HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2016.08.15t
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda - Final-revised
City Council
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Monday, August 15, 2016 6:00 PM Gouncil Chambers
STUDY SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Gouncil Chambers
a. Water and Sewer Utilities Rates Use Study
Note: Public comment is permitted on all action r'fems as noted on the agenda below and in the
non-agenda public comment provided for in item 7.
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 limit in
light ol the number of anticipated speakers.
All votes are unanimous unless separately noted for the record.
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
6. PRESENTATIONS
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON.AGENDA
Members of the pubtic may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to
suggesf an item for a future Council agenda may do so during this public comment period. The Ralph M .
Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any matter
that is not on the agenda.
8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent calendar items are usually approved in a single motion, unless pulled for separate discusslon.
Any member of the public wishing to comment on an item listed here may do so by submitting a speaker
stip for that item in advance of the Council's consideration of the consent calendar.
City of Burlingama Page 1 Printed on 8/13/2016
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final-revised
b
a. Approval of Citv Council Meetinq lvlinutes July 5, 2016
Anachments: l\/leetrno lvlinutes J"lv 5 2016
AoDroval of Citv Council Meetinq Minutes Auqust 1 . 2016
Atlachments:Meetinq lvl nutes Auoust 1, 2016
Ooen Nomination Period to Fill Two Va ncies on the Beautiflcation Commission
Aftachments: Staff Reoort
ODen Nomination Period to Fill Two Vacancies on the Parks & Recreation Commission
c
d
e
attachments: staff Reoort
lssue a Call for Aoplications to Fill an lmp endino Vacancv on the Storm Drain Measure
Oversiqht Committee
I
Attachments:
AdoDtion of
Staff Reoort
a Resolution Authorizinq the C itv Manaqer to Execute an Aqreement for
Professional Services with Verde Desiqn,Inc. for Desion Services for Murrav Field
Atlachmen,s:Staff Reoort
Resolution
Verde Desiqn lnc. Aoreement
g n Resolution rovtn the Funds
Neiqhborhood Storm Drain Proiect #8. Citv
Conservation und Prooram
Attachments: Staff ReDon
Resolution
h. Adoption of a Resolution Acceptinq the
Proiect No. 84320
Allachments:Staff Report
Resolution
Final Prooress Pavment
Proiect Location Map
Ptinted on E/13/2016
August 15, 2016
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final-revised August 15,2016
i. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizinq the Citv Manaqer to Execute a Professional
Services Aoreement with ESA to Perform Environmental Review Services Related to
the Prooosed Commercial Development at 1300 Bavshore Hiqhwav (SFO @
Technoloqv Center)
Attachments: Staff Report
Resolution
Professional Services Aoreement
Scope of Work
j. Reiection of All Bids and Authorization for Staff to Re-Bid the Villaqe Park Plavoround
Renovation - Citv Proiect #84430
Attachments: Staff Report
Bid Summarv
k. Annual Renewal of the Burlinoame Avenue Area Business lmorovement District
(DBID): Adoption of a Resolution Approvino the 2015-16Annual Report, Declarinq the
Citv's lntention to Establish and Lew Assessments for Fiscal Year 2016-17, and
Settinq the Required Public Hearinq for Seotember 19. 2016
Attachments: Staff Report
Resolution
Notice of Public Hearino
I. Quarterlv lnvestment Report, Period Endino June 30, 2016
Attachments: Staff Report
Portfolio Reoort
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment)
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment)
a. lnformational Report Reqardinq Requlation of Civilian Drones
Attachments: Staff ReOort
Summary of laws and FAA reoulation
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
13. AGKNOWLEDGMENTS
City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 8/13/2ua
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final-revised August 15, 2016
a. Julv, 2016 Permit Activitv
14, ADJOURNMENT
Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at
(650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for
public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at vwwv.burlingame.org. Agendas and
minutes are available af fhis sfte.
NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next regular City Council Meeting - Tuesday,
September 6, 2016
VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT WWW.BURLINGAME.ORG - GO TO
,.CITY COUNCIL VIDEOS"
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on fhls
agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office counter at City Hall at 501
Primrose Road during normal busrness hours.
City ol Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 8/13/2UA
'l
ffi BARTLE WT LLS ASSOCIATES
City of Burlingame
Water & Sewer Rate Studies Update
City Council Study Session
August 15,2016
r I
h Presentation Overview
r Background
x Sewer Rate Overview
s Water Rates & Finances
a Next Steps
Objectives: Present findings & preliminary
recommendations ; receive feedback
2
roa
I
/
7
TJ
m
Background
3
,fu Water & Sewer Rate Studies
r Last rate study completed in 2012
- Water rates last increased January 201 5
. Sewer rates last increased July 20'12
r Financial Plans
- Develop 1o-year financial projections
Look long-term and set rates on course to maintain financial health
Evaluate financial and rate increase scenarios
Determine future revenue requirements, level of CIP funding, and rate increases
" Rate Structure & Gost-of-Service Rate Derivation
- Evaluate current rates and potential rate structure modifications
- Develop new rates that reflect cost-of-service
- Document cost justification for compliance with new legal requirements
r Goal: Recommend water & sewer rates that equitably recover the cost of
providing service and position utilities for long-term financial health
&ry
4
2
I
T
I
s
E
ffi Proposition 218
Prop 218 approved by voters in 1996 as the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act"
. Added Articles 13C and 'l3D to California Constitution
. Water & sewer rates subject to Article 13D, Section 6 (property-related charges)
r Procedural requirements for imposing or raising rates
- Mail notice to property owners, 45+ days, hold public hearing, "majority protest"
Substantive requirements for rates
. Revenues cannot exceed the cost of providing service
- Revenues can only be used for the purpose they are imposed
- Charges cannot exceed the "proportional cost" of service aftributable to each
customer
- Charges only allowable if service is used by or immediately available to rate payer
r Prop 218 has been subject to evolving legal interpretations
5
& San Juan Gapistrano Decision (2015)
e San Juan Cap established tiered water rates to encourage conservation
. ln compliance with prior case law, Article X, & legal understanding ol Prop 218
. Large property owners felt the higher tier rates were unfairly high and sued
" Appellate court ruled that City's tiered rates violated Prop 218 because tiers
were not supported by a cost justification
- City never provided any cost justifi cation during the court proceeding
- Media outlets incorrectly reported that "tiered rates are illegal"
r Court clearly ruled that tiered water rates are permissible
- But only if supported by a cost-based justification
, 2l3rds of California agencies have tiered residential water rates
- Some have re-evaluated rates & provided cost justification, a few adopted uniform rates
r Rate study develops a cost justification
- Rigorous analysis performed to ensure the tiered rates cost justification
iH6
3
I Sewer Rate Overview
r Sewer rates last increased in 2012 (4 years ago)
t City has been able to get by with no rate increases
- Prudent management of cost controls
. Unlike water, no impact of outside agency raising rates
- Veolia contract includes CPI increases to keep costs down
- Reduced impact from drought: 3-year avg of winter water use
r Financial projections indicate City can hold off on any sewer rate increases
for another year
r Will be evaluating sewer rates and customer classifications to determine if
any adjustments are needed
r Plan to come back with draft sewer rate recommendations in future
7 B
h Water System Overview
r Water System
- lncludes 107 miles of pipelines, T storage tanks/reservoirs,2 pump systems
. 100oh ofwatersupply purchasedfrom SFPUC
.: 5.234 mgd normal-year lndividual Supply Guarantee
.: Wholesale purchases declined from roughly 80% to 60% of SFPUC supply
guarantee over past 3 years
s Aging facilities, much of system is 70 to over 100 years old
- Ruptured water pipes cause water loss & require frequent maintenance
. Corroded water pipes cause inadequate pressure
- lnadequate emergency storage
8
rtffi
m
4
ft,,
Water System Capital
lmprovement Program
I
Studies were performed to assess the 107 mile water system
CIP master plan prioritized over $120M of improvements
Council approved rate increases to fund accelerated improvements through
issuances of bonds
$38M of work is completed
- Replaced 22 miles of old deteriorated transmission and distribution pipeline system
, 1,600 water service installed
- 1,200 linear feet of fire services rehabilitated
$88M backlog of work still remains
9 IE
Photos of existing pipelines
t#Cf F.
5
r--!
7
t-
r-\
L}ll
T
fr*
{
$ Utrp Showing Areas of Completed ClPs
12 ]E
'-4 f
\
t
+
-$,9dr
rt-\I
6
'!
,
-t.\
a,}t\.*I
\
c
n.t,
'l
a
r
\
t
Ir*4
tt --
r?5*p
4
4
,& Water System Capital Needs
r The City cut capital funding from $4.5 million to $2.5 million per year to
soften the impact of SFPUG wholesale rate increases
- $2.5 million is minimum level required to maintain system
. Additional funding needed if City wants to gradually address long-term system needs
Financial projections developed for
- Maintaining minimum funding at $2.5 million per year
.l 30+ years to address backlog
- Phasing in funding to prior level of $4.5 million per year
.:. 15+ years to address backlog
City aiming to fund projects on a pay-as-you'go basis, with no
additionaldebt
13
Single Family Residential Monthly Water Bills
Bes.d 5 kiel (6,7 hO of monthlywEter usc .xccpt as noted
$r4o
s120
91oo
$80
960
s40
$20
so
."{.c"-.;.-1.i.'1;J
{9- o"o-
.*'Y
"d .*o\ od*b-oc
sd$'
. Bill based on 8 hcf monthly water use tor agencies with higher residential usage, Rates effective Aug$t 2016
59.95 60.0]
37.34
*
69.92
rg.+t 82 09
1L1S 12^948'98 g9"eo
5n.s2 51i5I
45.'I
;.;;
14
7
I
9140
$1 20
$100
Single Family Residential Monthly Sewer Eills
Easd on flat rate or 6 hcf (4.5 k\8al) of monthly winter water use
60 I
cPo
193.75
93.25
o9o
Rates effoctive August 2016
t8o
{rl,rrrtllllllllllll
.r**
*$A.
c"-
15
Combined Monthly Water & Sewer Bill Survey
Typical Single Family Residence
$250
* Sewer Rates
r Water Rates
$200
$1 50
'::HHEBHE
I
EE
$::$$:$:}'".:i"::-$$4'*:rtffi
Rates efiective August 2016
oq
@
o
dts
a
rio
o.i6
q
@
a
ts
oNrto
o,@
o
6
o;
.,4
aN
16
B
ts
\
ts
Eri
No
oiN
o
oi
o{,N
Water Finances & Rates
n
17
ffi Water Financial Overview
r Water utility is a financially self-supporting enterprise
r Water rates are the main source of revenue
- Need to be set at adequate levels to fund operating & capital needs
City historically provided good financial stewardship by gradually
raising water rates each year but has adopted no increases since 2015
r Prior rate increases spared the City from needing to take emergency
action to raise rates in response to drought and reduced water sales
r Rates have fallen behind the cost of providing service
- Water enterprise is currently operating at a budget deficit
r Water enterprise facing a number of manageable financial challenges
18
o%7.8% 7.8% 7.8%
20L3 20!4 2015 2016
I
-'t
I
m
2015/16 Estimated Revenues
(Iotal = s15,211,{X'O}
,318,000
23L
?.OLS I tG Estimated Expenses
(Total = $15,957,000)
19
-
Fi&d Met€r
CIErye' {ertl,
s6500,0m
1?%
Ms
CoBumptlo0
chrrSet
98393,000
55t4 -
I
V
Ciry Op€ntttw &
Debt
Wholegale Water
supply,
56s24,000
4t%
:.063.000
1!16
,M Financia! Ghallenges
1. SFPUC wholesale water rate increases
2. Reduced water sales = reduced revenues
3. Capital improvement needs & rehabilitation
of aging infrastructure
4. Ongoing operating cost inflation
20
10
E
rcH
&
m
1. SFPUC Rate lncreases
SFPUC lvholesale Water Rates ($ por'1,000 gallons)
t10.00
t9.00
t8.00
37.00
16.00
3r.00
$a.00
$3.00
t2.00
ll.oo
t0.00
0&
SFPUC liaholele Rate r
E3t BAwscA Bond ssrctu.gp I t ,.81
I ,t4 7.7a
,.12
4.26 SFFUC Whd6ale Rate
IErcruder ilw$A afid s!rch.rG)
ttl 2_2'
rJi 1_il
OOOFNoIEEREEE€REFEFEFEEHEHHHHH
Rat6 €ftectiv. July I
- SFPUC wholesale rates more than doubled since 201 0 and more than quadrupled since 2005
. SFPUC projecting roughly 30% additional rate increases over next 3 years
21 E
fu SFPUG vs Gity Rate lncreases
Burlingame Water Rate lncreases vs.
SFPUC Wholesale Water Rate lncreases
lCompounded rate increaset since 2oo7)
30&6
250t6
20wo
15096
1m?6
50%
w.
I
sFPUC wtlolerale wster
nate ln{reases
tt2"n
. }t0ta
oodfiosq6o6o88888855855558565655F-NffrFiFNANNNftNEiiiEi<i<i<iil3i3iii
22
11
Eurlingams wrler Rate lncreasas
u%
44%
3\%
25%
M 2. Reduced Water Sales
City ot Oudlnfr@
Hbtod.alus F Bi&flthly Ellllns tutu 1,S.m
I&.ffi
!,ffi,m
w,m
@,m
@.ffi
2@.m
Historical Water Sales
Since benchmark calendar vear 2013
. 2015Z16 total water sales down 15%
- Peak summer use down 27Yo
- Single family use down by 24oh
t;;;
e-YPr.r1-".rilBEe.E!if!?;i5:it;:rEr.ri-il=]1J;I.J:11,.47
, Water sales have declined substantially over past few years
- Reduced sales = reduced revenues (more loss in higher rate tiers)
- Revenue loss partially offset by reduced water purchases
- Gustomers who have conserved buy less water and have offset recent year rate increases
23
Revenue loss
Reduced costs
Net loss
S1.8 M
So.9 M
5o.g rvt
ffi Single Family Bill History
Historical Single Family Monthly Water Charges
With 25% water conservation from 2013 - 2015
t160
914O
9lm
$rm
580
960
t40
$20
so
25?; Conseryation
-\\.a\I
MODHlGxr24 > 18 ksal
(bi-monrhly uiel
).41 I 12.46 1r1
:lf.2,111.4{
10\,1''
95-39 TYPICAI- HOME: 12 r t ht.l
(bi"monthly usel91.69 91.69
81.87 80.55 a2.7r 84.71
80,2516,93
1?.13 71,72
66J4
62,29 62.29 62.241 60.79 58.6855.62 55.15 57.'t5
n9,64 44.Gs 47'91
51,{1
44.65
r9.87 tolrv:8 > 6 kgal
{bi-monthly rs}15.61
24
2dr6 2@7 2@a 2q}9 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2015
tE
12
te
iF
l-ItDI
m
ffi 3. Capital lmprovement Needs
a CIP master plan identified $120+ million of water system capital needs
. Roughly $88 million remaining backlog
x Primarily rehab and replacement of aging water infrastructure
x City aiming to fund projects on a pay-as-you-go basis, without add'l debt
Financial projections developed for
- Maintaining minimum funding at $2.5 million per year
- Phasing in funding to prior level of $4.5 million per year
25
'M- 4. Ongoing Gost lnflation
r ln addition to other funding needs,
small annual rate increases are needed
to keep with annual cost inflation
e Annual cost inflation for utilities is
higher than CPI
(ost lnflation
lndex
26
13
,M Financial Projections
iE_27
City of Burlingame
Water utility Projected Revenues & Expenses
$25
C@itd ldprovmst3
$20
o
-9
=!! sts6(,o
oCIxul
E $10:,
tr
# CityOp(dingC*
+ Rryadal 2.7
2.5 2.5 2'8
$s
$o 201t16 2016117 2017118 2018t19 2019t20 20fr121 2021t22 20?2,123 2023t24 2024125
14
x BWA developed financial projections to evaluate annual revenue
requirements and rate increases
s Based on best info available & slightly conservative assumptions
- Based on 2015/16 financial results & anticipated funding needs
. Operating cost inflation projected at 4%
- Assumes 1 0% rebound in water sales over next two fiscal years
. SFPUC wholesale rate increases based on latest SFPUC projections
. General Fund cost allocation to increase starting 2017/18 based on recent study
- However, General Fund debt reimbursement to decline
- Capital funding projected to remain at $2.5 million per year
- Alternative projections developed for phasing in capital funding to $4'5 million
. No new debt
r Rate increases phased in over next 3 years
. Slightly higher increase needed firstyear
2.8
t.s
t.s
11.5
2.7
1,9
1'.t.2
1.S
10.8
8"O
t,9
9.8 10.I
6-0 rtl
2.5
2.0
8.0
9_8
2-5
1"9
s.7
7.1
8.5
8.,9.5
4.9 5-3 5,7 5.6 3.8
28
,t Projected Rate Increases
Projected rate increases with $2.5 million minimum level of capital funding
r Small future increases after 2019 projected at 3% per year
r lf Council wishes to restore $4.5 million ClP, then rates will need to increase
by an additional 10o/o
- Could be phased in over the next 5 years
- Forexample:9o/o 9o/o 9% 5% 5% lnsteadof: 9% 6% 6% 3% 3%
. Each 1% additional increase generates a little under $200,000 per year
r lmpacts will vary a little based on customer class & water use
29 E
0o/o 9%6%6%
2016 2017 2018 2019
ffi Current Water Rates
Meter Size
slg" a314"
1"
t-L(2"
3"
4"
6"
8"
s83.50
t42.16
276.@
4/.3.24
836.34
1,395.68
2,7U.98
4,457,8
Single Family Residential
Tier 1 0- 2,0ffigal
Tier2 2,001 - 9,0fi)gal
Tier 3 9,fl)1 - 1&0fl) gal
Tier 4 1&001 - 3O000 gal
Tier5 31,fiDgal and above
Unincorporated & Burlingame Hills
All Water Use
Se.oe
s10.13
so.oo
8.M
8.91
10.28
12.10
All Other Customers
All Water Use
BI.MONTHLY BASE
SERVICE CHARGE
BI-MONTHtY CONSUMPTION CHARGES
PER
30
Tiered rates range from 0.8 cents to 1.2 cents per gallon
]H
15
M Water Rate Structure
Fixed Service Charges
. Based on meter size and capacity
- Currently generates roughly 44oh of tolal rate revenues
. No rate structure modifications recommended
- Recommend reduction of fixed charges coupled with increases
to water consumption charges & charging for every unit of water
Water Consumption Charges
Residential
- Bill for all water use (coupled with reduction in fixed meter charge)
- Modify tier breakpoints based on analysis of water use
- All single family homes to be billed via tiered rate structure
Commercial/M ulti-Familv/Other
- Maintain uniform rate for all water use
- Eliminate surcharge for Burlingame Hills/Unincorporated
31
fu Proposed Rates ($2.5M CIP)
BI.MONTHLY BASE SERVICE C}IARGES
Meter Size
s/g'&y4" s83.6o
t" L42.t6
t-L/2" 276.N
2" M3.24
3' 836.34
4" 1,396.68
6" 2,7U.
8" 4,45"1.*
Meter Size
sl8" &3/4"
1"
L-y2"
2"
3"
4"
6"
8"
572.2s
120,42
240.83
385.33
722.50
t,20/..t7
2,40&33
3,853.33
s76.s8
127.61
255.27
40&43
765.80
t,276.13
2,552.67
4,0u.27
s81.18
13s-30
270.@
432.
