legal standards. (Note: \ething herein should be construed as legal
advice, and the City should consult its own counsel for questions of a legal nature.)
As a public body of elected officials, the City Council may wish to consider various
political issues and constituent concems that could arise from fee changes. For example,
the City Council may want to benchmark certain fees to neighboring communities, in
order to avoid appearing to be expensive or overly generous with subsidies. In addition,
some fee changes will impact specific constituencies that may attempt to inlluence
decision-making.
With the availability of the cost results from this study, the consultant and city staff were able to
conduct a sample comparison of the City's service costs and/or proposed fees to selected fees
from neighboring jurisdictions. The comparison results were presented to City staff under
separate cover, and staff consulted the comparison hformation as part of their process to
consider potential recommended fees.
This type of comparison is often an attractive concept to local govemment when considering fee
setting, but the City should recognize a number of significant limitations that affect the validity
and reliability of comparisons.
With the potential for numerous factors to affect the differences in fee levels between cities, it is
important to realize that the value of a fee comparison is generally limited to market-based
decision-making. There is very little relevance of current fee levels in other cities to the actual
costs in the City, since fee schedules tend to be highly variable expressions oflocal policy, rather
than true barometers of service costs or cost-recovery intent.
Direct comparisons of fee levels across surveyed counties and cities are usually somewhat
limited, due to wide differences in fee structures, definitions, and program types. The value of a
comparison may be to allow a city to develop a sense of its place in the range of fee levels
among comparative jurisdictions, but it does not establish a clear understanding of each city's
specific cost circumstances, including actual cost, service levels, or cost-recovery performance.
This situation may exist for a variety of reasons, including:
Many cities have not conducted an actual cost study, so their fees may be based
upon historical or other subjective factors unrelated to actual cost.
Most cities do not publish their subsidy rates, so thet fees may be subsidized
(knowingly or unknowingly). Even if they have completed a cost study, there is
often no way to know whether cost subsidies exist.
The services included in fees may be combined in some cities and separated in
others, thus making direct comparisons unreliable.
llohlford Consulting Page 37 of48 March 30. 2016
Constituencies Affected
Fee Comparison Issues
^w 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
The methodology used to determine the fees in other cities may be deficient or
designed to recover less than full cost.
Other jurisdictions may have different policy goals and considerations that affect
the level ofcost they desire to recover.
Even if the studies treated the costs equally, there are a number of additional qualifuing factors
that would create legitimate and reasonable variances in costs between different cities. These
cost factors include:
) Salaries and benefits
) Services and supplies
F Overhead levels (department, division, and administrative)
F Post Employment Benefits (OPEB)
F Leave time (holiday, vacation, sick)
) Other non-direct time (training, meetings, breaks)
F Capital costs (annualized)
> Cross-departmentcosts
) Cost-recovery of associated services (e.g., General Plan update, code enforcement)
) Reservecontributions
) Staff longevity (affects the time necessary to complete tasks)
) Service levels (affect the number ofassociated tasks and the overall time necessary to
complete fee services)
) Efficiency
Cost "Reasonableness"
A common question posed at the conclusion of a Cost of Service Study, particularly when
reviewing the results, is whether the data and results are reasonable. Although the scope of this
study did not include an evaluation of the service levels in the City, the following discussion
addresses this question and related issues.
The notion of "reasonableness" is a function of different definitions and assumptions. The most
basic consideration is whether the reasonableness standard applies to lhe cost of the service or to
thefee charged-which can be two entirely different issues.
The reasonableness of a fee is largely a policy matter after cost has been established, since each
individual's perspective influences his or her definition of reasonableness. For example, whether
a particular fee is considered reasonable certainly depends on whether one is the person paying
the fee or a disinterested party. Concepts of subsidization are also important to consider,
particularly when the fee payer will realize a profit as a result of the City's action (e.g., private
developers). Political considerations, jurisdictional comparisons, economic sympathy, desired
incentives and disincentives, and historical trends may also play a part in the determination offee
reasonableness.
|Yohlford Consulting Page 38 of48 March 30.2016
^E 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
A Cost of Service Study establishes the true cost of providing individual services. The most
common standard for this analysis, as directed by the Califomia Govemment Code, is that the
fees can be no greater than the "estimated reasonable cost" of providing the service for which a
fee is charged. However, there is no best practice or specific "reasonableness" definition or
standard for providing individual services-and, by extension, there is no best cost level. Often,
the only commonality across different jurisdictions is difference. Attempts to create a standard
through rough statistical analysis ofpast data from other jurisdictions are problematic, and imply
a level of accuracy and meaningfulness that does not exist. The cost components, service
structures, staffrng arrangements, services levels, overhead levels, and many other factors vary
widely (and legitimately) among even neighboring jurisdictions.
Burlingame's Cost of Service Study employed quality control measures to ensure that the
analysis identified the most accurate for the City's current operations, which represents one
commonly accepted measure of reasonableness.
However, if the City expands its definition of reasonableness to include consideration of the
most efficient and effective operational practices, it is important to note that the scope of this Cost
of Service Study focused on the current operational costs of City services only and did not delve
into issues of service performance or quality. ln contrast, a true best practices evaluation and
determination of cost reasonableness based upon an idealized service approach requires a more
robust management and operations study. To be successful, this type of study should involve
meaningful observations and evaluations of business processes and management practices,
operational reviews, comprehensive line staff interviews, concept definition processes, and a
wider scope and intensity of investigation and analysis. Anlthing short of this full analysis
would lack credibility, utility, and relevance.
Enhanced Fee Flexibilitl'
The time estimates in this Study represent the best estimates for the level of effort necessary to
complete each of the fee activities, based on past experience. Since unforeseen circumstances
and requests are possible, there is a need for flexibility in fees to address new or anomalous
situations. ln these situations, a Department can identifu the need for additional staff time and
apply standard or individual position hourly rates to establish charges. The Study calculated fu[[-
cost recovery rates for all key positions. To facilitate use ofthese rates, the City Council should
grant the authority to charge these supplemental rates by including them in the approved fee
ordinance or resolution.
Implementation Issues
Following City Council approval ofa new fee schedule, the City will be laced with the practical
task of implementing the new fees. While the City is responsible for developing a successful
project plan for implementation, the information presented below may provide some assistance.
Page 39 of48ll'ohlfurd Consulting March 30,2016
frE 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Timine
To ensure more accurate revenue and service expectations, it is important for the City to
recognize the realistic limitations to a speedy implementation ofnew fees.
In addition to the mandated noticing and public hearing requirements, the City is
prohibited from charging new or revised development fees until at least 60 days
following approval by the City Council (Govemment Code $ 66017).
2. The City may identifu the need for additional public hearings/meetings, which
would add time for additional noticing and hearing requirements that could delay
full implementation.
3. The City will also be faced with a series of practical and customer service
limitations. Fee schedules must be produced and published in the usual places
(brochures and handouts, website, staff handbooks). The City's permit systems
must be updated to reflect the new fee levels. Staff must be trained on new fee
structures and/or procedures in some instances. Fortunately, if planned
effectively, City staff can complete many of these administrative tasks while
waiting for legal waiting periods to pass.
The Cost of Service Study did more than calculate the full cost of existing services. [n
many cases the process resulted in reorganized or otherwise modified fee structues, as
the project team added new fees, deleted obsolete fees, combined fees, and/or established
entfuely new approaches for some. As a result, the City will need to modifu the structure
and organization of the fees in the affected permitting systems before any new fees go
into effect.
Phasine
Due to the length of time since the last fee study, and the large gaps between some
current fees and their full cost recovery levels identified in the Study, many ofthe City's
fees may be subject to significant increases. If implemented all at once, these increases
may surprise local businesses, citizens, and other fee-payers, and could conceivably have
an adverse impact on the local economy. If the City plans to institute significant fee
increases for these services, phasing in the fee increases helps to minimize impacts to the
community and to give it a chance to plan for, and adapt to, the increases.
There are, however, two key downsides to enacting a phased approach to fee increases.
The first issue is the delay of cost recovery, since fees will continue to be subsidized at
higher levels until the full cost (or desired cost-recovery goal) fee levels are achieved.
The second issue is the potential for additional administrative and/or operational cost
resulting from more frequent fee changes. Each fee change can result in the need for
Ll/ohlford Consulting March 30, 2016
Permit Svstems
Page 40 of48
{i!r'r,}&I 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
additional contracted services to modifu permit systems, supplemental staff training,
reprinting of forms or other documentation, and other additional internal workload.
Pubiic Communication
Public and interest group acceptance of new or increased fees can often be improved
through an awareness campaign and direct communication with affected parties. Having
the opportunity to review the fees (and perhaps the analysis behind them) builds
confidence in the credibility of the analysis and reduces objections. Conversely, last-
minute notices cause the community to question the veracity of the fee analysis and City
motives behind the apparently rushed approval process.
The public communication needs associated with fee changes vary by departrnent and by
the B?es of fees. Each department should develop a public notification and
communication plan that is appropriate for the types of fees affected, the degree of
potential fee changes, and the customer base and others affected by the changes.
Potential Implementation Strategies
As mentioned previously in this report, Wohlford Consulting generally recommends setting fees
at 100% of cost and implementing the new fees as soon as possible. This approach for the City
would result in a large number of individual fee increases, a smaller number of fee decreases,
and a significant overall increase in arutual revenue.