811.80
1,353.m
2,706.m
4,129.@
Revised Tiers
0 - 4000 gal
4001 - 8,000 gal
&001 - 10000gal
16001 - 240009a1
24000 gal & above
1
2
3
4
5
so.m
8.44
8.9r
10.28
t2.r0
All Water UseWater Use 9.09 s9.88 s10.47 s11.10
coNSuMPTrON CHARGES (s PER 1,OOO GAttONS)
s9.10
10.08
11.06
L2.O3
rit.00
s9.6s
10.69
L,,72
12.75
13.78
s8.s8
9.51
10.43
11.35
L2.26
0 - 2,000 gal
2,001 - 9000 gal
9,001 - 18,000 gal
1&001 - 30,0009a1
30,001 gal & above
32 Rates incorporate overall rate increases and rate structure modifications
16
b*\ta.
d#il
Current
Rates
Proposed Rates Effective January 1
20L7 2018 2019
Overall Rate lncrease %g.tr/" 6.0% 6.W"
t Single Family lmpacts ($2.5M GIP)
Monthly
Use
(keal)
Current
Monthly
Charge
Proiected Monthly Charges
Jan-1
20L7
Jan-1
2018
Jan-1
20t9
3
5
6
Lowest 25%
Median
Average
58.68
75.80
u.7L
52.80
82.74
93.L7
66.57
87.71
98.77
70.s8
92.9
L@..7t
33
h Water Rate Options
r Overall level of rate increases
. 9% 6% 60/orate increasesneededtosustainminimumcapital fundingat$2.5M/yr
- Additional 1 0% rate increases needed to restore capital funding to $4.5M / yr
r Water rate structure
- Potential modification to single family tier breakpoints
- No change to fixed meter charge structure (other than initial rate reduction)
r Years of rate increases
, Recommendation is to adopt water rates for next 3 years
34
17
m
*1 *
t
+
*.rA*...,\
M Next Steps
x August 15 Study Session: Obtain feedback
r September 23; Mail Prop 218 Notices
. Notices must mailed at least 45 days prior to the public hearing
r November 7 (tentativel: Proposition 218 Public Hearing
. Rates subject to "majority protest"
x Goal: New water rates effective January 2017
35 E
Questions / Discussion
36 -m
1B
!
19
Backup SIides
# Proposed Rates ($4.Swl CIP)
40 Rates incorporate overall rate increases and rate structure modifications
BI'MONTHLY BASE SERVICE CHARGES
Meter Size
sl8" &314" srrl.6o
1" 1u.16
r-r12" 276.fi
2" 4/3.24
3" 836.34
4' 1,396.68
6" 2,784.98
g' 44s7.68
Meter Size
sl$'&3/4"
t"
t-112"
4'.
6'
572.2s
720.42
24/J.83
385.33
722.50
1,2M.77
e40&33
3,8s3.33
s78.7s
131.25
262,49
419.99
787.47
7,?12.6
2,624.91
4,t99.
S85.84
143,O7
286.13
457.81
858.r()
1,4{.67
2,861.34
4,574.t4
1,000 GArroNs)
Revised Tlers
0-40mgal
4,@1- &000 gal
8,m1- 16,mogal
r5,m1- 24000 gal
24000gal & above
s0.m
8.44
8.91
10.28
12.10
All Water Use AllWater Use9.09 Stt.14$9.88 s70.7
Br-MONTHTY CONSUMPTTON CHARGES (s
Tier 1
Iier 2
Iier 3
Tier 4
Iier 5
99.36
,.o.37
11,37
12,37
t3,37
910.20
11.30
12,39
,i1.48
14,57
s&s8
9.s1
10,43
11.35
12.26
O- 2,mogal
2,m1 - 9,000 gal
9,001 - 1&0m gal
1&001- 3o,mgal
30,001 gal & above
20
Current
Rates
Proposed Rates Effective January 1
2077 20ta 2019
Overall Rate lncrease %9.O%9.V/.9.0,6
,ffi Single Family lmpacts ($4.5M CIP)
Monthly
Use
(kcal)
Current
Monthly
Charge
Projected Monthly Charges
Jan-1
20t7
Jan-1
2018
Jan-1
20L9
3
5
6
Lowest 25%
Media n
Average
s8.68
75.80
u.7L
62.80
82.74
93.L7
58.45
90.19
101.57
74.63
98.33
tLo.72
41
SINGLE FAMILY WATER USE
City of Burlingame
Monthly Single Family Residential Water Bill Distribution 2015/16
10%
g%
$n/o
Percentage of montily reeidential
E3r*
!
B sv.,
B5%LI
! or"
a
s
2r/o
10to
0%o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112't31415161718192021222324252627282930
Monthly Water Use (Kgal)
42
rf
r
1.8% of bills
> 30 kgal
21
t.
E
t STNGLE FAMTLY TTERS
Current Tiers
r009r
, 00%
i EO.r
7otr
60*
.*
: 40%
i
30*
20!a
)
t0!r
:| 095
Proposed Tiers
10096
90*
8016
7(rt
80ra
50!i
4091
30ta
20*
1ota
016
lTicr 5:
lTi.r 4:
iifi€r 3:
!lirr 2:
rTier l:
% Bill!% Ur!o/o Revs % Bills % Us€% Rrvr
43
0- a000gal (not billed)
2,001 - 9,0009a1
9,001- 18,000eal
18,m1- 30,0009a1
30,m1tal & above
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tler 3
Tler 4
Tler 5
0 - 4@0gal
4001 - 8,000 tal
&(x)1- 16,0009a1
10(x)1- 240009a1
240009a1 & above
Et*
34.5!t
8S-
(t*
l0 !'i
s160
s14O
s120
Slo
se)
Seo
s40
$20
So
Historical& Projected Monthly Water Charges
Without accounting for any water conservation
140.90
132.92
3a
MOD.illGH 18 kgal
{bi-month,y up)11.44 r11.44
03.40
MEDIAN 10 k8.l
(ti-monthly 6!)91.45 92.99
t5.26 47.77
79.46 82,14
74.05
'4.05
7s.80 75.80
70.32 70.586.11 65.22 56.5'
62.4r 62.t0
58.r8 s8.68 58.58
50.53 50,53
54.22 54.44
44.54
qz.gg 5o'49
!4.71 $.zz l1'@
LOW: 6 kgal
{bi-monthV use)
- 14.62
30.92
20ll 2012 2013 2014 201s 2015 2017 2018 20192006 2m7 2fl)8 2(D9 2010
44
22
Tier 1
Tiet 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
Tier 5 m
8.CI 8.8*
27t$.la
&.1+
7It(
9.S%
t9.i'l
5r.8a
6.*
7.4!i
31.r!t
It2.i
{3.s,tr
s_*y.lx
9S.90
59.06
Historical & Projected Monthly Water Charges
9r60
9140
9120
s1m
s80
S60
$40
s20
5o
90
MOD-HlGHi 24 > 18 l(tal 22.42 122.46 r2t.7
(bi-monthty usel r3.23 111.44
105.57
98,39
WPlC.At HOME: 12 > 9 kgal
{bi"monthly use}1-69 91.69
a2J3 84.71 87.13
80.56 sb.*82.18
76"93 77.52
13.71 71.72 70.58
66,84.,.56,57
62.29. 6?]29 62.27 60.?9 58.68
62.80
55.15 57.75
49.68 51.41
44.65 44.65 47,9L
39.87 tOW:8>6kBal
(bi-monthly ure)35.51
2@6 2@7 2008 2@9 2010 2011 2012 20tt 20t4 2075 20L5 2077 2018 2019
With 25% water conservation from 2013 - 2015
45
Single Family Residential Monthly Water Rates 2mr
914O
$120
$1oo
s80
960
s40
Szo
9o
cee$ *r'
"P'* o{*'' *Cc
"e'
a Fired Morthly Charges
t Wat6 Consumption Charges
Typical Bill
84.42 M.5G 34,71 86.50 87.24
77.11 't8.01
66.3t 69.53 7O.4? 74,74
,+-r5.,19€-6,
58.60
Bills based on I h6f monthlywater use, except as noted.
{::in
Rates effective August 2016
46
23
25% ConseMtion
ove. I Years
\\....i
tT-----
4r.61
q
q
d
o;
c;
Fo)\ts
q
I
q
c
qi
q
q
d)
.!
Single Family Residential Monthly Sewer Rates
Based on flat rate or 6 hcl (a.5 kgal) of monthly winter watrr usc
$160
$140
$1 20
Usage Charges
r Fixed Monthly Charges
$100
ll ,,* wiim1qryffigH /,Wi\iil
"".1$."$4$**c.+N{}.-$.:1ffi
Rat$ eftective August 2016
47
$250
Combined Monthly Water & Sewer Rate Survey
Typicol Single Family Home
T
&lSewer Rates
rWater Rates
$200
$150
$100
tr,
ryH u!!
r""$i${;$l*"\;'..s"*:$ffi
Rates eflective August 2016
ffilw,w
ffi
E
dits
I
r{
N
@
ffi
tffi
,W
R
s
No.i
1No
ts
6
€
oto
48
24
qo
oo
N
F@
od
@
o
C'
q
6
o!q
F 6
o
ri
tsdts
M Water Gapital lmprovement Projects
49
\t
I
Sin !e Famil Rate lm cts
50
Bl-Monthly
Use
lk.al)
'%ol
Bills
In Block
% ol Sills
at or
Below
Projected Bi-Monthly BillsCurrenl
Bi-Monthly
Bill
Jan-1
m77
Jan-1
2018
Jan-,
201S
+Year Compounded Inarease
S per S per :!'Year Arg
Bill Month lo.r % Annual %
Overall Rate Increase (impacts dll vary)9/" 694 6%22.5% 7.W"
zoulrs
2.3%
3.ea
5.96
9.zu
L3.5%
19.t%
2.1/.
7.4%
3.!,4
4.ra
s.6%
S83.Go
83.60
83.50
92.M
1@.48
108.92
5i2.25
80.83
89.41
97.W
106.57
116.08
576.s8
85.68
94.74
103.88
772.9A
723.6
s81.18
90.83
100.48
110.13
119.78
130.47
.LgA
8.6%
20,TA
t9.
19-T/o
19.84
-t.@6
ZA/o
6.3%
6.
6.AA
6.t/.
152.42)
7.23
16.88
18.09
19.30
21.55
(51.21)
3.62
a.M
9.05
9.55
10.78
7
8
9
6.5%
6.VA
6.AA
6.50/.
\qA
25.e/"
32.!/o
39.7/"
45.70/.
s1 664
133.14
143.22
153.30
164.36
175 41
141.16
151.85
162.54
174.26
185 Sa
117.36
15.80
t34.24
142.64
151 5S
125.59
135.10
lM.61
155.04
165 47
23.80
26.05
28.30
31.58
34 39
11.90
13.03
14.15
15.79
17 )O
20.?a
20.7%
2r.L%
22.7%
)) T/"
6.3%
6.50/.
6.6'/"
6.9/o
7 1"4
11
t2
13
t4
15
s.!a
4.7"4
4.404
3.94
3.s%
56.q/.
67.6/.
6.tr/6
69.8/o
13.4%
150.S0
169.41
t74.32
t87.23
196.14
175.90
186.33
196.76
207.19
271.62
186.48
797.54
208.60
279.&
230.72
197.70
209.42
221.14
232.86
244.58
7.?/o
7.3%
7.4./"
7.s%
7.6.,4
37.20
40.01
42.42
45.63
48.44
23.7/.
2i.6%
24.ei
24.4%
18.60
20.01
2t.41
22.a2
24.22
16
17
18
19
20
3.ea
2.5.4
2.!A
2.4,4
76.4%
79.to/o
81.6./.
a3.9/.
85.9/6
205.05
2!3.
222.87
233.15
243.43
228.05
239.40
250.75
262.10
273.45
241.74
253.81
265.U
277.87
289.90
256.30
259.05
281.80
2%.55
307.30
51.25
55.09
58.93
61.40
63.81
7.'t%
7.gn
4.7%
a.\%
a.t%
25.63
27.55
29.41
30.70
31.94
25.C,4
25.7%
26.4%
26.3%
26.7,4
27
22
23
24
)s
1.60/"
7.3./.
7.7/6
1 tr/"
47.50/.
a9.e/.
90.3%
9t.40/o
9) So/"
253.71
253.99
274.27
2U.55
?q a3
284.80
296.!s
307.50
318.85
tal 11
301.93
313.96
325.9
338.02
351 0'
320.05
332.80
345.55
358.30
?7) M
66.34
68.81
7L.24
73.75
33.17
34.41
35.64
36.88
26.1%
26.U/o
25.9/.
25
3
4
0
8.1"/
8.@r'
8.ffr'
8.G/
Sewer Rates & Finances
51 m
9roo
9e0
$80
s70
960
$s0
$40
$30
S2o
Sro
9o
Historical Monthly Sewer Charges
With roughly 16% reduction in billed sewer use from 2013 - 2016
Irh".-
50 ,3.50 7150
MOD-H|GH| 12 > 10 kSal
{bi-moothly ure}67.18
61.2558.19 58.19
49.67 49.67 TYPICAL HOMEr 9.5 > 8 kgal
(bi-monthly use)
49.00
4i.3t)44,79
41.40 39.2t 39.28
35.86 15"75 76"7\ 15.75
12.74 12.25 33.69
24.29 30.63
20,70 22.65 2rL81 2rU1
LOW:6>5kgal
{bi'monthly use}
2m6 20fJ7 2008 2009 20lO 2011 20L2 2013 2014 2015 2015
52
26
Bw
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 8/L5/16
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting on July 512016
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Ha1l
Council Chambers.
.,PLEDGE OF ALLEG NCE TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was 1ed by Steve Duncan.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE
4 REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
The Council met in closed session but no reportable action was taken.
5. UPCOMING EYENTS
Mayor Keighran reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City.
6. PRESENTATIONS
l.COMMENDATION OFFICER SABA
Police Chief Wollman stated that at the Burlingame High School graduation, Officer Saba acted quickly
when he witnessed a young rnan choking. He stated that as a result of Officer Saba's steadiness and quick
thinking he was able to save the young man's life by administering the Heimlich maneuver. Police Chief
Wollman thanked him and awarded him the lifesaving medal for his efforts.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
A Burlingame resident asked the Council to place the citizen petition on the ballot.
Burlingame City Council
Unapploved Minutes
\-
1
July 5, 2016
I
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 8/L5/L68. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Keighran asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any items from the
Consent Calendar. Councilmember Brownrigg pulled items 8b and 8d.
Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt items 8a, 8c, 8e, and 8f; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz
The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
a.APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 20,2016
CC Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes of June 20,2016.
b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARD ING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO
GOLDEN BAY CO NSTRUCTION. INC. FOR TIIE BAYFRONT IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT. CITY PROJECT NO. 83840" AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
DPW Murluza requested Council adopt ResolutionNumber 73-2016
Councilmember Brownrigg thanked staff for taking on this project. He asked if staff reached out to
potential/other Bayfront redevelopment projects about assisting in paying for the necessary ADA
improvements. DPW Murfuza stated that the ADA improvements that are incorporated in tonight's staff
report are not within other project areas.
Councilmember Colson asked if Avalon Academy would benefit from the ADA improvements. DPW
Murluza replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Brow*igg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 73-2016;' seconded by
Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote; 5-0.
c.APPROVAL OF INVESTMENT POLICY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17
Finance Director Augustine requested Council approve the Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2016-17.
d.LUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
A ONE-YEAR SERVICE ORDER FOR IN RMATION TECIINOLOGY SERVICES
F'ROM TIIE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY
Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 74-2016.
Councilmember Beach asked for Finance Director Augustine to discuss the additional value the City receives
by contracting with the City of Redwood City for IT services.
Finance Director Augustine stated that Redwood City charges Burlingame only for the hours the City uses.
Therefore, if the City uses less than estimated, the City is reimbursed for the difference at the end of the year.-
As well, she explained that by contracting with Redwood City for IT services, Burlingame gains the
experience of 14 individuals who are experienced with the software the City uses.
2
Burlingame City Council July 5, 2016
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 8/L5/L6
Councilmember Brownrigg asked that the next time the contract is up for renewal, that the City put out an
\- RFP to see what else is available to the City.
Councilmember Colson discussed not having to house an IT department in an already overcrowded City
Hall.
Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 74-2016; seconded by Vice Mayor
Ortrz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote; 5-0.
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPRO VING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESPONSE
LETTER TO THE SAN MATEO COI]NTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT "BODY' CAMERAS -THE REEL TRUTH"
Police Chief Wollman requested Council adopt Resolution Number 75-2016.
f. ADOPTION A RESOLUTION AUTHO G THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITII BUREAU AS NORHT
AMERICA.INC.TO PLAN CHECK AND INSPECTI ON SERVICES
PROVIDED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT _ BUILDING
DIVISION FISCAL YEAR 2016.17:AUTHORIZATION TO PAY FOR PAST
SERVICES RENDERED
CDD Meeker requested Council adopt Resolution Number 76-2016.
9. PUBLIC IIEARTNGS
There were no public hearings.
10.STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. ADOPTION OF A LUTION AUTHORIZING TIIE CITY AGER TO EXECUTE
UM OF REGARDING THE
DEVELOPMENT
City Attomey Kane requested Council adopt Resolution Number 77-2016.
City Attorney Kane presented the staff repoft concerning the authorization of the City Manager to execute a
Memorandum of Understanding with the developer of the Burlingame Point project. She explained that in
2012, the City and 350 Beach Road, LLC entered into a development agreement for the developrnent of 300
Airport Boulevard. After which, 350 Beach Road, LLC assigned all of its interests in the properly and
development approvals to Burlingame Point LLC. Upon acquiring the agreement, Burlingame Point LLC
determined that they wanted to make adjustrnents to the originally approved project including the use of
different facades and moving the parking facilities. City Attomey Kane explained that Burlingame Point
LLC's adjustments required staff to make minor augmentations to the development agreement. Accordingly,
the City Attomey presented tl-re Council with the Mernorandum of Understanding to clarify the changes and
\-."he obligations of Burlingarne Point LLC.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
J
July 5,2016
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 8/L5/!6
Mayor Keighran asked if the changes to the project have been approved by the Planning Commission. City
Attorney Kane replied that final approval from the Planning Commission has yet to occur but there have
been two hearings to discuss the design review amendments.
Mayor Keighran asked if because of the changes a new environmental report would be required. City
Attorney Kane replied in the negative.
Mayor Keighran opened up the item for public comment.
Steve Atkinson, Burlingame Point LLC representative, stated that he had worked closely with the City
Attorney on the Memorandum of Understanding.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked Mr. Atkinson when the project would start. Mr. Atkinson explained that
Burlingame Point LLC is hoping to finalize their project with the Planning Commission in August.
Councilmember Beach asked that Burlingame Point LLC work closely with organizations like Commute.org
to get single occupancy vehicles off the road. Mr. Atkinson replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 77-2016; seconded by Vice Mayor
Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote; 5-0.
b N REMOVAL OF GARBAGE CONTAINERS AFTER COLLECTI
COMMERCIAL AREAS
City Attorney Kane presented her staff report conceming the current regulations regarding the prompt
removal of garbage containers in commercial areas. She explained that this staff report was the result of the
Council's concems about garbage container being left out for extended periods in the downtown area.
City Attorney Kane stated that the current ordinance allows for garbage containers to remain on the street for
18 hours after they are emptied. As well, she stated that the ordinance does not distinguish between
commercial and non-commercial areas. She also explained that her office received some complaints about
garbage containers being left out at the intersection of Primrose and California. She stated that if the Council
deems it necessary to amend the ordinance that the amendments should add specification and clarity to the
law so that it is easily enforced.
Mayor Keighran asked if staff knew Recology's hours for garbage pickup. Finance Director Augustine said
that usually pickups are done before noon, but that if issues arise the trucks may be delayed.
Councilmember Colson asked how often the commercial garbage containers are picked up. Finance Director
Augustine stated that it was based on the individual business' account.
Councilmember Colson stated that businesses with daily pickups will constantly have their containers on the
street with the i 8 hour allowance.
Mayor Keighran stated that 18 hours was too long of a time period for containers to remain on the streets in ,1
the commercial areas. She explained that it took away from the time and money spent on improving
downtown Burlingame.
4
Burlingame City Council July 5, 2016
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date:8/L5/L6
Mayor Keigh,ran opened up the item for public comment.
Burlingame resident Russ Cohen stated the Council should talk with DBID about policing these issues and
reaching out to the local businesses.
Mayor Keigh,ran suggested amending the ordinance by stating that containers must be removed from the
street by t:b0 p.m. She stated that she understood that there would be the occasional situation where this
couldnit happen. However, she stated that staff would be able to easily determine a violation of the proposed
ordinance versus Recology not having completed their pickups for that day.