This standard recommendation would minimize individual fee subsidies and maximize cost
recovery. However, Wohlford Consulting also recognizes that the decline in development
activity over the past few years, political desirc to support and promote economic recovery, and
resistance to fee increases make this approach especially difficult.
Consequently, Wohlford Consulting has identified several approaches for the City to consider
that will facilitate implementation and achievement of the City's cost-recovery objectives. The
altematives are presented below:
Option 1: Adopt the Fee Schedule at 100% Cost-Recoverv
Under this option, the City would implement almost all fees at 100% of full cost all at
once and as soon as possible, with a limited number of reasonable exceptions for critical
areas ofpublic safety (e.g., water heater permits), general community benefit, and public
involvement (e.g., appeals). This approach would result in the maximum cost recovery,
absent any impact of price elasticity (which is unknown), and is the only approach that
will address the underfunding of services.
Ootion 2: Increase Selected Fe es Onlv
Under this option, the City would select a limited number of fees to increase. To select
the fees targeted for increase, the City should consider a variety of factors that affect
lYohlford Consulting Page 4l of48 March 30. 2016
r'Dr
TFIU
2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
progress towards revenue, subsidy, or policy goals. These factors may include which
fees are burdensome to customers, which ones arc the most frequently charged, which
ones are the least successful at current cost recovery (i.e., most subsidized), potential
controversy and opposition, targeted customers, and past experience.
While this approach will not result in full cost recovery and will perpetuate subsidization
of fee-related services, it may be the most practical and achievable option. It may also
result in greater overall success for the City. A successful parllai implementation may
achieve greater overall cost recovery gains and subsidy reduction than a failed complete
implementation. Before selecting this approach, the City should evaluate whether the
determination oftargeted fees would require a significant secondary analysis that may, in
itself, cause considerable controversy and opposition.
Option 3: Standard Discount
If full cost recovery is not intended, the easiest option to administer is to apply a standard
discount to the cost results. For example, the City Council could decide to charge a
specified percentage (e.g., 80%) of full cost for all fees. Under this scenario, the City
would increase fees that are currently less than the specifred percentage of full cost and
decrease any fees that are currently greater than that percentage.
Although the percentage cost-recovery rate would be standardized, the rate of change for
individual fees would be inconsistent, to the extent that these fees are not curently set at
a consistent ratio to full cost. As a result, the fee payers could still experience sticker
shock and see sigificant percentage and/or dollar increases to individual fees. However,
the notion of a discount applied to fees may have skong appeal to customers and other
interested parties.
Option 4: Ca nned Increase
Under this option, the City Council would limit individual fee increase to a specified
percentage increase (cap) above its current level (e.9., a 50% increase only).
This approach applies an understandable consistency to the increases, but it separates the
fees from a relationship with firtl cost. Depending on the cap selected, this approach can
prevent significant increases to fees that would occur under a full-cost-recovery scenario.
However, it also could limit the cost-recovery performance of individual fees, and thus
result in continued underfunding of services.
Ootion 5: Phased Imn lemen tatron
The option to phase the implementation offee changes over time is applicable to each of
the other options. Under this approach, the City would select a period of years over
which to achieve its overall goal. For example, the City could decide to achieve full cost
recovery over a period of four years (or some other desired period), rather than all in the
first year. To achieve a "full cost in four years" goal, the City would increase the fees by
lYohlford Consulting Page 42 of48 March 30.2016
^w 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
25%o of the gap between cunent fees and full cost each year for 4 years. The City should
also consider annual inflation into the annual phased growth factors, to ensure that full
cost is included for the duration ofthe phasing.
This approach would smooth out the fee increases, which might allow customers to adjust
their business plans, plan for future development projects, absorb the increases over time,
and build the increases into their cost calculations. This approach may also stimulate
some development activity, as customers schedule their projects earlier to take advantage
of reduced fees. However, this approach will also maintain a level of deficit for a longer
duration and perpetuate an underfunding of services.
Option 6: Hybrid Approach
The City has the option to mix and match the components of each of the options to
establish a process and an outcome that best meets its needs. Further evaluation and
understanding of City objectives would be necessary to more fully define the most
appropriate recommendation for the City.
To improve the cost-recovery performance of the City, Wohlford
Consulting recommends a blended, or hybrid, implementation approach
that combines the full-cost-recovery goals of Option #l with the customer
and community-centric features of a phased approach from Option #5.
In recognition that the City Council may not want to set all fees at full cost, this general
recommended approach is flexible and acknowledges that the City will likely seek 100%
cost-recovery only for certain fees. In addition, the City will likely set different phasing
schedules for individual fees, ranging from immediate implementation at 100% ofcost to
a schedule of increases over many years to achieve a level of full-cost recovery in the
future.
The phased approach is intended to "soften" the larger fee increases, including many that
could increase from zero to hundreds or thousands of dollars at full cost. The potential
for "sticker shock" and customer frustration is real, and a phased approach may help the
City achieve community acceptance of the fees with less controversy and rancor. The
City's revenue goals and financial condition should be the primary driver for determining
the specific time frame for the phased approach.
Wohlford Consulting Page 43 of48 March 30, 2016
Consultant's Recommendation Regarding Imolementation Strateeies
The ideal fee implementation strategy for Burlingame can only be determined through
careful evaluation of City Council priorities, community input, future City budget
conditions, City policy, and potential community impact and response. Most of this
information is unavailable at this time and is likely to change periodically; so in order to
provide a recommendation in the absence of this direct knowledge, Wohlford Consulting
must rely upon successful experiences with other communities and knowledge of
Burlingame gained through this Study.
^g 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
Wohlford Consulting believes that this blended/hybrid approach would be most
beneficial to Burlingame , because the City can maintain the relationship between fees
and full cost (thus facilitating future adjustments), as well as maintain focus on an overall
goal of full cost recovery while retaining flexibility to adapt to changing local
conditions. In addition, the phasing of some fee changes will make it easier for
customers to accept and adjust to the cost increases, and it will allow time for the
economy to continue to recover before the full impact ofthe final fee increases is bome
by customers.
Note: This recommendation also recognizes the need to continue subsidizing certain fees
(e.g., water heater permits, appeals) in order to ensure continued public safety and
reasonable public involvement in the development process, for example.
Future Updates
This Study represents a snapshot in time of the costs to provide fee related services. This
analysis is based upon the FY 2015/16 Final Budget, including the staffrng and budgeted
expenditures. However, the study's specific applicability to the budget and current costs will
effectively end when the departments experience significant budget changes. With budget/cost
increases over time, the fee levels would fall further behind in future years. Consequently, the
City needs a method to keep the fees relatively current with changes in costs over time. Some of
the most common approaches include:
Stahr,s Quo:Many cities simply allow their fees to remain constant over the years. Not
only does this approach negatively affect revenue recovery, it also causes
potentially dramatic increases when the next update is completed. Wohlford
Consulting recoz mends against lhe status quo approach.
Full Revieu':Burlingame can elect to conduct a complete Cost of Service Study each year.
This would be the most accurate and defensible update strategy, but it would
be the most expensive and time consuming. The payback for this level of
effort and scrutiny does not usually warrant this approach, so Wohlford
Consulting does no, recommend it.
Minor Update:
Wation Factor:
A minor update would involve changing only the basic cost factors in the
existing fee models to recalculate fees at the new levels. Time estimates,
allocation bases, staffrng levels, and other key components would remain the
same. This level of analysis would require the re-involvement of a consultant.
This approach would be more cost-effective than a full review, since
consultant fees would be merely a fraction of the cost of an entire srudy.
Ii/ohlfurd Consulting recommends the minor update approach as the optimal
'tray to slay atrrent and remain defensible-
One of the easiest and least expensive update approaches is to apply an
inflation flactor to existing fees in an atlempt to mirror cost increases over
lYoh$ord Consulting Page 44 of48 March 30,2016
*ffrw,2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL RJPORT
time. This method simply entails the development of a spreadsheet to apply a
percentage increase to current fees. The flaw in this approach is the potential
inaccuracy of any inflation factor applied genericaily to a wide range of cost
tlpes. However, this approach is generally accepted (and seldom challenged)
as a convenient and reasonably accurate way to modify fees in future years.
For this reason, lVohlford Consuhing also recommends the inflation factor
approach, if the City does not wish to conduct a minor update.
The key to an effective inflation factor approach is to select the right factor. A
variety of CPI-tlpe factors are available for the City to use, with the most
common and recognized source being the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau
of Labor Statistics //www.bls-
However, the San Francisco Oakland-San Jose CPI (All Urban Consumers)
has increased annually by 2.8% or less for each of the past 7 years, including
2.6% in20l5. For the West Urban Area CPI, the annual rate of increase over
the past 7 years has also been 2.8% or less, with five ofthe seven years at less
than 2o/o. Remarkably, the rate declined .4Yo for 2009 the first time in the
history of that index (since 1967). The rate for 2015 was 1.2%o. The annual
growth in each index has not exceeded 3.5% in over 10 years.
Considering energy, health care, retirement, and other key costs, the actual
costs for the City of Burlingame have probably far exceeded a 2-4o/o average
annual growth over the past decade. Based on this assumption, Wohlford
Consulting recommends that the City establish its own inllation factor that
represents local cost growth. The use of an average factor would mitigate
radical swings from year to year. The basis for this factor could be one of the
following:
l. City labor cosls. Labor costs (salaries and benefrts) comprise the
majority of operating costs and the largest component of fees for
departments, so they are the key driver for overall cost increases. ln
addition, these costs are the most predictable costs, which will allow
the City to calculate prospective fee modifications sooner. With faster
base information, the City will be able to increase fees earlier and
more accurately, which will help to maximize cost recovery
performance. To create this factor, the City can calculate the overall
percentage increases to salaries and benehts from year to year and
apply this same percentage increase to existing fee levels. If there is
concem that the labor costs have increased without a corresponding
increase in all other budgeted costs, the City can moderate the labor
cost factor, by determining the specihc ratio of labor costs to all other
costs, and applying this ratio to reduce the labor cost factor
accordingly. For example, if labor costs are 80o/o of total costs, and the
labor costs increase 100/o from one year to the next, the City can apply
an 8%o increase to all fees.
llohlford Consulting Page 45 of48 March 30- 2016
4.r':w 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL REPORT
2. Total Budget Costs. The City could calculate the overall percentage
increases to deparftnent budgets and apply this increase to existing fee
levels. These costs may also be predictable, but the City must take
special care to exclude cost components from the calculations that are
not related to fee activities, as was done in the original fee study.
ll'ohlford Consulting Page 46 of48 March 30, 2016
ffr
tsiir:
2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL RJPORT
CONCLUSION
o Budget and other cost data
. Staffing structures
o Fee and service structurcs, organization, and descriptions
o Time estimates to complete work tasks
. Activiry statistics (fee volumes) and current fee levels
. Multiple reviews of draft results and other documentation
o Information and characterizations of existing relevant issues and policies
A Cost of Service Study requires significant involvement of the managers and operating staff
from the City departments on top of their existing workloads and competing priorities. The
contributions of City staff were critical to the success of the study. The individuals involved
should be commended for their assistance, professionalism, positive attitudes, helpful
suggestions, responsiveness, and overall cooperation. In particular, I|ohlford Consulting wortld
like to recognize and thank the following City staff for their considerable assistance:
Communitv Development Parks and Recreation
Joseph Cyr
Kevin Gardiner
William Meeker
. Margaret Glomstad
o Tim Barry
. Karen Hager
. Nicole Acquisti
. Joleen Helley
o Robert Disco
Public Works
o Martin Quan. Afi Morimoto
Police
Michael Matteucci
Christine Granucci
Closing Comments
The City of Burlingame engaged Wohlford Consulting to conduct an objective analysis of the
full costs incurred by the City in support of various activities for which the City charges user
Woh$ord Consulting Page 47 of 48 March 30,2016
Thank You to City Stafi
As part of the study process, the consultant received tremendous supPort and cooperation from
City staff, who contributed and reviewed a variety of components to the study, including:
Finance
o Carol Augustine
o Diana Truong
Other Department staff probably contributed to the study with data collection and input behind
the scanes, but they did not work directly with the consultant (so their names are unknown to the
consultant). Nevertheless, they should be commended for their assistance towards the
completion ofthe study, as well.
AE 2015 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
FINAL Rf,,PORT
fees. The project consisted of high-quality study processes and a unit cost build-up methodology
to identi$ the full cost for individual fee activities.
Through this Study, the City of Burlingame has a more complete understanding of the full cost to
provide City user fee services to the community. With this information, the City can consider
the public policy and financial implications of its current approach to cost recovery for these
services. The end result will be a new fee schedule that is based upon an objective analysis.
ll/ohlford Consulting Page 48 of48 March 30,2016
o
IL
o-o-
Et
U
I
b3
hb
inE
trbOE
!i o,
=a)
!., -oq)
r*qoo>\ot->(n i)EOE>.
pE
:o
O\J
q)O
S:Ea>}E9oo
i.)E
FE
z
zz
rl
teaFJ
a
Fa
I
:
X
ztl
EAaY
6i El.9&
.Jd<3,2
a
U
r.)
6l
:!.';I ;-
(o
oNo
E
=t
(o
oo,
CIo-
.xDc
o,)o-o-
Eoo
o
o
=
oFJfouu)
z
Il-
o
=zz
.)o,
o
BsH
EEa:t!uJ
€E
=
,q9.s
IL G,
s s sss s s s s s s ss s
E q
r.i
6!a
o- @-
T<;
o.
c.i ri
\
r._;&
c9Of<i=aa
ai
q .!a qc
tr)- t_
g
c
o.
_t E
;iEE3
c
s s
q
s s ss
q
t--
c,i
s
q
,q 9.s
l!c
s
q I 9 .'j q\c
i; r
o,o
D
o
E!
+too
c?q
N
q
(r)-
.!
.,i o- o-
q
o
u.
E
o
rt
q -
c;
q9
-T-
6i
N.i
---:
Eiir
q q
-9
tr
3
z
c
o
!
o-
E
E
q.
!9
()
!IL
E
0-
-9
I.L
tL
9
EH
.t<crl
N9
.9
lrl
.;E-EE
EEEE5r
EEE'
=o
6
29a;
<(!r!
E
t!
E
'a
-g
uJ
E
E
9.9
aa
- -- .9 ,2eAg6EEE'abE!
Eoo E
E 9 Px6eEp,Pssi
oe<o)
dE = Z
E
0-
l
E
,9
o
l
o-
E.f
.E
p
o
=
l
'E
(!
E
E
(-)
69
it.q .q
g,n
.9.9
oo
E
I
u-
lsl$ $s s s
q
ltl!
s
2
tr
I
o-(Lt
UJE
!!!ETE:
or=9
.Eg Eoe9
EEq.;::
Hsg:EE
E 3eA!)o
'E tE ili!le
i;zoF
=o-
o-
I.NN
(o
oNo
ilx.
(o
o
N
q)
c')(EII
,x
Cooo-
o)
5
o
o
o3
3:€
ILE
s s s s s s s s s s s s S'eR6 *s d{s s s s
adq
d
<t !!
ol
(o,
..!\
I
.i
!tiE
E <.;6
\
F.o'i
-:8Es;=
0E ! 9l" dE
q
o-
.?q q
F.
c N
(o
t-
Fe;tg- cd
;eo9o
= sE
u-E
q
s
q
s
s s s
s
Ir
s
s s
s $
s
*
s s
q
F.
.i
;e .e ss
q
ci
s s s
q
q
t-
q q
o-
F I o:q
c,i
q
ai6lr=
E5E
ooo
q
N
@-
q q
";
E
C,
q
l-
o!
<i
,o.
<i
d
q
c
a
oi
q
N
d
q
o.
9
rt
c.i
q
t--
q
q
q
q ctL7,
io
o
E5i;
l
=Io
a
ql
I
I
i
,q
e
.9
o
E
E
.9
Ec
iE
ac_
ot!
;
zt
.q
c
.s,
o
LIJ
.e'
o-
e
E
E
=
=
p'
t!
E
'5
i!
=
E
E
s(!
(,
.9
=
=
.E
=
E
d
()
p
=
E
E
d
'-
+
d.
t!
q
E
l
E
0-
)
6
t!
UJ
Et!z
E
II
l
b
E
F
l
.2
.9
.E
I
.9
E
E
()
9-
9E
tt!
.92
i
=
d
'd
.9)
E
'd
n
tr-a
tr
,!E
.EH
Eo,-E
;'9.o -d ,-
E" E
q d6
E
l!
oFJfo
UJ
u.
J
z
Il-
o
=zz
o-
ol
Buf.su.=:-c6dHH
€E z
s s
-_l
I
s
q
!
o,Bo,bE:.9i5
==. E:;E.9€ S E,E
=; o,:E.g5 3,?03:t
ooo!ih
E;9: o? 0:9E.EE.E-:?€Esifr: 3E55
(o
oNo
H
=ts
(o
o
oo)(EL
.x!coo-o-
o)
==otro(.)
o
E-o
E
sssrss
q
E$
Ir
q
'rt
E
s
:
=
'6
::o
.E
E
E
,E
=o
a* -s
,J6
c.o
LO
-!
=
,-5
6zo
d)
==;
.E
c{
"9o
(.)
oFJfo
IJJd
J
z
II
o
=zz
J
o-
6f
BUP
sltu)dHH
FE z lF
o
'I
s
t
q
a.
3:*
= tEILE
s s :sss
Eti€r?i?
E<;6.
EgEo*=
PE *:=* E,i
o- lr)-
a
EsEnt
95tgE- E6
n
:.
q
(,
lr.
3:€
rad
ss
;=E6ErEEE
ooo
l]-;
io
(,
q
c!,
ral
q
o-
o
e
lr
;:i;ai
I
F i
I
I
lo
I
E
o
v
.g
itlt
E
p
E
E
(.)
E
9o-
gE
EE
at .r
(,!,zE
zq
r"-e aAE
EE;=" E3Er sr
=
!' 9;lET::; FTE,d6--u zAiu I
z n S P E iiE i
iiu _ i, = o "!o q,
E E=."!,98i,? d.-n9.EeEle*E!'ts6:EEiE3E: o, E ';3 :lE -otso9E!*9iu=!E: ititli &fiE:fi3#€rfP
:n
9E
69
'6q
;6
,'Q
d
tr
o
z
E
I,'
L! (\r
E
6!E
ES
7E
EE
9Pt;
tll ilJ
E
d
!
o
E
I,'
L!