Councilmember Brownrigg agreed with the Mayor stating that the City should establish a time to put the
containers out and a time to bring the containers in. He suggested that the City work with DBID prior to
amending the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Oriiz stated that the City should set the 1:00 p.m. restriction on a trial basis.
Councilmember Beach asked if the City discussed this issue with DBID. CDD Meeker replied in the
negative. Councilmember Beach agreed with Councilmember Brownrigg stating that the City should first
work with DBID before further regulations are enacted.
Mayor Keighran stated that she would rather put a policy in place and then send out a notice to DBID to
assist in the program. Vice Mayor Ortiz agreed.
\-. Councilmember Colson advocated for substantive teeth in the regulation by placing a time by which
containers should be removed from the street. She stated that this would make it easier on staff.
Councilmember Beach asked her colleagues in which areas of the City, they wanted the 1:00 p.m. restriction.
Mayor Keighran stated in commercial areas. Council briefly discussed the different commercial areas in
the City and if the 1:00 p.m. restriction was necessary in less busy areas. Mayor Keighran also suggested
requiring businesses to label their garbage containers.
Mayor Keighran asked her colleagues if they should have the 1:00 p.m. restriction apply to all commercial
areas or focus on Broadway and Burlingame Avenue.
Councilmember Beach advocated for focusing on Broadway and Burlingame Avenue.
Vice Mayor Ortiz stated that he believed the City should be consistent and apply it to all commercial areas.
DPW Murtuza stated that the problem only really occurs in areas where they don't have the room to place
dumpsters, meaning Broadway and Burlingame Avenue.
Mayor Keighran and Council requested staff to draft an ordinauce to requiring garbage containers be
rernoved from the streets and sidewalks in the Broadway and Burlingame business districts by 1:00 p.m.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
5
July 5, 2016
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 8/1-5/L6
c.DIRECTI ON ON POSSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS TO CONS CTION HOURS
City Attomey Kane presented the staff report conceming what, if any, changes should be made to current
regulations regarding allowed hours for construction. She explained that this matter came up because of the
intensification of work on single family houses. Currently, Burlingame's construction hours are: weekdays:
7:00 a.m. -7:00 p.m., Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. and Sundays and Holidays: 10:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.
She stated that the staff report included a chart of neighboring city's construction hours. Not included on the
chart was Hillsborough which she explained had the following construction hours: weekdays: 8:00 a.m. -
5:00 p.m. and Saturday 10:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Councilmember Beach asked if staff received a significant amount of complaints about Sunday construction
or whether the complaints were more generahzed concerning the high level of construction. City Attorney
Kane stated that the most common complaint concerned construction workers unloading their equipment and
starting their generators prior to the relevant construction hour start time.
Mayor Keighran stated that the main complaint she hears concems construction on Sundays and holidays.
Mayor Keighran opened up the item for public comment.
Burlingame resident Russ Cohen spoke about the uptick in the economy and that the ordinance was drafted
to encourage development during a time of economic lows.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the ordinance only covered projects that required permits. He stated that
his concern was for homeowners who undertook projects on their own during weekends. Attomey Kane
stated that ordinance applies to any projects that require permits.
Vice Mayor Ortiz stated he would be in favor of making the start time on weekdays later and eliminating
Sunday construction hours.
Mayor Keighran agreed with Vice Mayor Orliz stating that the start time on weekdays should be 8:00 a.m.
Councilmember Beach stated that she was concerned about individuals who took on their own home
improvement projects and could only do the work on weekends. Accordingly, she asked if the construction
hours could exempt people doing work on their own homes on the weekend.
Mayor Keighran stated she was concerned with the enforcement aspect of Councihnember Beach's
suggestion.
Councihnember Brownrigg stated his agreement with Councilmember Beach to allow homeowners to work
on their own property on Sundays.
City Attomey Kane stated that she had concerns about applying the construction hour restriction differently
depending on one's identity. However, she added if the Cor.rncil has an interest in letting srrall projects go
forwald, they could try to tailor the ordinance to exempt srnall projects like interior work or work done by
one individual using hand tools.
Burlingame City Council
Unapploved Minutes
6
July 5, 2016
Agenda Item 8a
qrrd Meeting Date: 8/L5/t6
Mayor Keighran made a motion refrflesting staff draft an amendment to the ordinance to eliminate
\- ssn5lruction hours on Sundays and'holidays and start weekday hours at 8:00 a.m.; seconded by Vice Mayor
Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call; 5-0.
\-
d.NAL REPOR OF RESTRICTI
VEIIICLES
City Attorney Kane presented the staff report concerning the Police Department's decision to cease
enforcement of the municipal code that bans sleeping in vehicles. She explained that the City received
complaints about people sleeping in their cars or RVs. She stated that people were unhappy with stafls
response to these complaints and accordingly she felt it was important to explain the situation to the Council.
City Attorney Kane discussed the Ninth Circuit case Desertrain that stated you cannot enforce bans against
people living in their cars partially because it is prejudicial against the homeless. She stated that Burlingame
has a similar ordinance to the one in Desertrain Therefore, in order to comply with the case law of
Desertrain the City stopped enforcing the ban on sleeping in vehicles. Instead, the City focused on
enforcing parking limitations, noise violations and using other mechanisms such as referrals to health and
human services to ensure that Burlingame's streets remain safe for all residents and visitors.
Councilmember Colson discussed individuals "airbnbing" trailers in their backyards. City Attorney Kane
stated that those issues are still enforceable as there are ordinances that ban RVs from residential areas.
Councilmember Brownrigg added that he was glad the City wouldn't be enforcing this rule.
11.REPORTS AND ANNOT]N
Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
There were no future agenda items.
13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
a.COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES:Y BOARD OF TRUSTEES - MAY 24.2016
C
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Keighran adjoumed the meeting at 9:01 p.m. in memory of Helen Whelan.
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
1
\,
July 5, 2016
I
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date:8/ts/t6
\-
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting on August 112016
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall
Council Chambers.
,,PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by Rosalie McCloud.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE
\-
4.REPORT UT FROM CLOSED SESSION
There was no closed session
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Keighran reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City.
6. PRESENTATIONS
There were no presentations.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Randy Uang frorn Breathe California discussed the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors sponsored
Marijuana Education Initiative. He asked Burlingame residents to participate in the Initiative's survey that
can be found at: http ://tinwrl. com/breathepoll'
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor I(eighran asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any items from the
1-.Consent Calendar. No items were pulled. Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt the Consent
Calendar; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortrz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote; 5-0.
1
Burlingarne City Council
Unapproved Minutes
August 1,2016
n
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 8/L5/L6
i. APPROVAL OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR,S OUT.OF-STATE TRAYEL
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council approval of her out-of-state travel
b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SER\TICES WITII
GROUP 4 ARCIIITECTURE & PLANNING INC.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 18-2016.
c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PROCURE
EIGHT NEW LIGHT POLES AND EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT
WITH TENNYSON ELECLRIE.I}LC.FOR THE MI]I(BAY FIELD LIGIITING PROJECT,
AND APPROVING A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $110.514
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 19-2016.
9. PUBLIC IIEARINGS
There were no public hearings.
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
1
a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY
CLERK AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF TIIE INITIATIYE PETITION ENTITLED "AN
ORDINANCE TO ENACT RENT STABILIZATION AND JUST CAUSE FOR EVICTION
AND REPEAL PRIOR RESTRICTIONS ON THE REGULATION OF SALE OR RENTAL
PRICE OF REAL ESTATE''
City Attomey Kane presented the informational report discussing the sufficiency of the pending rent
stabilization and just cause for eviction ordinance petition. She stated that during the circulation of the
petition, the California Apartment Association ("CAA") sent a letter to the City Clerk. The letter informed
the City Clerk that she had a duty to reject the petition based on its failure to put forth the full text of
Measure T.
City Attorney Kane reviewed the proposed ordinance that the proponents circulated, stating that the
ordinance spends a rnajority of its tirne setting up a rental housing commission and establishing rent
stabilization. Additionally, the proposed ordinance includes a short section superseding and invalidating any
previous legislation on the matter including Measure T.
City Attorney I(ane stated that she looked at this matter and reviewed the case law that both the CAA and the
proponents offered. She stated that while the CAA's argument was not without merit, she believed that the
touchstone was to prevent voter confusion. Accordingly, she stated that because the proposed initiative
mentioned Measure T and included the fulI text of the proponent's proposed ordinance, voter confusion was
avoided. Therefore, she stated that the Clerk should cerlify the petition
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
2
August 1,2016
,
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date z 8/L5/76
Councilmember Beach asked if there was any statutory requirement that Measure T be attached to the
'r-- petition. Furthermore, she asked if Council was responsible for researching and understanding case law that
might apply to the process defined in the Elections Code. City Attorney Kane discussed the definition of full
text that is found in the Elections Code and stated that what the proponents had presented in their proposed
legislation met this requirement. As well, she explained that pursuant to the Elections Code it is the role of
the City Clerk to undertake the verification of signatures and if they surpass the number required to certify
the petition and present it to Council. She added that it was the role of the Council, after the Clerk certified
the petition, to determine what option under Elections Code Section 9214 (which would be presented in the
next staff report) the City should take.
Councilmember Beach asked if there was anlhing the City could do at this point to publish Measure T. City
Attorney Kane stated that it could be placed on the City's website but that under the process defined in the
Elections Code it would not be included in the Voter Information Pamphlet.
Councilmember Colson asked if either CAA or the proponent have the option to litigate the decision the
Council makes conceming accepting the City Clerk's certificate. City Attorney Kane replied in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Colson asked if litigation could delay the measure from being placed on the November
ballot. City Attomey Kane replied that Courts try to expedite these cases to ensure that the matter is settled
prior to an election.
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer presented the staff report requesting Council adopt Resolution Number 80-2016.
\-. She reviewed the background of the petition process, stating that on March 31,2076, the proponents
delivered their notice of intent and proposed initiative to her office. At that time, the proponents informed
her of their intent to place the measure on the November ballot. She explained that because this was not a
regularly scheduled municipal election, they would need to get l5o/o of the registered voters in Burlingame's
signatures for the measure to qualify. Next, City Clerk Hassel-Shearer stated that based on the date that the
proponents published their notice of intent, the City had 15,544 registered and therefore l1Yo is 2,332.
City Clerk Hassel-shearer stated that on July 5, 2016, the proponents filed their petition consisting of 408
sections and a raw count of 3,508 signatures. After completing the raw count, the petition was delivered to
the County Elections Office who conducted a full verification of the petition. On July 21,2016, the County
Elections Office infomed the City Clerk that 2,37 5 signatures were valid equaling 15.28% of the registered
voters of Burlingame.
Based on the County Elections Office's review, the City Clerk deemed the petition sufficient and signed a
certifi cate of suffi ciency.
Mayor Keighran opened the item for public comment.
Brant Tumer stated his appreciation of the City Clerk and City Attorney's work.
Burlingame resident Lany Stevenson stated his concems about the proposed initiative.
\,tsurlingame resident Bob Ferris voiced his opinion that people understood what they were signing and
therefore the petition should be certified.
aJ
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
August 1,2016
a
a
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 8/L5/L6
Councilmember Brownrigg stated his appreciation that the City requested a full verification of the signatures
instead of a random sampling. He also expressed his opinion that legally the City needed to certify the
petition.
Vice Mayor Ortrz thanked the City Attorney for her legal research. He stated that he was not convinced that
CAA's complaint had any merit and therefore the petition should be certified.
Councilmember Beach thanked the community for reaching out to her and stated that based on the City
Attorney's research she concumed with her councilmembers that the petition should be certified.
Councilmember Colson thanked the City Attorney and the City Clerk for their work. She stated that
whenever a new ordinance is proposed there are amynad of laws that are affected. Accordingly, she didn't
see it as the intent of the Elections Code to require the proponents to attach all laws that are affected.
Therefore she agreed that the petition should be certified.
Mayor Keighran echoed the sentiments of her councilmembers.
Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 80-2016; seconded by Vice Mayor
Ortiz. This motion passed unanimously by voice vote; 5-0.
b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF A MUNICIPAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 8.2016 AS REQUIRED BY TIIE PROVISIONS
OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO GENERAL LAW CITIES AND
SUBMITTING TO THE VOTERS A QUESTION RELATING TO AN INITIATIVE
MEASURE; DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL
ANALYSIS: DIRECTING THE CITY A AND THE CITY CLERK TO PREPARE
TIIE DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO PLA THE INITIATIVE ON THE BALLOTI AND
REQUESTING THE COI]NTY OF SAN MATEO TO CONSLIDATE A MT]NICIPAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION ON
NOVEMBER 8, 2016 PURSUANT TO ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 10403
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt Resolution Number 8i-2016.
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer presented the staff report outlining Council's options after adopting the City
Clerk's certificate of sufficiency. Slie stated that pursuant to Elections Code Section 9214 the City has three
options: (1) adopt the ordinance without any alteration; (2) order a special election (November 8, 2016); or
(3) order an information report pursuant to Section 9212.
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer explained that the first option was unavailable to the City Council. She stated that
because the initiative proposes to repeal Ordinance 1356 (Measure T) which was enacted by a vote of the
people, the Council couldn't adopt it. lnstead, the initiative must be voted on by the registered voters of
Burlingame.
She explained that under the second option, the City Council could call for a special election on the measure
which would be consolidated with the Novernber 8, 2016 Presidential General Election. She stated that if thel
Council called for the special election, Council would need to adopt Resolution 8l-2016 that includes the
ballot measure question, a request for the City Attomey to draft an impartial analysis and a request for the
4
Burlingame City Council August 1,2016
Unapproved Minutes
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 8/L5/L6
fulI text (22 page ordinance) to be included in the Voter Information Pamphlet. As well, she stated that the
\- Council would need to determine whether or not they wished to write the argument against the measure. She
explained that under the Elections Code, the proponents get first rights at the argument in favor of the
measure and the Council gets first.ights at the argument against the measure.
If the City Council called for the special election it would cost the City approximately $55,000 including the
$18,000 to print the fulItext in the Voter lnformation Pamphlet.
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer explained that the third option allowed the City Council to order an informational
report educating the community on different effects of the proposed ordinance under Elections Code Section
9212. She stated that if the City Council ordered this report, staff would have 30 calendar days to research,
draft and present the report to the City Council. Accordingly, she stated that if this option was chosen the
measure would miss the August 12th deadline for it to be placed on the November 8, 2016 ballot.
Accordingly, the City Council would have to call for a special election that would occur in the middle of
December. She explained that because a December election would not be consolidated with another district,
the City would have to pay the entire cost of the election. She stated that it would cost the City
approximately $ 1 45,000.
Councilmember Beach asked what the cost of the 9212report would be. City Manager Goldman stated that
it wouid probably be above $10,000 and that the City would need to hire a consulting Soup.
Councilmember Beach asked if the City Council requested 9212report, would the report provide the City
with options other than the three outlined by the City Clerk. City Attorney Kane stated that after staff
r-.present s the 9272 report to the Council that the Council will have to call for an election. She stated that if
Measure T didn't exist that the Council would have had the option to adopt the ordinance after the 9212
report but because they don't have that option, the Council must cail for an election.
Councilmember Beach asked if there was any other way to get this information. City Attomey Kane stated
that the Council could ask for any type of information they want. City Manager Goldman stated that staff
would be able to prepare an informational report for the City Council by the September 19tr'meeting.
Mayor Keighran asked if what the staff was describing was a modified 9212. City Attorney Kane responded
affirmatively.
Mayor Keighran asked how it is different from a 9212 report City Attorney Kane stated that its difference is
simply procedural. She explained that a 9212 report would delay the election while the Council asking for a
modified 9272 report would allow the measure to be placed on the November 8,2076 ballot.
Vice Mayor Ortrz asked if the report would make it into the Voter Infonnation Pamphlet. City Attorney
Kane replied in the negative but stated that they could post the report on the website and make it available to
the public.
Mayor I(eighran opened the itern up for public comment.
Diana Reddy, Torn McCloskey, Cynthia Corne11, Tom Homblower, Daniel Saver, Torn Linebarger, Adela
t-,deadows, Steve Goveia, Sandra, Michael Ianneo, Kristen Parks, Cynthia Wakotich, Naveed Safipour, Eric
Br.rrlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
5
August 1,2016
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date:. 8/75/L6
Sandler, Anne Bellows, Amy Giuliano, Bob Ferris, Rod and a few other unnamed speakers spoke in favor of 1
placing the measure on the November, 2016 ballot.
Steve Stluka, Maria Iskin, Roman I., Tom Tved, Erik Winkler, Tim Auran, Paul Beaudreau, John Gieseker,
Joe Galligan, Martha Mulligan, Larry Stevenson spoke in favor of Option 3.
Councilmember Beach stated that she strongly felt that the community needed an informational report on the
impact that the proposed initiative would/could have on the residents of Burlingame and the City as a whole.
She stated her support of getting information to the voters and also placing the measure on the November
ballot. She explained that she was concerned to hear that people signed the petition without reading it
because an important part of the democratic process is transparency. She discussed the idea that it is a
disservice to the community to sign onto an ordinance without reading the document and understanding its
far reaching scope. She urged voters to get informed and understand the proposed legislation.
Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the difference in voter turnout rates at special elections (30%) versus
presidential elections (80%). Accordingly he felt the measure should be on the November ballot. He
expressed his belief that the proposed legislation is flawed. He stated that he was particularly concerned that
the Rental Housing Commission is not held accountable to the voters or the council and instead has
unfettered power. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the known housing issue in the community but
stated that the proposed ordinance would not solve this issue and instead goes too far.
Councilmember Brownrigg stated because the proposed legislation is flawed, he believes the Council should
write the argument against the initiative.
Vice Mayor Ortiz stated that tonight's meeting is not about the community's opinion on rent control but
rather about whether or not the measure goes on the November,2016 ballot. He stated he wasn't convinced
that Option 3 would make for a better process instead he believed that the rleasure should be placed on the
November, 2016 ballot and that the Council should request an informational repofi.
Councilmember Colson stated the importance of transparency and information. She echoed Councilmember
Brownrigg's concerns about the flaws of the legislation. She stated her understanding of the affordable
housing crisis and discussed the many projects and initiatives that are going on in the community to help
solve this issue including the Council's plans to develop public parking lots into affordable housing units.
Mayor Keighran stated that from listening to her colleagues, it seemed that the Council was interested in
receiving an informational report. She discussed her disappointment in hearing that many hadn't read the 22
page proposed ordinance in its entirety. She stated that there are a lot of unintended consequences in the
proposed ordinance. Accordingly, she believed the report to be of utmost importance so that the community
has the opportunity to flilly understand the ordinance.
Mayor Keighran outlined the questions she wanted answered in an informational report. She discussed her
desire to learn more about the rental commission such as how it willbe set up, oversight, responsibilities,
budget, staffing, timeline of setting up the commission, 1egal issues arising from the commission's decisions
and its location. She also asked that the report discuss any irnpact on the City's housing supply and how the
ordinance would affect diversity, transfer of aparlments, propefiy taxes, and the City's current affordable
housing plans. She asked that staff ensure that the repofi is a priority.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
6
August 1,2016
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 8/L5/16
Councilmember Beach added that she would like to see the report include the ordinance's impact on: the
\- ability of new working class families to afford renting in Burlingame, the City with potential lawsuits, the
San Mateo County court system, and property owners renting their own homes.
Councilmember Brownrigg voiced a note of caution that some of the questions posed might not have
answers or cause staff to speculate.
Mayor Keighran agreed with Councilmember Brownrigg, but hoped that the report would provide the
Council with some idea of how this proposed ordinance could affect the community.
Councilmember Colson asked about the argument selection. City Cierk Hassel-Shearer stated that while the
proponents have the first right at the argument in favor, the Council would have the first right at the
argument against.
Councilmember Colson asked if the City Council needed to determine tonight whether or not to write the
argument. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Colson stated that she supported Councilmember Brorynrigg in his suggestion that the
Council draft the argument against.
Mayor Keighran asked about the Brown Act's impact on drafting the argument. City Attorney Kane stated
that only two could work on the argument and the other three could decide if they wanted to sign on to it but
could not offer modifications.
\-
Vice Mayor Ortiz expressed his concern that the informational report might be too wide in scope.