J
Fz
uJ
=z.otr
=zul
=)
_a
I
s
s s s s s s s
q9 q
I
s s s s s
lt
c
.i
I
s s s so9oo6;
= tEu-ts
EdEs$$E$*sSreg6{{{ssss:::9:EN dEsE$t$
EtiS
I <;6 ----l
r.. r.-lo 6i6]6]ae el'r2 el9lq (9
. .l* olo) l.\r (o
sll I
- - * -t*t-l*
qq
g : EuE=
PE g:,* E,i
lN o c{ c{l
l'" " "l
q.:,:toq'9qq
66Eo)N()0N- N- @- --lr. <)- (f,.!
Ciq elF: !
c{ lN- r lc)- co
-t*;t- *.A 6 el.A .n ,A t,
s
o
s
c
I
q
oq.
E=EEt
P€8gr-- Ed
oolo61606Q ate etetq ad) olF- il)lo o l.r)
..r.r10- sl (o-
- -l- -t-t- -
ci
qcqqc
6:4.46@4@@@ .,.D6e.. @ 6 g,
tll
s s s,q 9.s
rrE
ssss?;,33333 SSS.e.e=e's999r,+6-!.r <Q-"ssssts"dE:RR!
t_@@tAtA., 6e
.oQ.9.-qaqrtt\t.osr(o(o
:=E
6rLf
E.9E
6c:(J @@*@tt.Asr: 4
q-:a':
:.
q
o
io
o
o o olo ol0lo
6i 6i dl..i cilrlri
*t- -t- - *t-
a
I t!tll
c 5ir
qqcqoooooooqqqqqcc
i:
!e
(o
oN
Elt
(o
o
$
oo)oL
.xoc
0)o-o-
s
s
-g
F
o
E]
N
-1-
d
a
E
o
'6t
o
€lE
-t-
."1
- gE E e = or.:EEi E = --i i;13. g 3: : 3 2a: ! a loi E ;€ E & Er; i = l;i dE€- E E-rYZi 3 t lEirP*:€ ! :"BEE!; l? 8dE
|lEE,:;€: i =Ei!f e; ,ras €Flt
lEEs;E:& peEE€;t;*fl iiq_s:l3i;;;;EEE ,q;&.i3gif+ t;gEEAE.ooooooi o^_oooo,o'6)o ..6o6EaqloEEEi55; :a55;5=E;- 9a:::ibl=EE66€EE :=EE:EaEa: 9:99EEEl5.zzz zzzt) oz a z zz zzzzLoo 6oo(oE ailo.
a.r o tr:6 (o a.- oo
E
o
o-
6
o
oz6trooZ
E.:-cE
'Eog
53c.
oFJfo
UJtr
J
z
IL
o
B*fls.5stlodHH
sE z
o
=zz
c
+@@F@cno-NF-r..F-FF-N.O.O.O
th
oo
!
o
Eo
B
l
ul*
-tt
:l -l
@
oNo
t)r.
(o
o
oo)o(r
.x!C
o)o-o-
q
q
q
r{
3:*
= BEu-E
ss s s s ss s s s ss s s s s s s s
!ri€g q s5Et;a -T
EsEoE=
-sE *: -* E,i
B;;ts
oP6o5;
u- tt
s s s s ss s s s s s
l
s s
i';5
o)
c \a c \cu?a?
ir;
Br!rEFEE.YO
ooo
\o)
F.
c l.
c.l \d a.i
t--
c
io
o
E5i;
a
gE
h-.9
a.a
1E.9
9EE
g:*
l5i
9
e
.
U'
I
.9
,E
E
i
s
o-
.9
c
E
!
0-
o
E
-e
o
E
E
o
q
e
.9
E
.9
o
.9
E
IJJ
s
'd
II
o-
ili
,2
E5
Fai
s $FB
'486",
< E *€6(l)-'-h
E 6 +X
h 9.!l. ieEs:bqaE-gEZ)-deSa o-
(.)
II
(-)
o
)
g
o-
E
(,
)
o
E
E
o
,E
Po-
It
s-E
AE,z
=9
(ro
'o
d
.9
d
o
LIJ(J
=
.E
sd
.9
z
E
6rL
60-
:rs
o-E
zo
=
,9
,9
o-
3,'
v.
,9q
o
E
I
,E
l
'6
=
o
E
o
o
o
.;
z
q
o
oFJloul
u.)
z
II
=z2
J
o
=
Bu4
!Eg)dHH
tF-
o)
2
=otroo
Eo
o
3
s 5 s
-l
*s s
\
Jdfo!
utF
d
E,u
o
Yi;:- ur
OoaoL
J<]F
ttUtrtFo
ult!
u"z
2
@
oNo
Ifd
(o
o
(o
oo)(l,(L
.xoc
0)o,o-
<,t
2,
otroo
Eo
o
=
s s s s s s s *s3 t€
= tELE
!-
T<;
;9
::3=. oo:,< E=d,i
F
E
g
c
o-
_t Eq 9u-ezz<6!E3
s s s s s.R 9e
u-E
s
@ !!
o
l
o
EIL
E-9s:oo
-ic
o
ESir
o
E
LIJ
o
=
=d)
E
LJJ
E
q
o
E
L1l
o
,9Eo.
,9
,9
,9
_q
o
g
F
(,
.9
o
q
!
=rD
:
oFJfo!J
E,o
=z.z
J
o-
o)
iurPg, ur rSEIsECodHp
€E z
s
!,
-l-l-
s
dld (rildi 'l
N-:o-o- F-l I
-El;L-l-l
q
o_
F
9.
Lr.l
LlJ
lr-oozLI
Fz
uJ
=Ftr
o.uloq
ul-Fo
F
=zXo
3=ad
=
T
c
c
c
A
!a
U
s
,a
-:' b
Eq)
tr89ts
9-
oa)Ec.(!o.oo
>\ s)66tr/-
6loo
i".9o.>>x
!co
e!o=
Fca
z
.]
D
fL
U)F.]
Da
Fa
Q
.i
X
z
Ed
F.
}F
.: a!OX
-ed
a<3,2
q)
U)
o
oQ
fr
in
6t
,i .r.'ril '-i
s s s s s s s<gE)s s;e l,
! E#lss.tr I
.!q
(.i
e
ro-
ol qq
o_ @-
a .i
(.i
q__-t.Etoil
F-{; a 't-*
q
.!
c.i
,q c?
.i
q'?
c.i
n q
<;
q q qc?
N.
qq rq q
aie
(.t
(,!
d
=gift?q
F€E
d,
q
(,i
(o-
s
qc q
**
q
..i
s
s
q
s
gE olL
F€T!- tso
;e
rL&
s
c
s s s
e
s
c;
s
s s
oi
q q
x &
st-
I
s s s
q
s l
53
s
.!
oi
o)c!.!
t--
q
c{.
ai
q-[ l.Fo^ I q
i' ; )l a
..li I -s-e l,D '+
to_
q
.i q q
<o.d
\q
F;
q ':ol .!q q q \-_-t-
; '! rl ' o
E E ;l 3E,Y O] -I t ?l +o o c.rl- *
c
.i
s s
ci
I q q
w
I
.i c
e
N
*
t-
qq qq c
q
q
s
e
ESir
E
o
.9
d)
.g
o
f
g
uJ
.gl
o
l
LJJ
-g'5
CD
I
I
,g
E
Et
.g
.9
z
E
-9L!
6!
.98
do4aEO
-9bLI] F
E
.s
.9
3
'a
;q
9a
zB
E.Eo -E
6 4.6
5 PSi6; E
='i:895> 5(J
.g
E
=
.9
,E
E
.?
.9
t
i
.D
g
.E
ET
9;EP
P^
dx tJJ
o
s(I
,EI
@
E
g
F
E
6
s
,E
=d)
2
E
(!
E
e
E
E
E
E
.9
E
,6
t
E
,9
E
E
E
o
Bq
9to
Er
gE
xo
.o .a
50,
E
q
c
a-
q
o
E
\
El--
(o
N
iltr
o
oo)oo-
N
.x!coo-o-
gl
E
oo
E
o
o
=
oFJfo
UJtr
J
z
IL
o6o
€
@
ltlttl I I
I
I
s s
I tt
utulul
oul
dlzotr
J
2o
F
f
?zoz
F
5
ut
UJ
EzJ
ol
Bufls*5\llodtsH
gE z
@
oNo
c)t
o
N
oo)oo-
N
.x!cooo
oFJfo
uJu
J
z
l!
ooo
dl
ol
iurP
.Sr!=Eq6dHH
€E
=
;F3:€
= tqlrts
s s s ss s ss s s s s s s s s s s
EriE
I<;6 .l
=:9t;JtieE
-r<bEto
n
e
rj
s ss s s s s s s s
€Es:
FESs
;eo90
= tErr.ts
s s s s s s s
t-
oi
F.q
F.-e
-o, ! E
at, a
d
c?.?
N
c
cir
(oIoi
i-.,i q
E!;E:O
oo6
q q
;:i;
o
q c
E
E
co
,9
c
9.
I
dc
=ID
Io
F
E
o-
.E
@
=
'6'
(L
E
s
e
t!
EE
6s
.c
.9
-E=
gqE
5 go
o-
o
o
:l
s(!
E
(,
)
()
E
-e
o
,E
q,E
N l}
t
'6
,9
E
E
o
O(I
E
9
e
n
o
()
.9
.>
z
o
EE
+Eqrb>oa9
o-i
6o
3r:E
o
cE9E
E!o5
5EO
5.e
@
UJ
;
_9
e
I
q
o
E
9
i!
Ec
I
E
.,
=dl
I
-9
TD
P
.0
F
E
ILu
t-6
o
3
co
q
()
-9
tr
q
o
l{
i
lr_
* * *]*l*
Et)
o
oo
o
o
=
s
o.
-ll t ll lrt
s s *
I
:l
:
t tt l,!,
JElo5
F
d
dut
oo*ii:- ur
8fr
J<fF
E
c.-.
€E
6c'tE
s6
iiut
E
o
IJJ
lJJ
zo
(o
oNo
-
f,t
o
oo,o(L
N.:Ecooo-
E"
ut
o(,
o
o
=
ti
FoF
rnFJfoulu
J
z
l!
ooo
ID
of
iuP
P' qI J
Sgu,dHH
€E
=
s s s ,l*,?9s
tL d,
s s s
I
^l
-1
!\.9E I
FE;t:
li
I
El!EE6UE99€io-;
d.
f
F
E
s s s,q9.c
t(,EE
:Es!
FE Es
s
@
ci o.i
q 6t q
t-E3 !
oa
!q
d
-_-t
; '! rI ' oEEEI !
o o ol 64
o)
d
6i
q
;si;
(,
N
E
u,.l
()
a
.E
=d)
E
tJJ
()
c
o
E
I
tIJ
o
'a
u,.l
E(!
,9
E
d
9
t!
E
g
E
-95
0-
EE
o
o
E
!,
E
,9
q
o
.E
!
o_
I
-F
l!
c
a
0-
E
I€
s
ss
I
Fz
UJ
EFg
uJ
El,
Fo
F
o=
3=ao
Fa
lrl
Llr
ILoozL!
o
d
c
o
14
Q
o
=;(I)o
trdJ
.L(t)
=^c?6
__ o-'!: o.)
t--,1a,,
=t-
-=
'e c-
E:o
e.dY^o
Q bI)},Fo-
.o
(.)
F
.: a.OY
-ec
6<9,2
0)
q)(h
Q
fa
to
6t
lfis
(o
oN
ift
1
(o
o
oo)
IE(L
.x!c
<l)o.
o,
otroo
o
o
E
.9
tr
c
a.
t
q
I
o
l(
.e
!e
lr.
;a. l
g B #lsrE,'tr ll
s s s s s s s s ss o-_ <
rE*ffi
i\Or-
t-
(rl,
u?
a--"
q
t-o-
(o_
.!
r:E=".€$
& "H*
ri
!
.i
6i
a !q .i ol
<i
Fj
n
N.
,q 9e
rLE
o tt
F:5E
q
s
q
s
c
s
q
s
q
6i
s
s s
<i
s
ci
s
s
-
s s
t--
-
s ss s s<
F.
t-
q
F.
q a
N
q I
* - -l t.o
6 ',_ =l iXE E ;I :$E: ol
B:r 8t io o olr+l*
@
.!.?
o-
\ot
9J a c
q
;sii
E
o
q
e
t-c;
q
c;
cF.
c
s
c
s:
a.i
q
s
r.
t-
E
g
F
,E:
,6
q;
E5
E=
q6
t!
co6
B=
E >o -I gt:
E9P9
9{>o>
qBdtd€43
-a@a<t)
2
t!
ut
;
;:
!:o) <)
,9
(I
o-
Io:
3
!
E
o
F
,9
E
_a
E
(!
-ec0
5<
=E
o19l
I ao
E
tg
xv
a->
F''
c -<
!;
.g
'6
q
.9s
.g
Zlio
el- ^
oFJ
ourdJ
2tr
=oz
d.
LJJ
uJz
z
L!
o
=
Eu-rP9ur JSEI5E.odHH
€E z
s
c
:t-
s s
F
=tt!
Fz
UI
=I
od
z
llJ
Js(.)u
(o
oNo
ltr
(0
o
N
oo)o(r
.=!
q)oo-
troo
Eo
o
=
s s s ss s s s s*s so96o6t
= 3Er!E
s s
!\g?9
PE;
.!
..t
@,ro-
f
o
,
9i;t?eeiEo.;
g,
q
a t- o-
c,!
to-
lt
.o,
9!
<5
olq
q
oo.
s s s s ss s s
a
d
q
s s s68*
=tELts
s s s
qq
-. @-@-
q
F.
,E'!
E-9+;oo
a?
t-
qq
I
.i
q
q
EEir
q I
I
(-)
o
'6-
a!
F
E
d
.9
E
E
o
E
(L
e
'o
'6'
o-
F
E
0-
'o
o-
F
(!
gr
o
5
E,g
uJ
E
=
ti
p
Po(!E
!Q
,9
P€ =p-l
5?E
-9:q
E q.-
EHEc6 i
9.22
ooI
E
.9
gEaz
E3
>9
OFE=
i9
.9
5
E
o
.g
<0-
=F
o
te
oFJ:lo
IJJtr)
z
l!
7o-
ozau,
UJ2
62
u,
ol
BsP
Sll(,: !J lrJ
YoE€E
=
s s s
ri
crl rl or
dl +l utl 'cqt --t .1-l
:l -l -l_-l
E EB-
i;Ei€
s s s
dl '
l-**_
ll
zoFzul
UI
d,Gzo.
:EJllJ IIJocLZEO9Jtreo,e
=Fno
P6
=t
;
'a
(!
8z
:B
<;
E&5g5
6;'9o:9sl!:?
d96tl:.o
I
o-
co
U'ul
UJ
.9
q
=
,.
LIJ
oNo
Ef,t
o
o,g)
o-
.xiocoo-o,
E)c
=
oo
!
o:Eo
E
;a,s9s
= tEttE
s s s s s s s f s s s s s
^i
EriS
E<46
I q c?\t.d q
a
o-
F.
q
c,i
c2
==9i;iBEei
E<!E
&o
o-
q c \F c q q
..i
o-
s
qq
s s
.:
s s s
E:E;e
B€;5 €
;eo96
= tELE
s
c.q
s s
<i
s
C;
lat
s
q
s s
I
sd
: i!s;5: -aioa
c e q t-
.i
t--
<'t
F-<:e
o-
F.
a?.i c!,rl a
F--
ai
Or-
:=;Ed5
E! E
ooo
.n
;:i;
o
q
q
c
q q c
9
q
c
e
F
-.
E
,?
E
!
o
E
,6
E
-ei:E
6E
=3gc
6.9
'60
<o
.9
E
E
o
6
.9
uJ
O-
;d<o-
g
:
.9
PPhE
E()
.E>
=
o
-,
F
;
ao
E
I
E
.g
9
=5
II
I
.9.9.:!
I
(r')
I
=p
;.9
r/) E
.!
.9d
E
tJJ
E ,9
T
t
q
a.
I
e
o
q.
!e
E
u-oFJlo
IJJ
e.
J
z
LL
=c
oze
lrJutz6zr!
of
BUE
sE/,dBp
:.a-tF=
--l
I
s:slsss'i"l's
ciI
6a 61 6)l't,iA-l
Il1 I
Isl'l sl sls *lso]ooo s s
o-
.--
I ,jl,j
I
ee
o'l
I
I
q
i
!trorFo=rL=utt
=cOF.oZ
xEv-lroE<@OOEo- t)uz6Ul
=
i
=g
tl,
ii
Ea,
;; ]E:sI.e f
,: i3
tE gtb
EE39x'd-9
=tqj;ai l'E .E l6gl9 El E
;
t
.9&
.9
I!.;
=o
(o
Nb(t
Elt
(o
o
oo)oL
.xEcoo,q
(Jl
o
o
o
E
B
Fo
s
E
o
2
oFJ
=o
IJJd
J
zlr
=r
o2e
UJulz62
UJ
o,
Bu4SE5!Eg,dHH
6J J
s'5 =
t
(
E
o-
!€
rL
,?9s
ILE
s s s s s;9s sssssr xlslss ss ss
EriE
x< 46.
c) (,
-t ;
at ol
d
gt;?9?oE
-9t86
eo
a2
N.
t-
c,|
rj
o)
F.F.6i oi
C;
o
$:E:t
,?9.e
= 80.Ed
s s s s ss
q
s
s
ci
ss ss ss s ss s s
i'; l
oa
e
or-
F.
q q
I
rJtd
-t:
dild lc;
l-
;=EBE>
E! E
ooo
,J)\F.
.'t
d q qq
t--rt ci
qa
i6
o
E;i;
o,
s
c
.a
I
c!.,1
g
i:
nt
Bu,
lrl
E,zo
F
o
ctt
(9z
=zI
o-
.g
q
oa
E
-g
,E
I
E- E
,AE
o<
E
E
E
E
ot.;
d
,9
o
a
Es
=I.,
G,
.9
o
3
z
Eo:
E
l!I
,E
I
E
,9
o
.q
l
'6
o
.9
=
o-
t-
3t
E
E
E
,'
LIJ
_=
=
s
.2
;.,
E
=E
E
-
LJJ
E()
,!