Mayor Keighran expressed her belief that due diligence required the Council to request as much information
as possible.
City Manager Goldman stated that the report is a tall order, and that some of the questions may end up being
unanswerable.
Councilmember Colson asked if it would be helpful to have a subcommittee work on the report. City
Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative. However, she cautioned the Council that the report would remain
impartial as staff time cannot be used to campaign for or against a measure. She also asked that the
councilmernbers working on the report not be the same as those writing the argument against.
Councilmember Beach voiced concems about writing an argument against. She stated that the Council rnay
want to allow sorreone with a larger stake in the issue write the argument against the measure.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the same individual who writes the argument against has to write the
rebuttal. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer replied that the author of the primary argument could authorize someone
else to write the rebuttal.
Mayor Keighran asked Council if they agreed to having Councilmember Brownrigg and Councilmember
\-,,Jolson write the argument against and Councilmember Beach and herself on the subcommittee for the
modified 9272 report The Council agreed.
7
Burlingame City Council August 1,2016
Unapproved Minutes
I
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 8/t5/16
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if Councilmember Colson and he couldn't agree to the terms of the
argument r,vhen should they alert the Council they would not be submitting an argument. City Clerk Hassel-
Shearer stated that others could always submit their argument and if the Council decided not to file, then
theirs may be chosen.
Mayor Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 81-2016, including the fulI text in the Voter
Information Pamphlet and asking for a modified informational report; seconded by Vice Mayor Orliz. The
motion passed unanimously by ro11 call; 5-0.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council delayed reporting on their activities until the August 15,2016 meeting because of the length of the
night's meeting
12. FT]TURE AGENDA ITEMS
There were no future agenda items.
13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
a.C
COMMISSION
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Keighran adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.m. in memory of Michelle Hall.
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
8
August 1,2016
STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8c
MEETING DATE: August 15,2016
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: August 15,2016
From: Ana Maria Silva, Executive Assistant - (650) 558-7204
Subject: Open Nomination Period to Filt Two Vacancies on the Beautification
Commission
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council call for applications to fill two impending vacancies on
the Beautification Commission due to the expiring terms of Commissioners Anne Hinckle and
Leslie McQuaide. The recommended due date is Friday, October 7, 2016. This will allow
applicants two opportunities (September 1 and October 6) to attend a Beautification Commission
meeting.
BACKGROUND
The City's current commissioner appointment procedure calls for any Commissioner desiring
reappointment to apply in the same manner as all other candidates. All past applicants on the
two-year waitlist will be informed of the vacancies.\-,
\-
1
STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8d
\-
MEETING DATE: August 15,2016
To:Honorable Mayor and City Gouncil
Date: August '15,2016
From: Ana Maria Silva, Executive Assistant - (650) 558-7204
Subject: Open Nomination Period to Fill Two Vacancies on the Parks & Recreation
Commission
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council call for applications to fill two impending vacancies on the
Parks and Recreation Commission due to the expiring terms of Commissioners Julie Baird and
Steven Baum. The recommended due date is lt/onday, September 19, 2016. This will allow
applicants two opportunities (August 18 and September 15) to attend a Parks and Recreation
Commission meeting.
BACKGROUND
The City's current commissioner appointment procedure calls for any Commissioner desiring
reappointment to apply in the same manner as all other candidates. All past applicants on the
two-year waitlist will be informed of the vacancies.
\-,
1
AGENDANO: 8e
MEETING DATE: August'15, 2016
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: August 15,2016
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works - (650) 558-7230
Subject: lssue a Call for Applications to Fill an Impending Vacancy on the Storm
Drain Measure Oversight Committee
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council issue a call for applications to fill an impending vacancy
on the Storm Drain [t/easure Oversight Committee. The recommended deadline date for closing
the applications is September 30,2016. This will allow sufficient time for Council interviews and
selection at a future City Council meeting as well as an orientation for the new Committee
member prior to the next Storm Drain Oversight Committee meeting, which will be held in early
2017.
BACKGROUND
The Storm Drain lt/easure Oversight Committee consists of three members. The term of Rosalie
O'Mahony expires in September 2016. The City's current committee appointment procedures
allow for any Committee member desiring reappointment to apply in the same manner as all other
candidates.
It/s. O'tt/ahony will be invited to reapply if she wishes to serve again, and all past applicants will
be informed of the vacancy. Additionally, staff will send a press release to local newspapers and
place a notice in the City's eNews inviting applications.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
STAFF REPORT
\-
\-
\-
.1
I
!
STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: Bf
\-
MEETING DATE: August 15,2016
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: August 15,2016
From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director - (650) 558'7307
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an
Agreement for Professional Services with Verde Design, lnc. for Design
Services for Murray Field
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to
execute an Agreement for Professional Services with Verde Design, lnc. for design services
related to improvements at Murray Field, including conversion of the existing natural grass soccer
field to synthetic turf.
BACKGROUND
Burlingame has a shortage of athletic fields to accommodate youth sports programs, with very
little available space to build new fields. A solution to decrease the shortage of athletic fields is to
convert natural grass fields to synthetic turf. The advantages of synthetic turf fields are many.
They can offer year-round usage, with a more uniform resilient surface that eliminates ruts,
uneven surface and other trip hazards, thereby improving safety and playability. Synthetic turf
fields are not affected by rain or wet conditions, thus eliminating the need to close fields
seasonally. ln addition, synthetic turf fields are less expensive to maintain because of reduced
labor and materials costs. Traditional irrigation, fertilizing, mowing and edging needed for natural
turf flelds are not necessary for synthetic fields.
After a review of existing City fields, the most logical location for installing synthetic turf is lvlurray
Field. Murray Field is the largest of the City's soccer fields, has lighting, and has the most usage.
Currently, Ir/urrayFieldhaslB00hoursof useannually. Thislevel of usageissignificantlyhigher
than what is recommended to maintain the field in fair condition. With the installation of synthetic
turf, the field would have 2800 hours available for use, a 55% increase.
ln order to facilitate the installation of synthetic turf, the Council approved funds in the amount of
$500,000 in the Fiscal Year2016-17 Parks Capital lmprovement Fund forto develop design and
construction documents to convert the existing natural grass soccer field to synthetic turf.
Due to health concerns and until further studies about tire crumb infill have been conducted, the
Ir/urray Field project will use an alternative material such as cork, coconut fiber, rice husks, etc.
This will be determined during the design phase of the project.
1
Verde Design Services August 1 5, 2016
The City has been working with Verde Design, lnc. on a project to evaluate options for additional
field space at Murray Field. Through this project, the firm has worked with the City's landfill
consultant regarding the solid waste landfill site ltlurray Field sits upon, and they have prior
knowledge of the complex nature of the site and its conditions. While working with them, staff
has found Verde Design, lnc. to be professional, efficient, and responsive to the needs of the
City.
ln addition, Verde Design, lnc. and their team have significant experience with park and athletic
facility planning and design, especially in the area of synthetic fields. Their staff includes licensed
landscape architects, a licensed civil engineer, a licensed landscape irrigation auditor, a LEED
certified professional, and a QSD/QSP (Qualified SWPPP Developer/Construction General
Permit Qualified SWPPP Practitioner) certified professional. Qualified SWPPP individuals can be
assigned responsibility for the implementation of all elements of a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The firm also has extensive experience in public outreach and
construction mitigation processes, which may be necessary for the project.
The proposal includes schematic design, construction documents, bidding, and construction
support. The plans will be developed as one increment and a single bid package.
ln addition, there have been discussions with the Burlingame Dragons regarding their use of
lMurray Field as their home field during their game season. The plans will include a bid
alternative for bleachers either as part of this project or as a future project.
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost for schematic design, construction documents, bid, and construction support is
$101,115. Optional services total $59,210. The optional services may be required due to the
solid waste landfill upon which the new synthetic field will be built. lf all optional services are
required the total cost would be $160,325. The preliminary estimate, without engineering
designs, to install synthetic turf at [t/urray Field is $1,400,000.
Exhibits:
. Resolution
. Verde Design, lnc. Agreement
a
2
DISCUSSION
\-
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BT]RLINGAME
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH VERDE DESIGN, INC. FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR
MURRAY FIELD
WIIEREAS, there is a shorlage of athletic fields in Burlingame, and a solution to increase
field time is to conveft natural grass fields to synthetic turf; and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2016, the City Council approved the FY 2016-17 Caprtal
Improvement Project budget, which included funds for design services to convert Murray Field
from natural grass to synthetic turf; and
WHEREAS, based on the qualifications and experience of Verde Design, Inc., staff wish to
retain their professional services to complete the design services; and
WHEREAS, Verde Design, Inc. has successfully completed a prior project for the City and
has prior knowledge and experience of the solid waste site at Murray Field; and
WHEREAS, their proposal includes schematic design, construction documents, bidding, and
constructions support.
NOW, THEREFORE, TIIE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BI'RLINGAME
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AI\D ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City Council hereby approves the design services of Verde Design, Inc. in an amount not to
exceed $160,325.
2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the contract amendment and any necessary
documents to undertake the above said work.
Ann Keighran, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingarne, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council held on
the 15th day of August, 2016, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
\-
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
BETIVEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGA]VIE
AND \IERDE I}ESIGN,INC
THIS AGRXEMENT is by and between VERDEDESIGN,INC ('Consultant") and the
City of Burlingame, a public body of the State of California ("City"). Consultant and City agree:
1. Services. City wishes to obtain the services of Consultant for design services for
improvements which include the conversion of the existing natural grass soccer field located ir
Munay Park to synthetic turf, Consultant shall provide the Services set forth fu Exhibit A!
attached hereto and incorporated herein.
2. Compensation. Nohuithstauding the expenditure by Consultant of time and
materials in excess of said Maximqm sompensation amount, Consultant agrees to perform all of
the Scope of Services herein required of Consultant for $101,115, for Phases 1, 2,3 and 4
including all materials and other reimbursable amounts and an additional amount up to $59,210
for optional services if they are required by the City. The total compensation will not exceed
$160,325 ("Maximum Compensation"). Consultant shall submit invoices on a monthly basis.
All bills submitted by Consultant shall contain suffrcient information to determine whether the
amount deemed due and payable is accurate. Bills shall inolude a brief desoription of services
performed, the date services were performed, the number of hours spent and by whom, a brief
description of any costs incurred and the Consulant's signature.
3, Term. This Agreernent commences on fiilI execution hereof and terminates on
Decemter 31,2Afi ,,nless otherwise extended or terrninated pursuant to the provisions hereof.
Consultant agrees to diligently prosecute the services to be provided under this Agreement to
completion and in accordance with any sohedules specified herein. In the performance of this
Agreement, time is of the essence. Time extensions for delays beyond the Consultant's control,
other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the Crty's Contract
Administrator prior to the expiration of the specified completion date.
4. Assignment anil Subcontracting. A substantial inducement to City for entering
into this Agreement is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Neither this
Agreement nor any interest herein may be assigned or subconhacted by Consultant without the
prior written approval of City. It is expressly understood and agreed by both parties that
Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City.
5. Insurance. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall carry, maintain for the
duration of the Agreement, and provide proof thereof, acceptable to the City, the insurance
coverages specified in Exhibit B, "City Insurance Requirements," attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of required insurance
covorage prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement by delivery of
Certificates of lnsurance and original endorsements to City. Except in the case of professional
design/enors and omissions insurance, the City sha1l be named as a primary insured.
6. Indemnification. Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold City, its directors,
offrcers, employees, agents, and volunteers harrnless from and against any and all liabiiity,
claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the
\-
negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultanf its employees, subcontactors, or
agents, or on account of the prformance or character of the Services, except for any such claim
arising out of the sole negligence or wilIful misconduct of the City, it$ officers, employees,
agents, or volunteers. It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify and hold
harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 ofthe California Civil Code.
Notwithstanding the foregoiug, for any desigu professional services, the duty to defend and
indemnify City shall be limitedto that allowed pursuant to California Civil Code section2782.8.
Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not
relieve Consultant from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This
inderutification and hold harrrless clause shall apply whether or not such insurance policies shall
have been determined to b9 applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages.
7. Termination and Abandonment This Agreement may be cancelled at any time
by Crty for its convenience upon written notice to Consuitant. In the event of such tennination,
Consultant shall be entitled to pro-rated compensatioo for authori2ed Services performed prior to
the effective date of tennination provided however that City may condition payment of such
compensation upon Cons-ultant's delivery to City of any or atl materials described herein In the
eventthe Consultant ceases performing services underthis Agreement or otherwise abandons the
project prior to completing all of the Services described in this Agreement, Consultant shall,
without delay, deliver to City all materials and records prepared or obtained in the performance
of this Agreemert. Consultant shall be paid for the reasonable value of the authorized Services
performed up to the time of Consultant's cessation or abandonryent, less a deduction for any
damages or additional expenses which City incurs as a result of such cessation or abandonment
8. Ownership of Materials. AII documents, materials, and rccords of a finished
nature, including but not limited to final plans, specifications, video or audio tapes, pholographs,
computer data, softrvare, reports, raaps, electronic files and filns, and any final revisions,
prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreemen! shall be deliveredto and become the
prop.tty of City. All docurents and,materials of a prelimrnary nature, including but not limited
to notes, sketches, preliminary plans, computations and otber data, and any other material
referenced in this Section, prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement shall be
made available, upon reques! to City at no additional charge and without reshiction or limitation
on their use: Upon Crtyts reques! Consultant shall execute appropriate documents to assign to
the City the copyright or trademark to work created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall
return all City property in Consultant's control or possession immediately upon termination.
9. Compliance with Laws. Inthe performance ofthis Agreement, Consultant shall
abide by and conform to any and all applicable laws of the United States and ttre State of
California, and all ordinances, regulations, and policies of the City. Consultant warrants that all
work done under this Agreement will be in compliance with all applicable safety rules, laws,
statutes, and practices, including but not limited to CaVOSIIA regulations. If a license or
regishation of any kind is required of Consultant, its employees, agents, or subconfiactors by
law, Consultant warrants ttrat such license has been obtained, is valid and in good standing, and
Consultant shall keep it in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement, and that any
applicable bond shall be posted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.
10. Conflict of Interest, Consultant warrants and covenants that Consultant presentty
has no interest in, nor shall any interest be hereinafter acquired in, any matter which will render
2
\-,
the services required under the provisions of this Agreement a violation of any applicable state,
local, or federal law. In the event that any conflict of interest should nevertheless hereinafter
arise, Consultant shall promptly notify City of the existence of such conflict of interest so that
the City may determine whether to terminate this Agreement. Consultant firther wanants its
compliance with the Political Reform Act (Government Code $ 81000 et seq.) respecting this
Agreement.
11. Whole Agreement and Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the entire
understanding and Agreement of the parties and integrates all of the tertrns and conditions
mentioned herein or incidental hereto and supersedes all negotiations or any previous written or
oral Agreements between the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof.
The parties intend not to create rights ir, or to grant remedies to, any third parfy as a beneficiary
of this Agreement or of any duty, covenant, obligation, or undertaking established herein This
Agreement may be amended only by a written document, executed by both Consultant and the
City Mauager, and approved as to form by the City Attorney. Such document shall expressly
state that it is intended by the parties to amend certain terms aud conditions of this Agreement.
The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement shall not
constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same or a
different provision of this Agreement. Multiple copies of this Agreement may be executed but
the parties agree that the Agreement on file in the office of the City Clerk is the version of the
Agreement tbat shall take precedence should any differences exist among countarparts of the
document. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shali be governed by tle laws of the
State of Califomia.
12. Capacify of Parties. Each signatory and party hereto warrants and represents to
the other parly that it has all legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter
into this Agreement and that all necessary actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into
this Agreement.
13. Severability. Should any part of this Agreement be declared by a final decision
by a courl or tribunal of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, invalid, or beyond the
authority of either party to enter into or carry out, such decision shall not affectthe validif of the
remainder of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect, provided that the
remainder of this Agreemen! absent the unexcised portion, can be reasonably interpreted to give
effect to the intentions of the parties.
L4. Notice. Any notice required or desired to be given under this Agreement shall be
in writing and shall be personally served or, in lieu of personal service, may be given by (i)
depositing such notice in the United States mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested,
postage prepaid, addressed to a parly at its address set forth in Exhibit A; (ii) hansmitting such
notice by means of Federal Express or similar overniglt commercial courier ('Courier"), postage
paid and addressed to the other at its street address set forth below; (iii) transmitting the same by
facsimile, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered upon confirmation of receipt by the
sending facsimile machine's acknowledgment of such with date and time printout; or (w) bV
personal delivery. Any notice glven by Courier shall be deemed given on the date shown on the
receipt for acceptance or rejection of the notice. Either party may, by written notice, change the
address to which notices addressed to it shall thereafter be sent.
3
15. Miscellaneous. Except to the extent that it provides a part of the definition of the
term used herein, the captions used in this Ageement are for convenience only and shall not be
considered in the construction of interpretation of any provision hereof, nor taken as a correct or
complete segregation of the several units of materials and labor.
Capitalized terms refer to the defrnition provide with its first usage in the Agreement
When the context of this Agreement requires, the neuter gender includes the masculine,
the feminine, a parrnership or corporation, trust or joint Venture, and the singular includes the
plural.
The tenns "Shall", "Willo, "mUSt" and "agfee" are mandatOry. The tenn "may" iS
permissive.
The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement
shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequenX breach of either the same
or a different provision of this Agreement.
When a parly is required to do something by this Agreemenl it shall do so at its sole cost
and expense without right to reimbursement from the other party unless specific provision is
made otherwise.
\-
Where any pa$y is obligated not to perform any act, such party
restrain any others Within its conhol from performing such acf including
contractors, subcontracto.rs and employees.
IN WT[FIESS WHEREOF, Consultant and City execute this Agreement.
Meaghan llassel-Shearer
Cily Clerk
is also obiigated to
its agents, invitees,
CONSULTAJ\]-T
Name: Verde Design, Ino.
Address: 2455 TheAlamed4 Ste. 200
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Federal Employer ID
License
CITY OF BURLINGAME
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
By:
Lisa Goldman
CityManager
\-
4
Expiration Date:_
\fame
Titla
T)afc'
A *facf.
Nrrtnher'
Nrrtnher'
Approved as to fonn:1
KathleenKane
CityAttomey
Attacbments:
Exhibit A Scope of Services
Exhibit B City Insurance Provisions
5
\-
Exhibit A
August 4,2O16
Morgoret Glomstod, Porks qnd Recreotion Director
Cify of Burlingome
850 Burlingome Avenue
Burllngome, CA 94010
VERDE DESIGN
2455Ihe Aameda,Suite 200
smh chrr,CA 95050
r 40&985.?200 f {08.985.71@
ww*verdedesigninccom
SUBJECI: Murroy Pork Synthetic Turf Soccer Field
Verde Design Proiect No. '1507/02
Deor Ms. Glomstod'
ln response to your request, Verde Design, lnc. is pleosed to suhmit the following proposol to provide the
identified design services sn the obove mentioned proiect loccrted ot 250 Anzo Blvd, Burlingome, CA. This
proposol sholl remoin volid for o period of sixty (60) doys'
PROJEST UNDERSTANDING/HISTORY:
the City of Burlingome (City) is requesling o proposol for design services for improvements whidr include the
conversion of the existing noturol gross soc€er field locoted in Murroy Pork to synthetic tu#. The focility is locoted
on o solid woste londfill \ilhi6 requires complionce with specific Stqte of Colifomicr design ond monogemenl
proctices.
Verde Design proposes o design process to include sdremofic design, 50% submittol,giyo submittol ond 100%
construction documerrts. Thls proposol lncludes bidding ond construclion supporl. Plons will be developed ds one
Increment ond o single bid pockoge.