Ps
,9
o-
q
o
L.IJ
s
=.9
0-
-
cq
!6
o?
AF
F
0-
E
F
,g
q
LIJLll
,9
.goq
E
E
.2
!,P
ao
>;
-co
@
E
tn
,E
:
.9
,>
o-0-
s
ts
.9
o-
.9
<n
c
o-
o
q
(!
,go
,6
c
>
E
q
s s
.t.
I
;e s *s s$$
.!
at eta
-l-l-
4'tultu,G
E
=Eulo.oza::l
dt
u,ut
oz
o-oo
)d
o
;
ElF
c
Eut
oo
-u ,;:- u,
od(Jq.
5F
t--t'- LN
(o
oN
Eft
(o
o
q)
o)(s(L
,x!c
o)do
s
s
crl
oo
E
o
o
=
s s s sssssssssss3 i Elsl
,.tr ll
s
E=E#
gEFeffim-
5 gFl€o E lEdrgif:FstisES
E&!EK&.ld
s s
s
s s s s
is
ssss
(
g
q
o tt
t;5:
oP6
rLE
s
q
.rtrj
d c!
r; r
t, ao
c.i
c.,l
f.-..i6rL
€.9
s::oo
f
o
l.
-9r
E EEEt&i'
E
o
l
!
0_
l!_
o
l
o
E
6
o
E
s,E
N.9
fe
'6
.9
E
E
()
q
o
o(!
.9
e
d.
(-)
o
'6-
o.
.96
0-
o
Lr.l()
.E
so.
.9
z
=o
v.qo
z
E,
E
E
-9
o
E
o_
E
E
0-
-9
E
o
,E
6
=
,>
z
o
l
.E
=Io
?
E
o
o
Io
9q,.i5:
qo-gs
'ac6".€-;girE'.8
5 -9g E
-!9E
E E,9 --dega co
d
o-
O
o
'a
t!I0-
id
.9
E=
i:
I
(
o
E
lr.oFJ
=o
IUd
J
z
l!
=o-
oze
UJ
lrJ
=ozu
of
iuP
Eca
.iJ-J
€E
=
s
s
.!
l
lurItrIt
IFto
l<tul
lllJl+lzlo
(o
oNo
E,t
@
o
(o
o
([(I
.x
coo,o-
E'c
oo
o
o
=
aJ
FoF
oFJfo
IJJd
J
z
l!
Bo-
oz
d.
UJutz6zul
ol
iuP
59,u,dtsu!f ,YoE€E
=
st"-t"
,q9.e
tLt
s s s s s s s s .l*
G,
I
- ---J!tsiJ
i < a,i)
Il6*
D
o
9E;
9t
=o-;
d
s
= od
rLE
r i3
F;Es
s s s s s s
l.
\e .,{
t---
d
t-
,5t!
E.9
B:oo
\t-
q
t-
o
; sii
t!)
E
I
F
-E
N
E
L!
O
I
U)
c
a!
E
uJ
6(.)
<=
E
q
o
E
g
t!
o
E
E
q
,E
-gt!
E
t!
a
-
t1)
q
a
E
q
o
o
I
.9
.9
.9
!2
o
q
0-
FzL!
=F
d.
c
UJotl!IF
F
6=
g=
tho
F
t!
tr.l
oozlrl
\o
o
o
oA
CC
,a\)
-a
o
o
p
3t
E(.)
>6
c(!
-q)
o
i.)co
o.
q)
.qF
U
.]
haF-]
=af-i
a
Q
t
X
z
1.1
}F
a:
-o d,
E<3,2
o
L
a
oU
ia
(\l
@
@
N
E
=E.
(r)
o
0)o,oo-
.xEcq)
o-o,
E"
o
oo
o
o
=
oFJfo
UJd
J
z
Il-
E
EE
o
3
c
o)
iurP9ur J
dHp!f ,YoiiE z
s s s s s s s
9-s
;a l
I Eflssu-tr I
s
q
6i
d
3-
!sgt c
'dE:
ltt : : t=gE ::'* d,i
q a
t--
e
t---a
.i
q
d
s
q
s
ci
s
e
ci
s
@-E:EEFr; q
3:*
u.E
o
s
.i
6'
t-\o
r; li,o
<:.i t-ci
---1",Ei5l';
EEEI -
s3; $l-;-
c?
q
x
q c
c <i
;
C;
<i
4
o
EF .
.i
p
; si;
E
o
e
c
.9
.9
d)
p
9
0-
I
F
6d
-9.9
t
E
E
o.
E
-9
6;
E
dE
=io-E
I .'j
E
e
e
.9!
-9i.
p ,E Io
E
3EE
TIE.ELil!s
0os
E o5z\i,q9d
.,Fia;
tY a= 9>.3 d
:E g,E
E€Eg
E
O
c
q
a.
c
(.)
\
s s s s
ol
;t_
{s $x s {s s s s
E
3
n
E
o-=
EE
d
!E
l:I
9
lo
q^
;a 4EEd
;a99
tP>=
-,E B !
=;E --€14 o=
= E;aailli E
-9 E 69
i
q
I
g
q
.!
q
(.)
\
E
sl*'*'
l','
39.E
=t)crLc
s s s s s s s s s s s <s65ss s s s s s s s s s
I
- --J',Et qil ''
i<d6)
|t.l,4
q
<i .i .2
F
@-
"t
<i
s-ttt33;=
P&;:',
t--
q
t--
.d
q c?q d
s
o
3:€
r!E
,_tEt59:
FE ; E
a.i
s
q
o.
w
s s s s
c
s
ss {f
c
rj
s
s
c
@-
s
s
<o-
< o-_69
c;
s
s s
:-
s s s
$s
s
*S
s
,.ot, ao
.i q c c!a,l
@ oi
f6u-
E.9
3:60
t--
a q q
@
q .?c!q o)c
o
E ii;<d<-
o
c
=
s :$i
ci
q
x
c;<i c
q
s
q
s
oi
s
I
s
F
-qa
in -c
:6
, a.EIEE> ^,6-c 5
>tr (,
@IL
€a
(!oq4
3 E "-s
6 54 '
@ i!E=>E I ii'E >d c
H859,thrzo
(,
->
:)
E
E
o
F
.s
_i
F
E
E
€
E
F
.9
.9
,9
Ed
p
u.
o
.9
,9
Q
p
d
z
o
.9
_9
o
,9E
i!
.!l6(!
E
0-
E
o_ 0-
.EE
()o
EE
.99
E
(l
z
=P
()
E
-9
I
E
E
o_
.E
E
o
E
I
lJ-
(!
E
E
E
6
E
d
I
(l
,96
,E
0-
o
.9
.9'
E
E
d
i
t
E
(!
-9
.9
F
E
9
,E
f-
F
-g
E
Il
_9
.E
F
nl
@
oNo
cft
ro
o
N
o
<,,oL
.x!coo-o_
oFJfoulu
J
=l!
Et
o
.96
o-
o
BUPS-5\EI"dtsH
:-<€5
=
o)E
Eo
oo
o
=o
=
*
q
o-
tf s :s
q
qq
I
F
@
oNo
;at
(o
o
oo)
o-
.x!cq)
o-o-
otroo
tt
o
o
=
oF-)fo
IJJu
J
z
IL
EE
o
o
.9
o-
oD
Eu4s*5stt(,JUIUJ
€5
=
,s9s
= 3Er!l!
s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s ss s s ss s s s
EtiS
AE:.7sr;6
ltt-
q
@-
ci
q
@'ot (oE: i-i=
P5 8:=* E,i
\
s s
s
cis
T
s
s
ae,€Pb s 36
q
.{'-
*
s s s s
p-tE-
3:stE
;Fo9o(,6i
= tEU-E
s s s
c.is9
I
o)
FF
q
! tEs;5
o2
!\ol i:q a?
r:
c,i d a
o-
a g?
a \;=:Er!)
E-9 &
t63
c
<i
q q a c
i6
(,
E;i!
-
B
di
EE
o-
o
=
L
a
E
(.)
a!
(l
;
E
E
d
E
o
0-
(I
E
(I
o
F
;
x.
E
II
o
F
q
s
E
E
o-
:
oo
.?
a!
3
.E
o
E
tL
-9EF
E
II
tJJ
E
E
IL
;
(!
-F
'
d
E
o-
o
=
C
F
-ga
E
o-
o
E
t!
,9
(I
!
d
E
I!
,9
d
F
g
E
(!
,9
E
o-
=
E
0-
E
LJJ
i
g.
o-
.E
E
ul
=
F
-9
t!
.E
L!
=
c
q
oo.
c
o
*s
I
:
s
-t
I
I
!?-ts6
!ti6rl3
6ta;
dio_
-!-
(o
oNo
E-t
t
o
E
q
c
o.
;.3:*
=tEu.E
ss s s
EtiSr ?iP
E<46.
s-;3.
Ei ig=* E'?
Fe;ts
;a
,e 9s
ILE
s s
5E'E:E
ooo
io
o I
I
!
t
;s?;
i:
l
!P
'E
uB
-!! P
o
:)
.9=6:l
Qe
)o
=EEo
o) 6^
k! c,
l
-9 o)E€o,
2.€
=8r'E
6€
Eio
3-9
s ;eSS;e;eS;eSA;€ ;eL:SI;e;<;e;<SS Sooooo ololoooooo oss
*i.A6oaog,v,e,@@
4: OsltA
r*ffirafralralra ,a .a ,a
ool4eteo4@ @
er.o166eet@@
sislssssss so:oloooooo o-.lssssss"--s.-"--!2:lNr@6<66)@(oXvl., $ { 6
q)r-r.nFo('olr
a oq \ q q q I c?'.rc!ar60('(or..ra)N€!o-F-Nr(O-
a.q\cqq!qe.:orN*c!Nqa@$L1 r.O*O6 r o) r)
oooooooooqqqqqcq9q
oroo6)ooro)oro)
o
oq)oo-
.xEcooo-
.!q
.! N-
@0|@.,+@6e>
c
o
r{
r:i: 6Ei 5 -=; o.E I ^ .3: E:s ; ;F 5; - Ee3 e* Eg EI E=.,{5
T 6 iell*:Igi d; UEYEFE?n
E : i;EE;E!ss !EiB;EE;:lE
E€ "E * :aE ggg; ; # " ; ;iE FI E, :! E c
f
z
oFJfo
UJtr
J
tr
o
,
I!
I
o)
Bufl
tc6dHp
YoE€E
=
oLooooooor;er--FrrEl-l- -L- <ols <o o, 9r=
H-J-ri.oooo=:
EE
o
12
A
l,l
ltt;ll I
I
o)
oo
E
o
o
B
(o
oNo
i-E
lr)
o
L.,
oo)oo-
.x
coo-o-
t
.=
=
oo
E
o
o
B
a
FoF
q
t
q.
i
c
o
,s 9s
ILE
s s s s s ss s s s s =. 1'
F
d
EriSr : aE
F€; A
p_; &
fi3EE:
9E 8:',* tri li
o!!6
tLd
= ri
EE::F5:g- E3
s s s s s s s s s s ss s s s ss
i; r,n
t-t_
;=E;El
EE E
oo6
q
;58;
o
F
6
E
lrJ
o
-E
co
E
L!
o
-
N
E
uJ
o
,9
z
6
E
€
L!
o
co
i!
'6.
o-
c
o
6
E
o
E
E
(-)
6
!
o-
E
E
i=
E
o
IJJ
o
.9:
ll,
z
E
o
co
E
!o
E
.E
uJ
s
ii
E
o
o
Es
o
o
a
q
OEol
l!i
<3
=<o
oFJfoultr
J
z
Et
o
.9
o-
o3
Bul
sEadBH
:,,<€E z
*l*l*l*1*-l'l'l']'*l* *olo o s
*l* *
tllIlI
s
ill
lt l
EE
o
q
F(r>
tltr!
ooz.ut
P
o
!4
U
\S
()
tr.95>e6
:o
9Eor9
:.E
>, 0)
€beo
U(!a2
:D=(lt .:-
3
.a
q)
F
z
F
l-l
(J
rd
z
aV
aFJ
U)ri
Fa
U
fi
X
z
f-)
}F
OY
?i liedT-:6<!7
a)
L
a
I
h
in
a:t
*D
(o
oNo
E)t
o
o
0)q,(!
o-
lr)
,xocq)
o.o,
E,l
coo
o
o
=
s s ssssssssss
d,
d ry
lt
d, !1
;ii
.i 8.
ts.
s
&
s Is
x
sIss=::s=s
o3
G,
s s
!
.n
a
.il'ja
I
9
i
q
;
@
dt
.9e
Eg
o
.9
a
E
o
s
.2
,s
t
IFIt
i-9
\i
9>
id I
t
a E
0-
o-
E
EI
0-
o
d
6
(L
o-
g
o
.9
E
.=
@
I
.E
o
o
o
I
.9
!
e(J
o
.9
E
.=
(E
s
;
E
E
(.)
a
e
o_
o
,9
E
6o
=F
llI
E
o,
s
.s
E
E
F
d
tto
5
o
.9I
o
IIF;i 'lI
oFJfoulE
J
ztr
ur(,z
=d,ol!dulo-
E
UJ
ooujE
Foo(,)
lto
d
===o
Et
o
-9
tlr
o-
ef
Ebo
sHs
EqqourSbo s6E*
F6
1...
@lo- !-l-_l<o-l
_:l"l-l:ll
5&
|jE e-
3 5!d.o=
EF96(,
J
F
oo)
o
Fo
dl-
=doo
J
Fo
t6
=
ood.
:i
FoF.B
24d.o
d.
I
tt
s s sssssssss
Ibe
eii
o(9
!I_l
s
$s
s s
$
&=
1..
Is s s
6&
I
e
Ep
g
o-
5o
.q
E
E
F'
o-F F
6
_9
,9
zt
.E
E
oa
Ep
o
s
-?
EI
0-
F
q
E
o
.i
q
E
oI
p
O
6
o-
-qO
.9:
E
e
I
q
o
o
o-
E
p
Bd
E
ul
i
E
U:9
5E
5
z
.E-
I
o
.9
E
6
d
,6
c
l)
,E
e
e
-g
o
,53
=F
J2
s
o
st!.s
E
Ep,
q-
I
d
o
I
F
IIF;E
IIII
@
oNo
I
=t
E')c
=
oo
EI
o
o
B
o
(\
q)
o)(E
o-
(o
.x!c
0)o-q
oF)fo
UJd
J
=l!
uloz
=doIL
d,
UJ
o-
d
llJ
oould,
Foo()
l!o
d
==o
Ei
o
e
d
!
of
Pb,"
$HS.s - .1,5EH
-.08:ourSbo s6E*
E
6
I
sss
o3
E
o
,
s sss
a3
c,
i\je:
3 5!d,ur=
E *Eoo
j
FoF
ao:
E
ar
tA
I
ol
E
ol
j
oFoa
=
oE
J
FoFqJ
=d
o
-l
)
I-
d,
=
=
od.
J
oFqt-
=d
a
tt
oNo
(f)
)t
o
o)o)o(L
lr)
.x!c
o)o-o-
o(.)
E
o
o3
ssssssl-.1,31
d s
II
s
N
s s s
lt-
w
s
d.
6p
trq
*i!:l
-H
_l
4
I
E9
8ic, tt,
6;
(JO
l-.
e
.t
€
s
.s
t
E
H,
I
so
-:
I
.9I
E
o-
o
.9
e
E
c
o
€
s
E
E
d
-eo
E
E
E
E
tt
o
s
.!ps
s
o-
.E
E
e
()-
E
-
E
o
:
.9
E
qs
E
p
d
!
9
-r .9
d)E)<
E6
.9a
E
o-
o
=F
3
E
eo-
6'
I II*l
'l
;"h!
E3
II
oFJfo
UJu
J
z
;oz
=d,o!Itruro-
d,
UJ
o()
ul
e,Fooo
Eo
E
==fo
Et!
o
.9
d.
o.
6,
Po-
FHSs-(4sfig
L='JorrrSb6 s6=*
F6
a
s
;9-
3 i!do2
E
"d.0oo
s
I
s
It
9
Eut
JJ
iii
ei
J
o!-
aa
=
c
FoFdt
=€
al
a.
r
oFa,
=
oou
j
Fo!-,a
=
=t(,o
l-
--l d
@
oNo
c-t
ID
o
o
o
=
o
o
C)o)o(L
lr)
.xoc
o)o-o-
6FJfo
UJE
J
=I
UToz
=d,o!Lc,qI
o-
EU
o(,,
rJlu
F
U'oo
lr-o
d
==lto
Et
o
d,
o.
5f
Eho
$HS
ETE
S:'J
bo soE*
6
s s
1l
--l-rl
0.J
s s s s s
c,)
a
c
(,
llo..i
s=s*
cro
e
6&
ss
I
I!
-1
I
Ee
35co6a
3,5
I
E
td
EI
-fl
.=
.e)
F
p
I
0-
e
E
Qtr
a.
z
E
l!s
o-
o,
c
;
.9
.a
,9
z
E
o
>-E6_9
6o
E!tr>
.9
F
E
o
.Eo
o
g
.9
2
P
-9
E
e
g
f
z
!
F
a
4
6d
.9
.2
.st
E
PI
dl il.t
El
;3
93
=llIEl
I
I
c\
l-
!.
o
Eg
e
-9
d
-i
Fo,-g,
f
=c(9odo-
j
oPzI
:ozIF
lrJt
d
j
FoF
a0
od,
-l
F
ao
=
d
s s sss-l s--l;rl
'! I
o
i
II
s s sssss-a
o3
d
a!
o
dIIo
e
s Es
: s*-96:-cz5PP?
;: r€
q1!.0t=ii 1.E&EE;
,E
E
.9
.9
!
p-9
6€eE
<ao =
-po,
EF
g
=aE.8
#
?e
e
E
E
n
F
,.9
tt
,E
I
o
o
E
d,
F
o.
s
3
=.9&
E
Fg
tsE 9:
E F.E€! pd i
-9EEr
6 -o o14
E s E.4
cg-A!sEts
.9 p; o
< 9.:9F
s
;
-a
3
ql
d
EF
e
=
'6
E
,N
so-
FI.?