We wilt evolucrte the existing droinoge systems ond integrotion of o synthetic turf field with pod system. lrrigotion
system odiustments will be inctuded ond we will coordinote lhe remoining noturol turf oreos outside ol the field
oreq. For the synthetic turf we con setup o list of recommended products for bidding or utilize o CMAS controct
qnd work with the City to exectrte. I
For lhe synthetic furf conversion, we crre looking to remove lhe existing nofurol gross ond orgonic moteriol or lop
sond toyer, We will utillze the existing droinoge system snd hqve included some percolotion lests wilh the
geotechnlcol engineer os on oplionol service.
lncluded in our seryices ore C.3 storm woler quolity olignment for the impervious surfocing being odded with the
bleodrers ond pods. We moy need to odd or modify the droinoge system betow the field. Storm woter
colanlotions ond coordinotion with the City engineers will ocanr to olign the plcns with the CitT's C.3 requirernents.
An erosion control plon ond SWPP ore lncluded by our QSD ond setup with fte RWQCB. lnspection services or
QSP services wlll be provlded by the controctor
We hove included looking qt the bleocher configurofion qnd providing concrete pods or provisions for the fulure
bleochers os o bid oltemote. Bleqdrer seoting ond configurotion between o permonent grondstond ond
temporory style bleodrer will be coordinoled.
lncluded ore two meetlngs with the City during schemotic design ond two meetings during construction doo.rments.
Proposed optionol seryices:
l. We ore including o bosic site survey ond con ulilize ony os-built plons the City hos for the bose
informotion"
2. Electricol infrostructure for doto, pov/er or communicotion for lhe future bleocher ond spectotor oreo.
Mony of our proiects include bleochers ond the need for power for speciol events, PA system or
scorekeeping, Seryices would include progromming ond designing connectlon poinls, spore conduils loyout,
pull boxes qnd lnfrostructure for fsture needs.
3. Cify's londfill consultont ossisfonce, plon review ond ogency coordinotion.
\-,
LANDSCAPE ARCHIIECIURE c CIVIL ENGINEERING r SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN
Murroy Pork Synthetic Turf Soccer Field
August 4, 2Ol6
Poge 2
4. Geofechnicol engineer for geotechnicol recommendotions, percololion fest, construction testing ond review.
5. Stote or heolth deportment permitting.
lmprovement needs will be llmited to lhe immediote proiect oreo. Our timeline is proposed below. Sosed on our
Februory 201 6 proiect eslimole for converling Murroy Field to synthetic turf wqs opproximotely $l;7 million
including design confingencies. Bleocher provisions or concrele pods were not included ln thot preliminory
conslrucfion cost
SCOPE OF,SERVICES
Verde Design proposes to provlde the following services bose on the obove stoted proiect understonding.
l. Schemotic Design & Survey Phase
A. Review oll doto pertinent to the proiect os provided by the City, including os-built drowings ond
existing site. plons of the proiect site.
B. Opiionol service - Prepore q site survey for the lmprovements. Survey will be limited to the
Improvemehl oreos. No properfy llnes or eosemehts ore included in the survey work
C. Prepore o bose plon utilizing lhe site suryey or City files.
D. Visiilhe proiect site to complele o visuol invenfory of lhe existing conditions ond verify surv€ys.
E. Coordinote the proiect scope ond improvements with the City's Londfill Consultont to review lhe
process for updoting fie existing Stote Solid Woste Permit os it reloles lo Murroy Field
improvemenfs only.
F. We will setup o droft schemotic plon for the fleld replocement including:
l. Rendered plon wifi field loyoui, bleocher setup ond perimeter conditions.
2. Moteriol oplions for turf type, infill, colors. loyout ond equipment.
3. Preliminory groding plon ond synthetic turf section detoiling,
4. Preliminory droinoge plon ond C.3 coordinotion.
5. Preliminory cost estimote witl be setup.
6. Cost benefit onolysis for lurf ond mointenonce
G. Bqsed on comments received, we will updote the sclemofic ploh pockoge.
H. We hove included two meetings with City stoff to review the design ond improvements.
Il. Conslruslion Documenl Phose - The following ouflines lhe work to be completed to prepore plons ond
sp ecif icotions f or construction.
A. 50% Submittol Pockoge
i. The submittol includes plons ond droft technicol specificotions. The plons show overoll site
design including'
o. Cover Sheel
b. Existing Conditions Plon
c. Erosion ond Sediment Control Plon
d. Demolition Plon
e. Groding Plon
f. Drolnoge ond C.3 Plon
^
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE " CIVIL ENGINEERING " SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN
Murroy Pork Syrthetic Turf Soecer Field
Augusr 4;2Ol 6
Poge 3
B.
c.
D.
E.
F.
S. Loyout Plsn Moteriol ond Detoil Reference Plon
h. lrrigotion Plon
l. Construction Detoils
2. The lechnicol specificolions show representative specificotions for the proiect.
Specificotions will be provided in six digit CSI formot
3. The submittol book supplemenls the plons ond specificotions showing:
o. Progress Report
b. Stotement of Proboble Construclion Costs
c. Moteriol cut sheets
4. Redline qnd review, lnternol Quolity Control (QC).
5. Submitfol Preporotion qnd csordinolion of plons ond specificotions will be provided for
review
950/o Submittol - Coordinote. updofe ond provide 957o submittol bid pockoge.
QSD servlces for SWPP permit for o level I or 2 SWPP. SWPP level 3 seryices ore lncluded os
on optionol service.
Specificotion setup to edir City stondord specificolions ond front end documenl.
Bid Submiftol - Coordinote, updote ond provide finol bid pockoge.
Two review meetings vdth Ciry stoff to review plons ond receive commenfs.
Bid End Construction Suppo*
The consultont ogrees to provide the following services ro the City on qn on-coll bosis foltowing submittol
of the bid submittol.
A. Answer queslions during bidding.
B. Assist in preporing oddendo
C. Assist in bid evoluotion.
D. Respond lo queslions, request for informotion ond provide clori{icotions.
E. Review submittols ond shop drowings.
F. 'l 5 site observotion visits ore included. Visits will include site demolition, groding, ond turf
plocemenf improvements review ot specific stoges of construction. Site observotion reports will
be provided.
G. Review price requests qnd chqnge orders.
H. Provide o punch list of the consfructed improvements. Punch tisl will be completed when ihe proiect
is complete.
I. Review controctor os-built plons ond submit review to the City. As we provide RFI or field directive
responses, we updote our cod files during construclion.
Oplionol Services
The consultont is providing the following optionol services for the City to consider os port of this proiect.
A. A bosic site survey utilizing ony os-built plons fhe City hos for the bose informotion. The Scope of
Work includes providing o detoiled topogrophic survey of Murroy Pork soccer field oreo.
\-lv.
V
U
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE r CIVIL ENGINEERING a SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN
Muroy Pork Synthetic Turf Soccer Field
August d 201 6
Poge 4
B. Provide electricol infrostruclure services for doto, power or communicotion forthe future bleocher
ond spectotor oreo. The services include progromming ond designing conneclion points, spore
conduils loyout, pull boxes ond infrostrucfure for fufure needs.
C, Londfilt Engineering services utilizing the Clty's current consultont to provide protect specific
seryices thot include consultlng wilh our teom on regulotory, permit ond engineerlng considerotions
offecting improvements, review bid documents relotive lo complionce with the requirements of lhe
Son Frqncisco Boy Regionol Woter Quolity Control Boord ond the Boy Areo Air Quolity
Monogement District.
D. Geotechnicol Engineering services required to evqluote the subsurfqce conditions ond provide
recommendotions for the deslgn ond construction of lhe proposed focilities. The design phose
scope of seryices includes performing 2 percolotion tests in the upper 12 lndtes to dssess
subsurfoce drolnoge chorocterislics in oddition to compiling ond onolyzing the field ond
loborotory doto qnd findings.The construction phose includes:
I. Review of lhe controct documents for consistency with the geotechnicol recommendqtions
os well os review ond response to geotechnicol ieloted suf,mittols.
2. Observe foundotion excovotions for conformonce.
3. Perform loborotory tesls to evolusle the proclor densify of eorth moteriols.
4. Review loborotory fest results qnd compoction lests for conformonce with
recommendolions.
5. Observe preporotion of subgrode qnd plocement of fill.
6. Perform field density tests to evoluote compoction of fill ond subgrode-
7. Prepore o summory report documenting ihe observotions mode during eqrthwork
operotions ond fhe results of the compoctlon testlng.
E. Agency permitting or opprovol needs. Services ore proposed to support ony stole or heqlth
deporlment requiremenls f or p roiect op provol.
F. SWPP level 3 opplicotion for QSD services lo the Regionol Woter Quolity Control Boord.
G. Testing lob seryices for sond bose onolysis ond imported rock onolysis for Closs ll permeoble rock
or 7.r" droln rock.
PRODUCTS
Verde Design will provide the following products os outlined in the obove Scope of Services:
A. Schemotic
1. Site survey - optionol serYice
2. Drofl schemolic pockoge - one electronic ond two hordcopies
3. Schemotic plon pockoge - one electronic ond two hordcopies
B. Conslruclion Documentotion
l. 507o submittol- one electronic ond two hordcopy sets of plons, cosls ond specificolions
2. 95olo submittol- one eleclronic ond lwo hordcopy sets of plons, costs ond specificotions
3. Bid submittol - one sel of stomped plons / costs ond specificotions.
PROJECT TIMELIHE
Verde Design proposes the following generol timeline:
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECIURE s CIVIL ENGINEERING c SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN
Murroy Pork Synthetlc Turf Soccer Fleld
AugrJst 4 2016
Poge 5
Schemotic: 4 Weeks
Site Survey: 3 Weet<s
Construction Documentotion:
5O% Submittol 3 Weeks
957o Submiftol' 3 Weeks
Bid Submittql: 2 Weeks
Note the obove timelines does not include ony required review time by tlty ttoft.
CLIENT'S RESPONSIBITITIES
ln order to complete the items described in Scope of Services obove, we respectfully request thot the City provide
the fotlowing informotion: ''i
I. Any ovoiloble construction, utllity or record drowings of the proiect oreo.
2, Progrom use criterio by rhe sports user groups.
3. Bid set copies.
SPEC!AL PROVISIONS
A. Without otternpting to be oll-inclusive ond for purposes of clority, fhe following items qre specificolly not
included in the Scope of Services:
l. Meetings other thon those lisled
2, Renderings ond presentotions to public bodies other,thon those listed
3, Architecture design
4. Mechqnicol ond structurol engineering seryices
5. Bleocher plons - con be provided by monufocturer
6. CEQA documents
7. SWPP inspection services or QSP during construction. Services to be provided by controclor.
8. Underground utility surveys
9. Utility runs off-site
I O. Permit fees ossocioted with the prolect
I l. Deslgn for oreos not identlfied in the proiect understonding
I 2. Access plons
I 3. Pump design
14. 3D grophics
Thls fee will be volid for 60 doys, should the City choose to extend or od,
portion of this ogreemenl will be sublect to on increose in Jonuory of 201
odiustments for office personnel.
\-"
B.d
7
to lhe controct the unbllled
to coYer onnuol woge
\-
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE I CIVIL ENGINEERTNG T SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN
Murroy Pork Synthetic Turf Soceer Fleld
Augusr d 2Ol6
Poge 6
C.Services will be diligently pursued ond every resso{rsble effort will be rnode to meet the mufuolly
ogreed upon schedule. lf ihe completion of the services is deloyed ot sny time in the progress of the
work undertoken in lhis Agreement by conditions beyond the control of the Consulton! including but nol
limited tor strikes, lockouts, lobor dlspules, or the inobility of City, their consuhonts, ulility componies, or
iurlsdictlonol agencles to provlde requlred informofion, processlng or direction; the lime of completion
sholl be extended during such period ond Consultont shqll be held hqrmless from ony ond ol[ cloims
orising oul of such deloy.
PROFESSI ONAI COI/iFENSATION
For lhe scope of services ond products identified in this proposol, Verde Design respecrfully requesls the following
lump sum fee including oll reosonoble reimbursoble expenses thot ore outlined to be included in the proiect. Some
seryices provided below ore proposed os lime ond moteriols (T&M) ond not-to-exceed bosis.
E Phose l; Schemotic $lg,gaO
E Phose 2: 50% Submittol $17,180
s Phose 3: 95% & Bid Submlttol $3I,095
I Phose 4: Bid & Construction Support $SI,0OO
Totql $l ol,l 15
Optional Services
! Sife Survey $7,150
" Electricol engineer deslgn for blescher lnfrostructure $10"500
o Londfill Engineering services $7700
! Geotechnlcol Engineering services for design ond construction phose $l 31350
Stote or Heolth Deportment Approvol - T&M / NTE $g,Ot O
r SWPP Level 3 - T&M / NTE $5,000
s Testing Lob Testing for rock ond bose moteriol - T&M / NTE $7,500
Additionol services will be chorged on o time qnd moteriol bosis. Chorges for oddilionol services will be billed
seporolely.
CHANGE IN SERVICEs
Client moy order chonges in scope or chorocter of service, eilher decreosing or increosing the omounl of
Consullqnt's seryices, ond if necessory, chonglng lhe chorocter of services. ln the evenl thqt sudr chonges ore
ordered, Consultont ls entitled to full compensotion for oll services performed ond expenses inorrred prior to
receipt of notice of chonge.
^
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE r CIVIL ENGINEERING o SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN
Murroy Pork Synthetlc Turf Soccer Field
August 4, 2Ol 6
Poge 7
TERMINATION OF AGR.EEMENT
ln lhe event the proiect ls terminsted or indefinitely suspehded in the monner herein provided, Verde Design sholl
tum over copies of ony ond oll documents completed to rhot dote. Verde Design sholl be entitled to
compensotion up to ond including soid terminotion dote, Originol work sholl remoin the property of Verde
Design,
Morgoret, if this proposol meels witlr the opprovol of the City of Burlingome, pleose sign the proposol below.
Thonk you ogcln for the opporfunity to work with your Cify ond Community on lhe Murrqy Pork improvements.
Respectfully Submifted,
Verde Design, lnc.
Approved:
Derek McKee, RLA
Principol Nome:
Dote:
Enclosure: 2016 Chorge Roie Schedule
cc! Nonce Cronln, Verde Design
\-
\-
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE o CIVIL ENGINEERING e SPORT PLANNTNG & DESTGN
Murroy Pork Synlhetic Turf Soccer Field
August d 201 6
Poge 8
Verde Design, lnc.
Chorge Rote Sehedule
Effecjive unlil December 31, 20I6
The following chort outlines lhe current chorge rqte for professlonol ond office cosls. Reimbursoble rotes ond
expenses ore shown ol fie bottom.
Proiect Roles
Principol
Prolect Monog er/Construstion Monoger
Level Four
level Three
Level Two
LevelOne
lT Monoger
CAD lvlonoger
Prolect Designer
Job CoptoinfStoff Engineey'Construclion Adminlstrotor
Droftsperson Level ll
Droftsperson Level I
Proiect Administrotor
Intern
Reimhursuhle Rales
Blueprints. Printing ond Reproductions
Sub Consultonl Services
Reimbursoble Expenses
Blueprints ond Reproductions
Photogrophy
Models ond Renderings
Postoge/Ovemight Moil Service
$zgo.oo per hour
$l99.oo per hour
$170.00 per hour
$I5o.0o per hour
$140.00
$I55.00
$tss.oo
$t so.oo
$t zs.oo
$ro5.oo
$r oo.oo
$eo.oo
$zo.oo
Cost plus I0%
Cost plus lO%
Trovel Expenses
Porking ond Toll Expenses
Permit Fees
Courier Delivery Service
Fer hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
per hour
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE o CIVIL ENGINEERING e SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN
\-.
To:
Date:
From:
Subject:
STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 89
MEETING DATE: August 15,2016
Honorable Mayor and City Gouncil
August 15,2016
Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director - (650) 558-7307
Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Application for Grant Funds from
\-
the Habitat Conservation Fund P ram
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution approving the application for grant
funds from the Habitat Conservation Fund (HCF) Program.
BACKGROUND
The Parks Division, in coordination with CALFire and the California Conservation Corp, has been
making annual repairs and improvements in Mills Canyon each year. Work completed includes
fuel reduction, rebuilding of trails, maintenance to trails, repair to drainage systems and reduction
of erosion, and removal of invasive plant species. ln order to increase the amount of work
completed each year, staff has been researching grant opportunities.
The HCF Program allocates approximately $2,000,000 annually to the California Department of
Parks and Recreation for competitive grants to local entities, including cities, to improve trails that
provide opportunities for urban residents to experience wildlife areas as well as other related
projects and initiatives. The legislative authority for the grant is the California Wildlife Protection
Act of 1990, Proposition 1 17.
DISCUSSION
The grant application deadline is ltlonday, October 3, 2016, with the project performance period
of five years starting on July 1 of the fiscal year following the application. For example, if an
application is submitted in October of 2016 and later selected, the project's funding would start on
July 1,2017, and expire on June 30,2022. All grants up to and including $100,000 require at
least ten years of land tenure, and an authorizing resolution is required of all grant applicants.
lf the City is successful and the grant is awarded, the funds available for work in the Canyon
would double what is currently available through the City's budget, thereby allowing for additional
work to be completed in the canyon.
U
1
Mills Canyon Grant August 15, 2016
_t
FISCAL IMPACT
This program requires a 50% match from grantees. Eligible match sources include local, federal,
or private funds, or donated materials and services. The Parks and Recreation Department
operating budget has allocated approximately $40,000 each year towards repairs and
improvements in lt/ills Canyon.
Exhibit:
o Resolution
1
2
RESOLUTION No:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE
HABITAT CONSERVATION FUND PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the People of the State of California enacted the California Wildlife
Protection Act of 1990, which provides funds to the State of California for grants to local
agencies to acquire, enhance, restore or develop facilities for public recreation and fish and
wildlife habitat protection purposes; and
WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the
responsibility to administer the Habitat Conservation Fund Program and to establish necessary
procedures governing project application under the Program; and
WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State Department of Parks and
Recreation require the applicant to certify by resolution the approval of application(s) before
submission of said application(s) to the State; and
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame as an applicant for funding through the Habitat
Conservation Fund Program will enter into a contract with the State of California to complete the
project, which entails improvements to the Mills Canyon Trail.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNGIL OF THE CIry OF BURLINGAME DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AND FIND AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City Council finds the above facts to be true as recited.
2. The City Council approves the filing of an application for a grant from the Habitat
Conservation Fund Program for improvements to the tt4ills Canyon Trail.
3. The City Council certifies that, as the applicant, the City of Burlingame has or will
have available, prior to commencement of any work on the pro1ect included in its applicatlon, the
required match and sufficient funds to complete the project.
4. The City Council certifies that the City of Burlingame has or will have sufficient
funds to operate and maintain the project.
5. The City Council certifies that the City of Burlingame has reviewed, has
understood, and has agreed to the provisions contained in the contract shown in the Grant
Administration Guide.
6. The City Council delegates the authority to the City lr,4anager to conduct all
negotiations, execute and submit all documents, including, but not limited to applications,
agreements, amendments, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the
completion of the project.
7. The City Council agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state and local
laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and guidelines.
8. The City Council agrees to the Deed Restriction provisions outlined in the Habitat
Conservalion Fund Program Grant Administration Guide (pages 18 through 23) dated January
1, 2012, in the event that the City of Burlingame's Application is approved. The Council further
authorizes the City Manager to execute any required documents to effectuate these provisions.
Ann Keighran, It4ayor
l, Ivleaghan 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 on the 1sth
day ofAugust 2016, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
Councilmembers:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: Bh
MEETING DATE: August 15,2016
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: August 15,2016
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works - (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Neighborhood Storm Drain Project
#8, City Project No. 84320
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the
Neighborhood Storm Drain Project #8 by Stoloski & Gonzalez, lnc., City Project No. 84320, in the
amount of $'1 ,062,1 10.54.
BACKGROUND
On November 2, 2015, the City Council awarded the Neighborhood Storm Drain Project #8 to
Stoloski & Gonzalez, lnc., in the amount of $1,072,565.00.
The Neighborhood Storm Drain Project #8 is a continuation of neighborhood storm drainage
improvements.that have been ranked by priority, based on the severity and magnitude of the
drainage issues. The storm drainage improvements are located in residential neighborhoods.
The improvements are designed to increase storm drainage capacity and alleviate local area
flooding and ponding water.
The project consisted of construction and upsizing of approximately 1,235 linear feet of 12-inch
and 24-inch diameter storm drain pipes, 300 linear feet of corrugated metal arch pipe, 20 storm
drainage inlets, and local storm drain improvements at the Waste Water Treatment Plant.
DISCUSSION
The project construction has been satisfactorily completed in compliance with the plans and
specifications. The final construction cost of $'1,062,110.54 is $10,454.46 below the awarded
contract amount. The decrease in construction cost was due to a difference in estimated bid
quantities versus actual final construction quantity, deletion of bid items, and change order work
due to field conditions.
\-
\-,
1
RECOMMENDATION
Resolution Accepting the Neighborhood Storm Drain Proiect#8
City Project No. 84320
August 15, 2016
FISCAL IMPACT
The following are the estimated final project construction expenditures
-
-
Construction
Construction Management and lnspection
Administration and Testing
$1 ,062,1 10.54
$85,590.00
$106,000.00
Total $1,253,700.54
There are adequate funds available in the Capital lmprovements budget to cover the estimated
final costs.
Exhibits:
. Resolution
. Final Progress Payment
r Project Location Map
2
RESOLUTION NO._
A RESOLUTION OF THE CIry COUNCIL OF THE CIry OF BURLINGAME
ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS - NEIGHBORHOOD STORM DRAIN PROJECT # 8 BY
STOLOSKI & GONZALEZ, INC.
ctry PRoJECT NO. 84320
RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, and this Council
finds, orders and determines as follows:
1. The Director of Public Works of said City has certified that the work done by Stoloski &
Gonzalez, lnc., under the terms of its contract with the City.dated November 2,2015, 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. 84320.
3. Said work is hereby accePted.
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 15th day of
Auqust, 2016, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES COUNCILII/EIVBERS:
NOES COUNCILMEII/BERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILITIEMBERS:
Irilayor
City Clerk
stoloski and Gonzalez, Inc.
ADDRESS: 727 Main Street
HaIf Moon Bay, CA 94019
TEIEPHoNE: (650) 726-71I9 Pu (650) 726-9055
ITEM:
CITY OE BURIINGAME
PROGRESS PAYMENT NO. FinaI Palment - Refease of Retention
Neigbholhood Stom Drain Project S8
crrY PRoficT No. !-432-q
DATE:
FOR THE MONTH ON:
PURCHASE ORDER #
August-02 -1 6
12995
ITEU DESCRIPTION
: UNIT : BID
: PRICE : QUANT]TY
UNIT BlD
MOUNT
: QUNTITY:
: TO DATE :
i
PAID
NOUNT
TO DATE
PREVIOgS
PAI D
SOUNl
THIS PMT
sr s?s0.00 1,038.0 20f 6 -ooz s15_510-00
New GO Inlet $6,100.001:2A EA s170,800.00 8-00 2A - 511 s48 - A00 00 s48,800.00
New Gl Inlet $6,000.00 1 EA s6,000.00 1-00 100 _ 00f,$6,000.00 $6,000.00
Double c0 Inlet $11,000.00 1 EA s11.000.00 1- 00 100_o0t s11,000.00 s11,000-00
Inlet Grate Replacement 9350.00 19 EA s6.650.00 10-oo $3, 5 00. 00 s3, 50 0. 00
s900.00 2 EA s1.800-00 0 ,00t $0.00 s0.00
Manhole
nlet Grati*eplacement (ggtfblg lqlC!l
s6.500-00 6 s39.000 00 5.00 83.33r s32,500.00 s32.500 - 00
Metal Lid ReDlacement s1-600-00 EA $1,600.00 1.00 100.00t s1.600-00 s1 _ 600 00
Curb and Gutter ReDlacement s?9_o0 LE 5147,730.00 1,885,00 100.80t s148.915-00
sideual k s20 00 sr s2,400.00 351.00 292 .50i s7 - 020- oo 57, 02 0. 00
Driveuav Reol acement s3.800.00 23 EA $87,400.00 23 -OO 100-001 s8?,400.00 s87,400.00
ADA Ramp Repfacement w/ Curb and Gutter Work s5,600- 00 4 EA s22.400 -oo 3_00 75.001 $16,800.00 s16,800.00
Additional Concrete Work (Alvarado Avenue)54,200.00 1 1,S s4_200_00 1.00 100.008 94,200.00 s4. 200.00
Culvert Repairs/Removal Ex Inlet st,600 -oo $6,400.00 5, 00 150.00s s9.600.00 s9- 500-00
PVC Storm Drain LF s232,31 5 -OA 1, 201 .00 8? .359 s202.969 - 00
24" PVC Storm Drain $210.00 88 IT s18.480 - 00 34-00 38 - 54?s?,140.00 $7, 14 0. 00x29ATched CIPP13 s269.00 300 IE s80. ?00 - 00 300 - 00 100 - 009 s80,700-00 s80,?00.00
sidewalk Replacement throuqh Drivewav 522.OO 40 SE s880-oo 221 -OO s4,994.00 $4,994.00
Enerov DissaDater and Fittinos s3 . 500. 00 T,S s3.500-oo 1- 00 100.00t s3,500.00 s 3, 500. 00
Concrete Suale and AsDhaIt s4t .000 - 00 941,000,00 I .00 100.009 s41,000.00 s41.000 - o0
s300.00 20 EA s6,000.00 3 6.00 180.00a sr0.800-00 0. 800 - 00sl
Traffic Control $16,000.00 1 LS s16. 000 . 00 1.00 100 - 00t s1 5_ OOO 00 s16,000.00
Sater Main Relocation on Palm Drive $11,000.00 1 EA s11,000.00 1.00 100 - 00t s11, 000.00 $1r,000.00
sewer Lateral Relocation $3,400.00 8 EA s2?.200.00 t -00 1?-509 s3,400.00 $3, 4 00. 00
Water Lateral Relocation s2 _ 100-00 6 st, 60n 00 33.339 s4,200-00 s4,200.00
Utilitv Box Grade Adiustments s?00-00 0.00r $0.00 s0.00
s5 400 00 1 EA $5, 4 00. 00 0.00t s0.00 s0-o0
15 500.00 00
00
00
00
00
00
00
19
24
23
29
30
Excavation and Foundation Stabilization
: WWTP SLorm Dr--n lmDrovemenLs
s10.00
$89,000.00 |
200 CY s2, 000 .00
s89,000.00
0.008 s0.00 s0.00
$89,000.00
s0. 00
s0. 001100r100.00t :s89,000.00
Subtotal
chanqe orders
_9!9!:
cco2:
cco3:
Avenue & Humboldt Curb
CCO4
CCO? ; 24" PVC Pi
ccoS Eee
s1,0?2,565.00 98 8J, 1q q.q0 s883,108-00 s0. 00
0.00
0. 00
0.0
DATE
SUBTOTALg-02-2016 1ESS RETENTTON (59)
:
s1,062,110.54 :
($53,105-s3):
$1, 009,005.01
s0.00
s1,052,110.54
(s53,105.53)
s0. 00
s53,105.53
$1,009,005.01 :
$0. 00 :
$53,105,53
90. 00
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY:SUBTOTAI, WlTHOUT DEDUCTIONS
A},IOUNT DUE FROM CONTRACTORAPPI]OVED EY
CITY ENGINEER:
APPROVED BY
.ONSTlT,TTNTL
s1,009,005.01 s53,105.53
S:V
8l2t
\o**a o,*a"ro^*"RoJEcTS\82600\FiBr P.ogress Paymenr.rs, {sHEET- PAYMENT NO. 1)
6r pu
TOTAI THIS PERIOD s1,009,005.01
)'"")
((
)
147 CALIFOE}IA DB CALFOBNA DR
AND.IJANTA AVE
PBO.TTgTE
EN2
OAK GflOVE AvE
PROJrcT gTE
EN3O
flsSTAN-EY D
PFqTTSIIE
t,
:ii0
BAYgWAIEN AVE
ANDVICTOBA FD
PAOJrcTSIE
BN20
)h
HIISDE CIRCLE
PBOJET6[IE MYSU'ATEB A\IE
II{-EII'
PAo..TTgTE
BM(HMsR-OBBLNDA
PROJrcT $IE PEN]*'I'-A AVE
PEO,'ECT SIE
@
GRAPHIC SCAI^8
CYPFESS AvE
PFO.EG-^T gTE
Bt{z
(tr6)
El[[t"-'.$&,...
t6o)B esr . .! (6e)*ee?o . !e! ieodqlE @6
GITY OF BURLINGAME
CALIFORf,IA
TOCATION MAP
3
34NEIGHBORHOOD STORM DRAIN *E PROJECT
CITY PROJECT NO. E4320
(
RECORD DRAWING
frrs REcoRo oil*rNc uE Ba PR@No. ril Pffi. fl BE Nls
OF INFORUNS CUB@ AO ruRilS@ ry ilE PUEO
CMWOR NO ONS. BE EICINE il[ XOT AE RErcN9BE
rOR N
'NfuRS
OR OMSIOf,S frHICH MW BEEN IN@R&ME IM
TA6 OMUXN S A RSUIT, NS EFUNON OF FM AO ilTA
SHOUO BE W IF BEE MdMM ME rc BE UsO 6 A SIS
sax farEo couNl
STAFF REPORT AGENDANO: Bi
U MEETING DATE: August 15,2016
To:Honorable Mayor and CitY Council
Date: August 15,2016
From: William Meeker, Community Development Director - (650) 558-7255
Subject:Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Gity Manager to Execute a
Professional Services Agreement with ESA to Perform Environmental
Review Services Related to the Proposed Commercial Development at 1300
Bayshore Hi (SFO @ Technology Center)
\-
RECOMM DATION
The City Council is asked to adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a
Professional Services Agreement with ESA for environmental review services in the amount of
$148,033.00 related to the proposed commercial development project known as SFO @
Technology Center, to be located at 1300 Bayshore Highway.
BACKG ROUND
The City of Burlingame has received an application from Steve Porter and Fox Bayshore
lnvestments to merge five parcels and construct a new commercial development along the
Bayfront at 1300 Bayshore Highway. The proposed development would include office, restaurant
and retail space. The site currently contains the former Hyatt Cinema, the American Grill
restaurant, and small-scale office buildings. The project site is located in the Shoreline (SL)
zoning district and is within the boundaries of the Bayfront Specific Plan.
The proposal includes demolishing the existing structures and constructing a mixed-use
commercial development with one eight-story building and one nine-story building that would be
connected by a superstructure over a vehicular entry that also provides a view corridor to the
Bay. The proposed floor area of the new buildings would be 241,737 SF and would include
211,283 SF of office space, 13,524 SF of restaurant space and 16,930 SF of retail space with
844 on-site parking spaces. The project is subject to environmental review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The Community Development Department circulated a Request for Proposals (RFP) to three
environmental consultants qualified to provide environmental review services for development
projects; two firms responded to the RFP. After reviewing the two proposals, the Community
Development Department has selected ESA to perform the environmental review required for the
proposed project.
1
\-
DISCUSSION
Professional Services Agreement with ESA August 15, 2016
Environmental review is a duty imposed on the lead agency under State law, but such review is
funded by the development applicant. Therefore, although the contract is with the City of
Burlingame, the applicant will pay $148,033.00 as an up-front deposit to the City to cover the
costs of the environmental review. The City will administer the contract, and will pay the
consultant on a monthly basis as services are rendered.
Because the cost of the agreement exceeds $100,000, Council approval is required. Attached is
a draft Agreement for Professional Services with ESA, in addition to the Scope of Work for the
project.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the project's environmental review is provided by the project applicant. Therefore,
there will be no fiscal impact to the City's budget.
Exhibits
Resolution
Professional Services Ag reement
Scope of Work
-
2
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING
THE CIry MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
ESA TO PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 13OO BAYSHORE HIGHWAY
(SFO @ TECHNOLOGY CENTER)
WHEREAS, an application has been submitted by Steve Porter and Fox Bayshore
Investments to merge five parcels and construct a new commercial development totaling
241,737 SF with a mix of uses that would include office, restaurant and retail space in one 8-
story building and one 9-story building (connected), located at 1300 Bayshore Highway; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an
environmental review of the project must occur prior to consideration of the proposed
commercial development of the SFO @ Technology Center project at 1300 Bayshore Highway
by the Planning Commission and City Council; and
WHEREAS, ESA has submitted a proposal to conduct the required environmental review
retated to the commercial development, SFO @ Technology Center project, at 1300 Bayshore
Highway; and
WHEREAS, an agreement has been prepared incorporating the Scope of Services
prepared by ESA in the amount of $148,033.00, which was found to be adequate to provide the
- ievel of environmental review required for the proposed commercial development of the SFO @
Technology Center project at 1300 Bayshore Highway, and the costs associated with the
services to be provided by ESA are to be reimbursed by the applicant; and
WHEREAS, because the agreement will authorize work in excess of $100,000, City
Council approval is required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED
I The City Manager is authorized and directed to enter into a Professional Services
Agreement with ESA for environmental review services related to the proposed
commerciat development of the SFO @ Technology Center project at 1300 Bayshore
Highway, consistent with the Scope of Work attached to this resolution, for a maximum
cost of $148,033.00, as stated in the Scope of Work.
The City Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the City Manager upon execution of
the Professional Services Agreement.
2
lVlayor
1
Resolution No.
AYES:
NAYES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILIVEIVBERS:
City Clerk
2
l, lVeaghan 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 1Sth
day of August, 2016, and as adopted thereafter by the following vote:
\-
U
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AND ESA
THIS AGREEMENT is by and between ESA ("consultant") and the city of
Burlingame, a public body of the State of Califomia ("City''). Consultant and City agree:
1. Services. Consultant shall provide environmental consulting services for review
of a proposed development project located at 1300 Bayshore Highway, as further set forth in .
Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
2. Compensation. Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and
materials in excess of said Maximum compensation amount, Consultant agrees to perform all of
the Scope of Services herein required of Consultant for $148,033.00, including all materials and
other reimbursable amounts ("Maximum Compensation"), for preparation of a CEQA document
for the proposal at 1300 Bayshore Highway, Burlingame. Consultant shall submit invoices on a
monthly basis. A11 bills submitted by Consultant shall contain suffrcient information to
determine whether the amount deemed due and payable is accurate. Bills shall include a brief
description of services performed, the date services were performed, the number of hours spent
and by whom, a brief description of any costs incurred and the Consultant's signature.
3. Term. This Agreement commences on fulI execution hereof and terminates on
August 15,2018, unless otherwise extended or terminated pursuant to the provisions hereof.
Consultant agrees to diligently prosecute the services to be provided under this Agreement to
completion and in accordance with any schedules specified herein. In the performance of this
Agreement, time is of the essence. Time extensions for delays beyond the Consultant's control,
other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City's Contract
Administrator prior to the expiration of the specified completion date.
4. Assignment and Subcontracting. A substantial inducement to City for entering
into this Agreement is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Neither this
Agreernent nor any interest herein may be assigned or subcontracted by Consultant without the
prior written approval of City. It is expressly understood and agreed by both parties that
Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City.
5. Insurance. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall cafiy, maintain for the
duration of the Agreement, and provide proof thereof, acceptable to the City, the insurance
coverages specified in Exhibit B, "City Insurance Requirements," attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of required insurance
coverage prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of
Cerlificates of Insurance to City.
6. Indemnification. Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold City, its directors,
officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability,
claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the
negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant, its employees, subcontractors, or
agents, or on account of the performance or character of the Services, except for any such claim
arising out of the sole negligence or willflil misconduct of the City, its officers, employees,
agents, or volunteers. It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify and hold
\-
harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 of the Califomia Civil Code.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any design professional services, the duty to defend and
indemnify City shall be limited to that allowed pursuant to Califomia Civil Code section2782.8.
Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not
relieve Consultant from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This
indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply whether or not such insurance policies shall
have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages.
7. Termination and Abandonment. This Agreement may be cancelled at any time
by City for its convenience upon written notice to Consultant. In the event of such termination,
Consultant shall be entitled to pro-rated compensation for authorized Services performed prior to
the effective date of termination provided however that City may condition payment of such
compensation upon Consultant's delivery to City of any or all materials described herein. In the
event the Consultant ceases performing services under this Agreement or otherwise abandons the
project prior to completing all of the Services described in this Agreement, Consultant shall,
without delay, deliver to City all materials and records prepared or obtained in the performance
of this Agreement. Consultant shall be paid for the reasonable value of the authorized Services
performed up to the time of Consultant's cessation or abandonment, less a deduction for any
damages or additional expenses which City incurs as a result of such cessation or abandonment.
8. Ownership of Materials. All documents, materials, and records of a finished
nature, including but not limited to final plans, specifications, video or audio tapes, photographs,
computer data, software, reports, maps, electronic files and films, and any final revisions,
prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be delivered to and become the
property of City. All documents and materials of a preliminary nature, including but not limited
to notes, sketches, preliminary plans, computations and other data, and any other material
referenced in this Section, prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be
made available, upon request, to City at no additional charge and without restriction or limitation
on their use. Upon City's request, Consultant shall execute appropriate documents to assign to
the City the copyright or trademark to work created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall
return all City property in Consultant's control or possession immediately upon termination.
9. Compliance lvith Laws. In the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall
abide by and conform to any and all applicable laws of the United States and the State of
California, and all ordinances, regulations, and policies of the City. Consultant warrants that all
work done under this Agreernent will be in compliance with all applicable safety rules, laws,
statutes, and practices, including but not limited to CaI/OSHA regulations. If a license or
registration of any kind is required of Consultant, its employees, agents, or subcontractors by
law, Consultant warrants that such license has been obtained, is valid and in good standing, and
Consultant shall keep it in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement, and that any
applicable bond shall be posted in accordance with all applicable laws and regLrlations.
10. Conflict of Interest. Consultant warrants and covenants that Consultant presently
has no interest in, nor shall any interest be hereinafter acquired in, any matter which will render
the services required under the provisions of this Agreement a violation of any applicable state,
local, or federal law. In the event that any conflict of interest should neveftheless hereinafter
arise, Consultant shall prornptly notify City of the existence of such conflict of interest so that
2
\-
\-
the City may determine whether to terminate this Agreement. Consultant further warrants its
compliance with the Political Reform Act (Government Code $ 81000 et seq.) respecting this
Agreement.
11. Whole Agreement and Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the entire
understanding and Agreement of the parties and integrates all of the terms and conditions
mentioned herein or incidental hereto and supersedes all negotiations or any previous written or
oral Agreements between the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof.
The parties intend not to create rights in, or to grant remedies to, any third party as a beneficiary
of this Agreement or of any duty, covenant, obligation, or undertaking established herein. This
Agteement may be amended only by a written document, executed by both Consultant and the
City Manager, and approved as to form by the City Attorney. Such document shall expressly
state that it is intended by the parties to amend certain terms and conditions of this Agteement.
The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement shall not
constifute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same or a
different provision of this Agreement. Multiple copies of this Agreement may be executed but
the parties agree that the Agreement on file in the office of the City Clerk is the version of the
Agreement that shall take precedence should any differences exist among counterparts of the
document. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be govemed by the laws of the
State of Califomia.
12. Capacity of Parties. Each signatory and party hereto warrants and represents to
the other party that it has all legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter
into this Agreement and that all necessary actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into
this Agreement.
13. Severability. Should any part of this Agreement be declared by a final decision
by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, invalid, or beyond the
authority of either party to enter into or caffy out, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remainder of this Agreement, which shall continue in fulI force and effect, provided that the
remainder of this Agreement, absent the unexcised portion, can be reasonably interpreted to give
effect to the intentions of the parties.
14. Notice. Any notice required or desired to be given under this Agreement shall be
in writing and shall be personally served or, in lieu of personal service, may be given bV (i)
depositing such notice in the United States mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested,
postage prepaid, addressed to a party at its address set forth in Exhibit A; (ii) transmitting such
notice by means of Federal Express or similar ovemight commercial courier ("Courier"), postage
paid and addressed to the other at its street address set forth below; (iii) transmitting the same by
facsimile, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered upon confinnation of receipt by the
sending facsimile machine's acknowledgment of such with date and time printout; or (iv) by
personal delivery. Any notice given by Courier shall be deemed given on the date shown on the
receipt for acceptance or rejection of the notice. Either party may, by written notice, change the
address to which notices addressed to it shall thereafter be sent.