E
e
p
o-
,e
p
.9
.s
t
t{
,o
E.9
.s
E
a-
E
3
.E!
dl
.12
(.)
g
F
!
E
o-
III
:"h.9g
F3 "
I
@
oNo
eft
E')
?f
coo
!,
o
=o
=
o
lr)
oo,G(L
rr)
.xo
oo,o,
GFJfo
UJ
e.
J
z
;oz
=uolt
e,
UJo.
t!l
oo
l,ud
Foo(,)
Eo
d
===t,
t
al
o
.9
tt
o.
E
2
Po(,r
pHss-6sfig
ouS
.bo SoE*
F
6
s
I
:l
oFdtf
E
oo
FoFo3
=doo&d
I
FdIl
=t
d,
o.
I
(o
oeo
E)t
o
o
@
0)o)
C'L
(o
.x!coo-o-
oo
o
Eo
B
oF)foqJ
d
J
=I
UJoz
=doILc,qJ
o.
tul
ooqJu
Fooo
ILo
tr
==:)
U'
Et!
o
.9
u,
c
e
=
Ekr
$PS
ETB
orrrSbo scE*
F
6
s s s ss
o3
E
ss
o
c.i
ss
()3
g
E!
35d,oia33
6&
o
.9
o
,9z
o
,
6-
9Eoii
!
.9
a
o
s
F
.9
a
E
e
E
:9e
E;5o-
s s
E e-
;;€
E *Eoo
.t,t,l,
s s sa stsoo
-t-
uJd
F
o(.,I-*l-
{,
"j
t-.o
dt
=doo
o-o-
j
F
Fol
=E(9odo-
s s s s sssssssssssssssssss
o8
E
s 5
EEl
EFEoo
o
s s:=
a -s s
:t
f
oo
e
;e
iaoo
rj ot lt.c.j lt.l-.
!!
q;
o
.g
2
I
uJ
.9
.9zd
3
E II
o
E e
uJ
o
$
o
=2I E
o!
=
o-
.9
o-
E
-9
_9
o-
o-
I
E
o o-
EF
I
@
6
E
5
_9
v
6
8d
'6
I
o
u.
,E
E.g
lrJ
=.9
o-
,E
=
().
(.)
o-
p
d)
o-
G,
{
o-
.E
o-
o-
:
!
g
a
P
.E
d
.c
.s
t
E
b
o-E-p
E,5
L!
o.
.s
=.q
:.9e
930
I
o
o
t-
oc')(E(L
(,
.xEcoo-o-
6FJfo
UJd,
J
=5
UJoz
=d,oltt
UJ
o.
c,
UJ
oo
UJtr
Fooo
lto
d
==fo
Et
o
.9
d,
t
o.
ol
?'o o: u,t r.i;uJ Js-s,5Eg
\--Jou:{
.5o =6-*
6
(o
o
C!o
Eat
I
tt
o,a
=o
oot,
o
o
=
Ill
I
l_t"l
Jl
I
E
o
EE
(o
oNo
Ead
o
o
@
q)
o)(E
(]-
(o
.xocoo.o-
ED
E
aoo
EI
o
=o
=
s s s s .l
I
"-l.-.1
o3l
el
s s ss s s s s
I
J
1
Ee
d, n,
;ii
oo
II
::s :;
=s sf"*s ss
t
s
!
a
(5
a
d,
a
N.N.
.Y
o
q
,E
.s
s
Eg
II
I
.9
c
o
F
,9
a
E
o,
o
,2
E
.2
l!
o-
-!!
.9
I
_9
F
=
.E
0-
e.Egq
ft^
Po
?E
-96
_9I
E
E
e
o-
=o
I
o
to
+6Eq
9xqE
;
-9 d.oul
.E
o-aO
-9
o e
d)
s
F
3
E
=9
:;
3
I ltI"l
El
i3
93o-nllli
oFJfo
UJd,)
=I
IJJo2
=dolrd
IJJ
o.
c,
UJ
oo
UJd
F
oolro
a
==fo
t
q
a
"9
d.
o-
o
=Pb.
FHSErf
ourS>o =cE*
F
6
az
s
ut
l!
UJ
I
J-
sss
+loil
l-t
TIJuF
o
J
.!
j
F
Fzo
,2
o
d
2
z
e
oul
d,
ooz
J
*!ol
=doo
o-
q
o
F
J
Fo
o
:E
d
19oc,o-
(o
oNo
-t
o
o,
oo)o(L
tr)
.=Ecq,oo
ED
t
oo
o
o
=
s s s s s .l
Io3
d,
s
Ee
d,o
oo I
I .l Io
s s
od
s
a3
d.
s
Ih !-
EEl
EFCoo
r.-Io
a0-iI
.9
E
o
o
o
q
o
!
!
,a
F
lo
l6
p'
o-qo
o
E
o
a
o
s
e
.!2 tts<E!8
Es
:t!
&q
dEE:
6S
o
,9
d
eo
o
c
x.
.9
E
.9.s
E
s
o
E
o
(t!
st
6l
6&
!
F
I
E
eo-
ltIi-99
934o-
RII
oFJloqJu
J
2I
IIJoz
=E
l!c,
UJo.
d
IJJ
oo
UJd
Fooo
lto
d
==lo
Et
o
-9
d.
o-
Bf
?b q'
sHss-(,sEg
sf.Jlx{0-*
F
6
Jz tt
sEEs
lll
.l.l
I
)
l
s *
I
s
I
j
FoF
d.
Ll.l
Fo
J
FoF!tl
=
ood,
G.
oz
q
E
u
oFao
=
=
t,o
Fz
=F
o
)
24ul
E
6z
(o
oso
E-t
;
zo
=uJ
Eo
lrJF
5
UJ
d,
!J
IJJ
Eo
J
FoF
o
oo
oo)o(L
lr)
.x!
o)oo
ut
F;
Fo
oz
!J
td,ul
d,o
EI)
oo
o
o
=
-9.92
'Eh
E8
EE
9q:E
6ob6
o:
9e
;t
FF
)
F
F
d
IF
J
I
F
zo
d,
o-
z
zIF
uJ
d.
IJJdo
s
t
b r-
j;4
E*soO
o
i96&
s
oE
4
E !-
,i;4
EFCo(J
o
6&
-9
F
.E
E
E
o.
:"h.93;:6930
E
!I
6FJfoulu
J
z
;oz
=dolr-d
UJo.
c,
UJ
ooul
e,Fooo
o
e.
==fo
Et!
o
-9
e,
o-
6a?h -
EH5
tHE
\t.J
3sI6=*
F6
.:
s
tJ
lr--
t"
CLK-Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jennifer Pfaff .ijpf @pacbell.net'
Sunday, May 01, 2016 1:50 PM
GRP-Council
PW/ENG-Syed Murtuza
Agenda item 8e JPB Caltrain Electrification
Honorable Mayor Keighran and Councilmembers-
I have read the documents in regard to this agreement and want to stress the importance ofhaving all trees that will, or could be
effected (eirher in staging or building areas) properly documented (tagged and inventoried) beforehand. Only in this manner
will it be possible to track whether removals, whether deliberate or in error, have been replaced and maintained, longer-
term, as specified in the completed EIR.
In just the past few months, eucalyptus trees have been felled in Parcel ll, the character-defining eucalyptus grove along
Califomia Drive, north of Oak Grove, and there may have been others, elsewhere. Parks was not informed prior to these
activities and had to inquire with Caltrain as to what was happening there. Are we aware ifany tracking/tagging system
(beyond google-map aerial, which is not very accurate) has been put into place along the conidor in Burlingame? This is
particularly critical in our historic eucalyptus groves, but also important in areas where smaller trees like oaks
and oleander bushes have functioned for decades as visual and audible screening. These may simply be lost forever and nol
replaced, ifthey've never existed on paper, in an inventoried fashion to mitigate.
lf I am missing something that Cahrain has underlaken, or will undertake, I would be thrilled to hear otherwise. They should
document and include any trees removed since the certification ofthe EIR a year and a halfago, so that these, too, can be
replaced.
Our ecosystem desperately needs established, mature trees, thousands ofwhich have lined the SF Peninsula Caltrain corridor for
over a century. In Burlingame alone, I seem to recall in the EIR that we stand to lose approximately 80 or so trees, most ofthem
north ofthe large eucalyptus groves, and to a large degree, the final tally is dependent on the finalized placement ofthe catenary
poles.
In the case ofunavoidable removals, I have little faith in Caltrain's ability to replace and maintain trees over time, having seen
the tree removal debacle on Califomia Drive north ofBroadway several years ago. To this day, that Caltrain-driven removal of
several mature casuarina trees opposite homes and unbeknownst to city o{ficials, has not been appropriately mitigated, and we
are left with a very large gap ofonly low brown bushes and dead brisbane box trees thal were never adequately watered.
All ofthe trees, large and small, along the conidor in Burlingame serve a purpose, particularly those that are well established,
because they will require far Iess water than their replacements. They are not only aesthetically pleasing and character defining,
but also provide visual screening, noise reduction, and valuable habitat. Please make sure our agreements with Caltrain ensure
our majestic trees groves and other valuable greenery will not degrade and gradually disappear over time, because of Caltrain
taking shortcuts during this major undertaking.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jennifer Pfaff
1