3
\-
15. Miscellaneous. Except to the extent that it provides apart of the definition of the
term used herein, the captions used in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be
considered in the construction of interpretation of any provision hereof, nor taken as a correct or
complete segregation of the several units of materials and labor.
Capitahzed terms refer to the definition provide with its first usage in the Agreement.
When the context of this Agreement requires, the neuter gender includes the masculine,
the feminine, a partnership or corporation, trust or joint venture, and the singular includes the
plural.
The terms "sha11", "will", "must" and "agree" are mandatory, The term "may''is
permissive.
The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agteement
shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same
or a different provision of this Agreement.
When aparty is required to do something by this Agreement, it shall do so at its sole cost
and expense without right to reimbursement from the other party unless specific provision is
made otherwise.
Where any party is obligated not to perform any act, such party is also obligated to
restrain any others within its control from performing such act, including its agents, invitees,
contractors, subcontractors and employees.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Consultant and City execute this Agreement.
1
CITY OF BURLINGAME
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
ESA
550 Kearney Street
SanFrancisco, CA 94108
By:
Karl Heisler
Community Development Group Manager,
San Francisco
Date
Federal Employer ID Number:_
License Numb
Lisa Goldman
City Manager
Date:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk
Attest
4
Expiration Date:-
5
Approved as to form:
Kathleen Kane
City Attorney
Attachments:
Exhibit A Scope of Work
Exhibit B City Insurance Provisions
-
6
^
\-
\-
Proposal
13OO BAYSHORE HIGHWAY
SFO@TECHNOLOGY CENTER
lnitial Study/lVitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared for
City of City of Burlingame
Community Development Department
Planning Division
January 8, 2016
r IiSA
)
\-,
a
\-,
Proposal
13OO BAYSHORE HIGHWAY
SFO@TECHNOLOGY CENTER
lnitial Study/lt/itigated Negative Declaration
Prepared for
City of City of Burlingame
Community Development Department
Planning Division
January B, 2016
550 Keamy Street
Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94108
41 5.896.5900
www.esassoc.com
lrvine
Los Angeles
Oakland
Odando
Palm Springs
Potaluma
Portland
Sacramento
San Diego
Seattle
Tampa
Woodland Hills
r ESA
)
U
P1 6001 1
r ESA
)
225 Bush Street
Suite 1700
San Francisco, CA 941 04
415.896.5900 phone
41 5.896.0332 fax
www.esassoc.com
\-
\-,
January 8,2016
Catherine Barber
Senior Planner
City of Burlingame
Community Development Department
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Subject: Proposal to Prepare the IS/iVIND for the Proposed SFO@Technology Center at 1300 Bayshore
Highrvay (Revised 1/27/1 A
Dear Ms. Barber:
Environmental Science Associates (ESA) is pleased to respond to your request for proposal (RFP) to prepare an
Initial Study/lr4itigated Negative Declaration (ISA4ND) for the SFO@Technology Center at 1300 Bayshore
Highway. We recognize it is important for the Ciry to engage the services of a firm that is familiar with the
specific environmental and technical issues the proposed project and project site pose, such that they can prepare
a thorough, cost-efficient and timely environmental document. Toward that end, our proposal dernonstrates that
ESA has the directly relevant experience, expertise, and local familiarity needed for this project.
Based on discussions rvith the City, we have assembled a team of experienced CEQA analysts and technical
specialists to address the project's unique characteristics. ESA proposes to prepare the ISAvIND almost entirely
"in-house" using staff from our local Bay Area offices. We have included two specialty subcontractors:
Environmental Vision to prepare visual simulations, requested by the City; and Erler & Kalinowski, Inc. as an
optional subconsultant to prepare a Water Supply Assessment if requested by the City.
ESA offers the Ciry the follorving distinct qualifications relevant for this work
A Highly-Experienced Local Project Management Team. ESA's proposed project managelnent team has
hands-on experience with large, complex CEQA documents. Our dedicated team has rvorked together on
numerous successful Burlingame projects in the last decade.
Direct Local Knowledge and Shoreline Development Experience; ESA has completed a number of
environnental documents for the Burlingame Bayfront vicinity, including technical work in support of the
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan.These prior analyses provide ESA with uniquely relevant knowledge of
site-specific and local vicinity issues.
Extensive Relevant Experience with Large Office Development Projecfs; ESA is also thoroughly farniliar
lvith the issues traditional office developments present, having successfully completed several dozen
environmental documents for large office projects throughout the Bay Area.
Excellent Working Relationship with City Stal ESA's established relationships with City staff who will be
leading this project offer the benefit of known expectations for work quality, communications protocol, and
project delivery.
a
a
a
\-
a
r ESA
*
Catherine Barber
January 8,2016
Page2
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal and hope we will have an opportunity to work with the City
on this exciting project. Ifyou have any questions, please call us.
Sincerely,
1
(;J l-'t 'LJ*i{M{?.ek;M
Paul Mitchell
Project Manager
Karl Heisler
Project Director
{ ESA
)
\-
CONTENTS
1300 Bayshore Highway
SFo@Technology Center Initial Study /
lVl itigated Negative Declaration
Paqe
Cover Letter
SECTION 1. Description of Project Team
A. ESA Project Management Team
B. ESA Key Technical Personnel
C. Subconsultants
SECTION 2. Experience and ReferencesA. Relevant Experience and Work History in BurlingameB. Extensive Bay Shoreline Development ExperienceC. Large Office Development Project ExperienceD. References
SECTION 3. Scope of Work
A. Understanding of the Project
B. Understanding of Project lssues
C. Study Approach
D. Work Program and Work Products
E. Technical Scope of Work
SECTION 4. Cost Estimate and ConditionsA. Cost EstimateB. Conditions
SECTION 5. Schedule
SECTION6. Qualifications
A. Site-Specific Experience
B. Bay Shoreline Development Experience
C. Large Office Development Experience
2-1
2-2
2-2
2-3
2-3
3-1
3-1
3-3
3-4
3-6
3-8
1-'l
1-2
1-3
'1-5
4-1
4-1
4-1
5-l
6-l
6-1
6-3
6-6
\-
SFO@Technology Center lnilial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaralion
r rSA
A
\-
\-
SECTION 1
Description of Project Team
Based on discussions with the City, we have assembled a team of
experienced CEQA analysts and technical specialists to address the unique
characteristics ofthe project. ESA proposes to prepare the Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISA4ND) almost entirely "in-house"
using staff from our local Bay Area offices. The only exceptions are the
use of l) Michelucci & Associates,Inc., Geotechnical Consultants to
prepare a preliminary geotechnical study as requested by the Ciry, and
2) Environmental Vision to prepare visual simulations, also requested by the
City.
As indicated below, and described in more detail in Section 2, the majority of
key ESA staff slated to work on the ISA{ND were involved in prior
environmental review that ESA conducted in Burlingame. Furthermore, all
ESA staff has worked on a variety of large office and/or shoreline
developments throughout the Bay Area.
Our team organization is typical of our approach to large, complex and
technically challenging envtonmental documents. ESA's Project Manager,
Paul Mitchell, shall be primary point contact for the City and the consultant
team. Our Project Director, Karl Heisler, will serve primarily in an oversight
and review role. Paul and Karl and Cory are both based in ESA's
San Francisco office, just a short drive to the project site and any meetings in
Burlingame.
As shown in below, we have also identified a leader for each environmental
topic area who rvill, in collaboration with the Project Manager, cornplete key
IS/MND sections. The topic leaders have been selected for this assignrrent
based on site-specific history, experience, their technical expertise, their
successful track record in contributing to complex environment, and their
experience r.vith sirnilar projects and designs. We propose to rvork closely and
cotlaboratively with Ciry staff toward the successful adoption of the IS/TvIND.
\-
SFo@Technology Center lnilial Study / Mitigaled Negative Declaration 1-1
1. Description of Project Team
A. ESA Project [/anagement Team
Karl Heisler will serve as Project Director for the IS/MND. Mr. Heisler is
Manager for ESA's Bay Area Community Development Group. Mr. Heisler
has directed or managed environmental documents for both public and
private development projects throughout the Bay Area. His areas of technical
expertise are land use, zoning and plan consistency; architeclural resources;
urban design and visual quality; transportation and parking; and public
services. Mr. Heisler is also skilled in development of alternatives and
comparative analysis of their potential effects.
Karl has directed or managed environmental review documents for large
civic and private development projects throughout the Bay Area.
Representative examples of EIRs for large office projects Karl has directed
or managed include the 222 Second Street Office Building, and Hines 560
Mission Street building in San Francisco, and Shorenstein's 555 City Center
project in Oakland.
Paul Mitchell will serve as Project Manager for the IS/MND. Mr. Mitchell
has provided project management and technical analysis capabilities for a
wide variety of projects requiring environmental review, including
commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, entertainment, transportation
and transit, institutional, educational and recreational projects. He has served
as project manager for a number of complex CEQA documents, including
capital improvement projects, specific plans, planned use developments,
school district master plans, quarries, transit service plans and multi-modal
stations.
Paul recently served as Project Manager for the Golden State Warriors Event
Center and Mixed-Use Development in San Francisco's Mission Bay
(certified in December 2015), and co-Project Manager of the 34th America's
Cup and San Francisco Cruise Terminal EIR. In Burlingame, Paul previously
served as Project Director for the Peninsula Healthcare District Assisted
Living and Memory Care Facility IS/MND, Project Manager for 301 Airport
Boulevard Grading Project ISA{ND, and Deputy Project Manager for the
301 Airport Boulevard EIR and. Elsewhere in the City, Paul served as
Deputy Project Manager for the original Burlingame Safelvay EIR, Project
Manager for an ISAvIND for an interim parking lot at 620 Airport Boulevard,
and Project Director for the IS/MND for the 1226 El Camino Real
Condorniniurns project. In addition Paul has completed a number of CEQA
documents for the Burlingame School District as the District's on-call
environmental consultant.
1
1-2 SFO@Technolory Center lnilial Sludy / Mitigated Negative Declaralion
T ESA
)
1. Description of Project Team
B. ESA Key Technical Personnel
Chuck Bennett will serve as Senior Technical Lead for wind issues for the
ISA4ND. Chuck has more than 45 years of experience in applied
environmental studies and project management. Chuck, one of the founders of
ESA, serves as consultant and directs work in applied technical studies, impact
analysis and EIR/S preparation. He has directed and contributed to more than
275 CEQAAfEPA impact studies and 500 technical studies in air quality, wind
effects, health and safefy, noise, vibration, visual effects and electromagnetic
hazards. Chuck's recent efforts have focused on energy projects, including
refineries that include cogeneration facilities, as well as electric transmission
and distribution facilities.
As it relates to the project site and vicinity, Chuck led the wind analyses
conducted earlier this year for the applicant, as well as the original wind
analyses as part of the 301 Airport Boulevard EIR, and a wind study in
support of the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan.
Jack Hutchison, P.E., will serve as Senior Transportation Lead for the
Transportation section of the IS/MND. Mr. Hutchison is a registered Traffic
Engineer in the State of California. He has 38 years of experience in a wide
range oftransportation analyses, from planning-level impact analyses to
operations and design evaluations, and his CEQA experience as it applies to
transportation issues is unparalleled among Bay Area traffic engineers.
Jack previously served as ESA's senior traffic lead in analyzing traffic,
parking and circulation impacts for the 301 Airport Boulevard EIR. Jack also
led the transportation analyses for the original Burlingame Safeway EIR,
among several other environmental documents in the City.
Chris Sanchez, will serve as Lead Technical Analyst for Air Quality,
Climate Change and Noise sections of the IS/MND. Chris Sanchez has over
20 years of experience conducting and monitoring air quality, noise and
energy investigations and surveys for urban development, transportation, and
infrastructure projects. He has prepared nurnerous greenhouse gas emission
inventories since the passing of Assembly Bill 32. His professional training
and experience have augmented an academic background in air qualiry,
noise, rneteorology, and energy. He is trained and proficient in air dispersion
rnodeling using the AERMOD dispersion model.
As it relates to the project site, Chris previously served as ESA's technical
lead in analyzing air quality and noise impacts for the 301 Airport Boulevard
EIR, and most recently for the IS/MND for the grading project for the
301 Airport Boulevard site.
\,,
\-
\-,
SFo@Technology Center lnilial Study / Miligated Negalive Declaralion 1-3
1. Description of Project Team
Brad Brelvster, Architectural Historian/Preservation Planner, will serve
as Senior Lead for the Cultural Resources section of the IS/MND. Brad has
20 years of experience in environmental planning, with technical expertise in
the preparation and management of environmental review documents under
CEQA, and a focus in historic preservation planning and historic
architectural resources. He has served as project manager for numerous EIRs
and Mitigated Negative Declarations in the San Francisco Bay Area, and has
surveyed and evaluated hundreds ofhistoric resources throughout the United
States for listing on national, state and local levels. Brad has additionally
completed numerous historic evaluations required under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, and has documented many historic
buildings in accordance with the Historic American Building Survey/Historic
American Engineering Record (HAB S/HAER) standards.
Eric Schniewind, will serve as Lead Technical Analyst for Geology, Soils
and Seismicity; Hydrology and Water Quality; and Hazards and Hazardous
Materials for the IS/MND. Eric has over 20 years of experience as a
geologist, hydrogeologist, hydrologist, and hazardous materials specialist in
environmental consulting. His technical background includes geotechnical
engineering, soil, and groundwater contamination investigations,
environmental remediation planning and implementation, and Phase I site
assessments. In addition, Eric has been involved in fault trace identification
and landslidehazard srudies. His general responsibilities have included
providing geological, geotechnical, and hydrogeological technical support for
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and CEQA documents.
Brian Pittman, C\YB, will serve as Senior Lead for Biological Resources
section of the IS/MND. Brian is a Certified Wildlife Biologist who brings
over 20 years of environmental consulting experience solving complex
environmental issues in management and conservation of plants and wildlife,
habitats, watersheds, and ecosystems. He is a recognized expert in Bay Area
and Central Califomia biological resources and conservation science. He has
successfully managed teams of scientists, planners, and resource agency staff
on a broad range ofprojects. He is trained and proficient in federal and state
environmental regulations including the Endangered Species Act,
CEQAAIEPA, Clean Water Act, California Endangered Species Act,
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, California Departrnent bf Fish & Game Code,
River and Harbors Act, and other special laws including farniliarity with
local agency ordinances. Brian has perfonned U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) protocol-level surveys for listed wildlife species throughout
Califomia.
1-4 SFo@Technolory Center lnitial Study / Mitigated Negalive Declaralion
r ESAJ
1. Description of Project Team
Brian previously analyzed biological issues for the IS/MND for the grading
project for the 301 Airport Boulevard sile. Brian also assessed biological
impacts for the original Burlingame Safeway EIR.
C. Subconsultants
Environmental Vision -Visual Simulations Consultant
Environmental Vision provides specialized planning and design consulting
services that address the aesthetics and public perception ofenvirorunentally
sensitive projects. The firm's staff has extensive experience in preparing
visual and urban design studies for a variety oflarge-scale projects including
complex and controversial urban development and public infrastructure
improvements. Environmental Vision's technical capabilities are enhanced
by state-of-the-art computer applications including high-resolution visual
simulation, three-dimensional modeling, Geographic lnformation Systems
(GIS), animation, graphics, and video production. The firm is a certified
Small-and Women-owned Business Enterprise with a strong track record in
providing responsive, cost-effective professional services to public and
private sector clients including colleges and universities, development
companies, transportation agencies, environmental consulting firms, and
architects/ engineers.
ESA has a long-standing relationship rvith Environmental Vision, and has
worked with them on a number of commercial and office development
projects. Notably, in Burlingame, Environmental Vision served as a visual
subconsultant on, and prepared the visual simulations for, the 301 Airport
Boulevard EIR, and most recently, for the Peninsula Healthcare District
Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility IS/MND.
Erler & Kalinowski, lnc. - Optional Subconsultant for Water
Supply Assessment
Erler & Kalinorvski, Inc. (EKI) provides water resources plaruring services to
clients addressing a wide range of technical, engineering, economic, and
regulatory issues. These services have included preparation of long-term water
supply master plans, urban water management plans, water conservation plans,
and SB 610-compliant water supply assessments; conducting water supply
inventory assessments, including review of surface water transfer options and
aquifer storage and recovery alternatives; evaluation ofconjunctive use options
to allow for balanced use of surface water, groundwater, and reclaimed water;
evaluation of seawater intrusion in near-marine groundwater basins; and
providing water rights and basin adjudication support through the use of
numerical modeling and data analysis to determine historical water use, basin
\-
\-
SFO@Technology Center lnilial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaralion 't-5
\-
1. Description of Project Team
safe yield, and extracted water quality. EKI's analysis of various water supply
options includes estimates of the life-cycle costs, the supply reliability, and the
feasibility of developing the various supply options, among other criteria.
EKI prepared the latest Urban Water Management Plan for the City of
Burlingame.
1
1-6 SFO@Technology Center lnitial Study / Miligated Negative Declaralion
{ rgA
)
SECTION 2
Experience and References
To highlight the ESA team staff capabilities and expertise for the proposed
project, Table 2-1 provides a matrix of ESA team staff that would work on
the SFO@Technology Center IS/MND, and their relationship to 1) relevant
work history and experience in Burlingame,2) bay shoreline project
experience, and 3) large office development project experience. Each of these
topics is described in greater detail, below.
TABLE 2.1
ESA TEAM PROJECT TEAM FAMILIARTY WITH PROJECT SITE AND ISSUES
-
Relevant Experience and
Work History in Burlingame
Bay Shoreline Development
Experience
Large Office Development
Project Experience
t.c(,
T'.eo
rEt
Ti;
(}
E(n,
IDIt
:E['g(r.g
oa
I
!,IE3
(l,
.cC
C't)F-o.E
ata
?tc.E
gc
(,qr,
'.s
UT
SFo@Technology Center lnilial Study/Mitigaled Negative Declaralion 2-1
'lo
E
,:tl(ll{,J
!
aq,(,
3oo(uE
?;.u
=(J
I
2. Experience and References
\-A. Relevant Experience and Work History in
Burlingame
As described in greater detail in Section 6, Relevant Experience, in this
Proposal, ESA staffhas extensive knowledge ofthe project area, having
conducted a number of environmental documents for prior proposed
developments in the project viciniry, and/or in support of the Burlingame
Bayfront Specific Plan, incl:uding:
301 Airport Boulevard Office Development EIR and Addenda;
301 Airport Boulevard Interim Grading Project Initial Stltdy/Mitigated
Negative Declaration;
620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Sndy/
M i tigated N e gat iv e D ecl aration
Wind Testing of Alternative Conceptual Designs for 301 Airport
Boulevard Site (luly 2010); and
Burlingame Bayfront Speci/ic Plan Wind Sntdy and Noise Constraints
Analysis.
ESA has served as one of the City's long-term CEQA consultants, having
prepared almost two dozen environmental and technical docurnents over the
past 25 years. During this time, ESA has worked on a number of challenging,
sensitive and prominent projects in Burlingame (see Section 6, Relevant
Experience, for a full listing).
This experience has resulted in our proven ability to work with City of
Burlingame staff and to translate City requirements into successful projects.
ESA and the City have a shared understanding of expectations that spans the
environmental and entitlement process, and that invariably benefits the
schedule and adequacy ofthe CEQA document and process.
B. Extensive Bay Shoreline Development
Experience
The proposed project would be located along the Burlingame bayfront,
adjacent to both the San Francisco Bay and Easton Creek Channel.
Shorelines can be considered sensitive environments, given the presence of
aquatic and other biological species and habitat, popular use for a variety of
recreational activities (including use of the Bay Trail and windsurfing in the
Bay). Consequently, development along the shoreline can pose special
enviromnental considerations as it relates to potential flooding, drainage, and
a
a
a
a
a
\-
\-
2-2 SFo@Technology Center lnilial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaralion
r I'SA
j
2. Experience and References
minimizing construction and operational effects on water quality and nearby
sensitive habitat. Such development poses special planning considerations,
given thejurisdiction ofthe shoreline by several resource agencies, such as
the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the
Army Corps of Engineers and Regional Water Quality Control Board. In
addition, the site is within the City's Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan area.
ESA is conversant in the wide array of unique considerations that shoreline
developrnent require, having successfully completed environmental
documents for numerous shoreline projects; see Section 6 in this Proposal for
specific examples.
C. Large Office Development Project Experience
As described in greater detail in Section 6 in this Proposal, ESA has a proven
track record of completing environmental documents for large office
developments throughout the Bay Area, similar to that proposed for the
1300 Bayshore Highway site. Large office developments can pose a number
of environmental challenges, as they are large traffic generators that have the
potential to result in substantial effects on the surrounding transportation
system; require substantial parking accommodations; generate considerable
mobile air emissions; have large infrastructure/utility demands; and can
result in large bulk buildings that have the potential for substantial visual
changes (and in the case of the project site, can influence nearby wind
conditions). ESA is thoroughly familiar with this range of issues, having
aralyzed numerous projects with sirnilar concerns, and successfully
completed those environmental documents.
D. References
ESA has gained a reputation for responsive service, technical excellence, and
overall quality of work. Below, in Table 2-2, are client references for which
ESA has provided prime consultant services. We invite you to contact these
references for infonnation regarding the quality of our work, effective
comrnunication and coordination, cost control, and our ability to meet
schedules.
1
SFO@Technology Center lnitial Sludy/Mitigated Negalive Declaration 2-3
2. Experience and References
\-TABLE2-2
RELEVANT CLIENT REFERENCES
Chris Kern
Senior Environmental Planner
San Francisco Planning Department
Environmental Planning Division
1650 Mission Skeet, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 575-9037
chris.kem@sfgov.org
Diane Oshima
Assistant Director
Waterfront Planning
Port of San Francisco
Pier 1, The Embarcadero
San Francisco, CA 94'l 11
(415) 274-0400
d iane.osh i ma @sfport. com
Michael Jacinto
Senior Environmental Planner
San Francisco Planning Department
Environmental Planning Division
1650 Mission Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 575-9033
michael.jacinto@sfgov.org
Paul Mitchell
Paul Mitchell
Karl Heisler
\,,
Large shoreline office
development and event center:
. Golden State Warriors Event
Center and Mixed-Use
Development at Mission Bay
SEIR
Large sh ore I i ne d eve lopme nt:
r 34th America's Cup and San
Francisco Cruise Terminal
EIR
Large office development
o 222 Second Street EIR
\-,
2-4 SFO@Technology Cenler lnitial Sludy/Mitigated Negative Declarclion
Referencet
{ IiSr!
)
SECTION 3
A. Understanding of the Project
This proposal responds to a Request for Proposal by the City of Burlingame to
prepare an Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/TvIND) for the
proposed SFO@Technology Center at 1300 Bayshore Highway. The City will
serve as Lead Agency for this project under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
The project developer, Armax International, and its architect, Nardi
Associates, LLP propose an office/life science campus on an 6.2-acre site
along the Burlingame bayfront. In total, the project would include
development of two buildings comprising approximately 258,500 square feet
(s.f.) of building development, along with site transportation, infrastrucrure,
recreational and landscaping improvements.
The project site consists ofsix contiguous parcels [Assessor's Parcel
Numbers (APNs) 026-1 42-07 0 and - I I 0, and 026- I I 3-330, -450, -47 0, and
-480],1 owned by Fox Bayshore Investments, LLC. The property presently
contains 5 buildings totaling approximately 121,200 s.f. that would be
demolished under the project, including several one- to two- story
commercial buildings and a former movie theater. Easton Creek channel
partially bisects the project site.
The project site is located within the "Shoreline" area of the Burlingame
Bayfront Specific Plan and designated "Shoreline Waterfront Commercial."
The San Francisco Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC)
rnaintains jurisdiction over the 100-foot band of the San Francisco Bay
shoreline and Easton Creek channel portions ofthe project site. A
commercial office building (One Bay Plaza, 1350 Bayshore Highway) is
located to the north, the Holiday Inn Express is located to the south, and the
I ESA'. review of the County's on-line APN database indicates a different a number of APNs
(6, not 5), and certain different APN numbers, than those identified by the project sponsor
in their submitted information. This proposal presents ESA's understanding of the correct
APNs for the project site.
SFO@Technology Center lnitial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-1
Scope of Work
3. Scope of Work
\-Hyatt Regency Hotel (1333 Bayshore Highway) is located across Bayshore
Highway to the west. The project site is located approximately O.3-mile south
of the San Francisco Intemational Airport (SFO) south property boundary,
and just under one mile from the nearest SFO runway. The project site is
located approximately 250 feet east of U.S. Highway 101.
The buildings would include approximately 250,000 s.f. of office, space,
8,600 s.f. of retail space and parking. Preliminary plans indicated a nine-story
building (Building A) would be located north of Easton Creek, and an eight
story building (Building B) would be located south of Easton Creek, together
forming a partial semicircular design. A portion of first two floors of the
buildings would be open to an exterior circular driveway andplazabeneath.
The main vehicular access to the project site is proposed on Bayshore
Highway directly across frorn the Hyatt Regency Hotel main entrance, with
minor vehicular access points located on Bayshore Highway to the north and
south. A total of 844 parking spaces are proposed, the majority of which
would be located within the two buildings, with some surface parking in the
northwest portion of the property.
Easton Creek is also proposed to remain uncovered, although the project
would include some fagade screening connecting the two buildings. Large
areas of public and semi-public open space are proposed on-site, including a
central courtyard containing outdoor gathering areas. The project proposes a
number of sustainable features, including photovoltaic panels on the roof
levels, and drought tolerant landscaping.
The project would require a number of approvals frorn the City, including:
a Environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act;
Commercial Design Review;
Lot Merger;
Conditional Use Pennit for Height;
Conditional Use Pennit for Building Width; and
Parking Variance for reduction in required on-site parking.
\-
a
a
3-2 SFO@Technology Cenler lnilial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
{ IiSA 3. Scope of Work
B. Understanding of Project lssues
The proposed project presents a number of planning, environmental and
technical issues, which are addressed in detail in Section D, below. They
include the following:
Temporary construction-related environmental effects, including
construction-generated traffic, air emissions including dust, and noise;
soil disturbance and potential increases in erosion and sedimentation, and
resultant effects on water quality and nearby sensitive habitats;
Project operational traffic and contribution to cumulative traffic and
resultant effects to the surrounding roadway network, including levels of
service at critical local study intersections and reconfigured U.S. 101
Broadway interchange intersections; effects ofproposed site access and
circulation changes, including impacts to traffic/bicycle/pedestrian safety;
adequacy of proposed parking;
a Project air emissions and contribution to cumulative air emissions from
stationary and mobile sources; potential air quality/health risk effects to
any potential on-site sensitive receptors (e.g., day-care center);
consideration of Bay Area Quality Management District CEQA
Guidelines (including thresholds for criteria air pollutants, greenhouse
gases and toxic air contaminants); and project consistency with City of
Burlingame Climate Action Plan;
a Alteration in drainage patterns on-site and potential increases in
stormwater runoff and degradation of receiving water quality in Easton
Creek Channel and San Francisco Bay; effectiveness ofproject proposed
stormwater treatment measures and cornpliance with the San Mateo
Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program and Provision C.3
Requirements; potential effects of sea level rise on project site;
Project increases in roadside noise levels frorn mobile sources; project
compatibility with City noise standards in General Plan, Bayfront
Specific Plan, and City ordinances; noise effects of use within the noise
exposure of U.S. 101 and air traffic related to the San Francisco
International Airport;
)
a
a
a
a
Project and contribution to cumulative changes in windflows, including
at the popular nearby windsurfing area on the Bay; and project
consistency rvith wind criteria contained in the Bayfront Specific Plan;
Historic stalus of existing buildings on the project site, particularly the
fonner theater, including potential eligibility for listing in the federal,
state, and local historical registers;
Aesthetics, including potential for project to alter views frorn U.S.
Highway 101, Burlingame Bayfront area, the Burlingame hills, and
San Francisco Bay; project effect on scenic resources and visual character,
a
SFO@Technology Cenler lnitial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration J-J
1
3. Scope of Work
\-
\-,
a
potential changes to glare and nightlighting effects; contribution to
cumulative aesthetic effects along the Burlingame Bayfront;
Potential geologic and seismic hazards, including settlement, liquefaction
and earthquake related ground failure; adequacy ofproposed
geotechnical design; and
Project consistency with the City of Burlingame General Plan, Bayfront
Specific Plan, and zoning ordinance; consistency with San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission requirements,
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Planfor the Environs of
Son Francisco International Airport, and other applicable regional
planning efforts; and project compatibility with surrounding land uses;
and
Project and contribution to cumulative increases in wastewater generation
and effects on the City's sanitary sewer collection and wastewater
treatment facilities; project and contribution to cumulative water demands
in the City.
C. Study Approach
General Study Approach
The work scope provides for preparation of an Initial Study (IS) to assess the
potential environmental impacts associated with the project. If, based on the
results of the Initial Study, it is determined that the project could result in one
or more potentially significant impacts, but as mitigated those impacts would
be reduced to a less-than-significant level, a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IvtND) would be sufficient for CEQA compliance for the project. Under this
condition, ESA would then prepare a MND for the City.
However, if based on results of the IS, it is determined that the proposed
project would result in one or more potentially significant and unavoidable
impacts (i.e., impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant
level), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would then be required. Under
this scenario, ESA would accordingly submit an amended work scope to
address the effort required to prepare an EIR.
Our scope of work is developed to be of a sufficient level of detail such that
no further environmental impact analysis would likely be anticipated to
support a MND, should an MND be detennined to be the appropriate
enviromnental document to fulfill CEQA requirements.
ESA proposes to perform the associated services through an approach that
meets the following objectives:
a
a
3-4 SFO@Technology Center lnitial Study / Mitigaled Negative Declaration
{ tr$A
j
3. Scope of Work
to assemble a team of especially knowledgeable and skilled professionals,
who have relevant site-specific experience and who are well-recognized
for their technical and communications skills in the issue areas associated
with the proposed SFO@Technology Center project;
to make maximum use of planning and technical documents prepared for
the project site in support ofthe proposed project, including, but not
limited to:
- SFo@Technology Center Plans (Nardi Associates, LLP);
- Traffic Impact Report SFO Tech Center in the City of Burlingame
(Crane Transportation Group);
- Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report for 1288 -
1340 Bayshore Highway (PIERS Environmental Services, Inc.);
- Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Rollo and fudley
Geotechnical Engineers and Scientists) ;
- Any other forthcoming technical studies that may be prepared by the
applicant;
to make maximum use of applicable planning and technical City
documents, including, but not limited to:
- Burlingame Generol Plan, including updates and amendments;
- Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan, as amended
- Update of Bayfront Specific Plan Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration
- City of Burlingame Urbqn lYater Management Plan,'
- City of Burlingame Climste Action Plan; and
- City of Burlingame Municipal Code;
to satisfy all legal requirements of CEQA;
to provide rigorous peer review by senior in-house staff to ensure the
technical, legal and editorial quality of the IS/MND;
to identiff mitigation measures and alternatives that will econornically
and feasibly minimize the environmental effects of the project while
meeting its basic objectives;
to cornmunicate the findings of the IS/MND clearly, concisely, and
graphically to the City's decision-makers, the applicant, the public, and
interested agencies;
to communicate fully with City staff and the applicant to ensure
satisfaction with IS/MND assumptions, approaches, and conclusions, and
overall progress; and
1
a
a
a
-
a
a
a
a
SFO@Technology Center lnitial Sludy / Miligated Negalive Declarulion 3-5
3. Scope of Work
\-.a to accomplish the proposed work progmm expeditiously and economically,
within the City and the applicant's overall project schedule and budget.
D. Work Program and Work Products
Task 1: Project Management and Goordination
ESA's Project Manager shall be the primary point of contact for the
consultant team. The Project Manager, Paul Mitchell, will oversee the
preparation of all work products, will monitor project progress, prepare key
IS sections, provide quality assurance, maintain consultant's performance
schedule, monitor budget expenditures, coordinate meeting attendance, and
interact as necessary with the City of Burlingame staff, applicant and
applicant's consultants. Mr. Mitchell will refine the project description, and
otherwise foster the orderly and timely processing of the project consistent
with this scope of work.
Project Director, Karl Heisler, will serve primarily in an oversight and review
role, and will also act as the Quality Assurance/Quality Control officer to
ensure that all deliverables meet ESA's standards for accuracy, appearance,
and completeness.
Task 2: Project Meetings and Hearings
Communications between individual consultant team members and
Burlingame city staff, the applicant, applicant's consultants, and responsible
and interested public agencies are expected to occur throughout the course of
the project. These communications will be carried out as part of the scope of
work for other tasks in this Work Program.
Task 2 includes up to six (6) scheduled meetings and/or public hearings
involving the City of Burlingame and other project participants. These
meetings include:
two (2) internal meeting(s) with City staff, applicant, applicant's
consultants and/or other project participants, as requested by the City
four (4) public meetings;
Additional meetings and/or hearings may be included on a time-and-rnaterials
basis.
\-
a
a
\-
J-b SFo@Technology Cenler lnitial Study / Miligaled Negative Declarclion
7 ESAJ
3. Scope of Work
Task 3: Prepare Administrative Draft lnitial Study
ESA will prepare an lnitial Srudy that will "address all environmental topics
required by the CEQA Guidelines. ESA will respond to the checklist
questions for every "environmental factor" (commonly referred to as "topics")
and add explanatory comments related to each question under each topic. The
explanatory comments will identify any potentially significant impacts that
would reduce those impacts to less-than-significant levels with mitigation.
The ESA team will submit five (5) hardcopies and one (l) electronic copy of
the Adrninistrative Draft IS to City for review and comment. At this junction,
ESA will review the findings of the Initial Study with City staff to confirm
which technical issues can be mitigated to a less than significant level. City
staff will review the Administrative Draft IS and provide ESA with one
consolidated set of comments.
Task 4: Prepare Screencheck Draft lS/MND and Produce
Public Draft lS/MND
ESA will make revisions or corrections to the Administrative Draft IS and
provide the City with a screencheck Draft IS/IvIND for review.
Pursuant to Section 15071 of the CEQA Guidelines, the MND shall include a
briefdescription and location ofthe project; a proposed finding that the
project will not have a significant effect on the environment; an attached
copy of the Initial Srudy documenting reasons to support the finding and
containing mitigation measures included to avoid potentially significant
effects.
ESA will print and submit 25 hardcopies of the public Draft IS/MND (or
alternatively, a mix of hardcopies and CDs, if requested) to the City for
distribution. It is assumed the City will be responsible for distribution of the
Draft IS/MND and transmittal to the State Clearinghouse.
Task 5: Preparation of Responses to Comments on the
IS/MND
Prior to approving a project, CEQA Guidelines Section 15074 requires the
City consider the proposed MND together lvith any comrnents received
during the public review process.
Accordingly, at the conclusion of the 30-day public review period for the Draft
IS/MND, ESA rvill assist the City in preparing technical responses to include
in their staff report if necessary. The comments and written responses to those
1
SFO@Technology Cenler lnilial Sludy / Miligated Negative Oeclaration 3-7
3. Scope of Work
\-
\-,
comments can be prepared in the form of a mernorandum that can be included
as an attachment to, and for consideration with, the proposed IS/IV{ND.
The level of effort required for this task is difficult to predict and ultimately
dependent on the number and type of comments received. Our budget assumes
that the ESA rvill require no rnore than 68 hours of ESA professional labor
time (excluding word processing and production time) preparing responses to
comments and potential revisions to the IS/IvIND. If, at the time comments are
received, additional effort is required beyond that originally assumed,
additional work effort can be completed on a time-and-materials basis.
Task 6: Preparation of a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP)
ESA will prepare a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15097. For any significant impact identified in the MND,
the MMRP will describe the required mitigation, and the responsible parties,
tasks, and schedule necessary for monitoring mitigation compliance.
Document Production
As proposed in Task 3 and4, above, ESA will produce the following
documents:
Task 3: Administrative Draft lnitial Study /
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Task 4: Public Review Draft lnitial Study /
Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 electronic non-write protected copy, and
5 hard copies
1 electronic non-write protected copy, and
25 hardcopies, double-sided (or alternatively,
a mix of hardcopies and CDs, if requested)
E. Technical Scope of Work
Aesthetics
Issues
The proposed project would be highly visible from adjacent portions of
Highway l0l and other locations in the Burlingame bayfront area, as well as
the Burlingarne hills and the San Francisco Bay. The proposed development
includes a bold design in fonn, and would be represent a rnajor nerv urban
design element in the shoreline portion of the Bayfront planning area. In
\.
3-8 SF9@Technology Center lnilial Study / Mitigated Negalive Declatalion
No,Copiee
r lifi;l 3. Scope of Work
addition, the project's proposed glass building surfaces present the potential
to create new light and glare.
The City has requested the CEQA consultant to include visual simulations to
be prepared for this project to support the Initial Study (3 simulations are
assumed). Accordingly, ESA includes the services of a visual simulations
firm has a long-standing relationship with, Environmental Vision, and who
has extensive experience preparing visual simulation in Burlingame and with
the lype of land use development proposed. Two representative examples of
their visual simulations are attached (one in Burlingame - Peninsula Health
Care District facility; and the Berkeley Art Museum)
Iasks
. Describe the existing visual character and quality of the project site and
vicinity, key public view corridors and vantage points in the project
viewshed such as Highway 101, and Bayshore Highway. An overview of
the site's regional and community visual context will be included.
Summarize relevant public policies contained in the City's General Plan,
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan and other relevant documents.
Describe and evaluate potential visual impacts associated with the
proposed project. The evaluation will address issues including project
visibility from key public view corridors, potential blockage of scenic
views, scale and massing compatibility, compatibility with existing
architecfural character, light and glare effects, and consistency with
public plans and policy. Potentially significant visual impacts will be
identified and if needed, visual/aesthetic mitigation measures will be
described.
Visua! Simulations (Environmental Vision)
. Conduct a site visit to observe and photograph the site and surroundings,
as seen from representative viewpoints. Submit a set of candidate
sirnulation photographs with a viewpoint location map for review and
approval by the City.
Using high-resolution digital photography and advanced computer
rnodeling and rendering techniques, Environmental Vision would
produce visual sirnulations sholving the proposed project superimposed
on selected photographic vie'uvs. The simulations would illustrate the
appearance of proposed project features including buildings, intemal
roads and parking areas, and site landscaping.
J
a
a
a
a
-
Sirnulation viewpoints would be selected in consultation with City staff.
From each viewpoint, one simulation of the proposed project will be
prepared. One "before" and two "after" images will be produced for each
viewpoint.
SFo@Technology Cenler lnitial Study / Mitigated Negalive Declarclion 3-9
\-
3. Scope of Work
The visual simulations would be based on drawings provided by the
project applicant. The images will be produced in 8.5 by 1l inch, color
format.
U
U
3-1 0 SF9@Technology Center lnilial Sludy / Mitigaled Negative Declaralion
a
Existing view from Trousdale Drive at Magnolia Avenue looking west
y-*r : . .:
*'''ffitrI
Visual simulation of proposed project
SOURCE: Environmental Vision
06231 4
Peninsula Health Care / 140 I 26 I
Visual Simulation
,';j*+-
rr tl
I
BerkeleyArt Museum
Berkeley, Californiaffi
I
r
Visual Simulation - UC Berl<eley Campus Crescent
\-
Aerial Perspective (uc Berkeley)
ExistingView - UC Berkeley Campus Crescent
::1
\-.
t-
I
\-
r trsA
)
3. Scope of Work
Air Quality
Issues
The project site lies within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin which is
"nonattainment" for state and federal standards for ozone and state standards
for particulate matter, and regional air quality plans have been developed to
improve air quality within the Basin through enhanced control measures. The
project could affect air qualiry in four ways: 1) during construction, the
project would generate dust that could cause local violations of particulate
standards and criteria pollutant emissions that could exceed regional
thresholds, 2)'during the operational phase, the project would contribute to
regional ozone and particulate matter concentrations largely through the
generation of truck and motor vehicle trips and maintenance of back-up
diesel generators for buildings in excess of70 feet in height, and 3) during
the operational phase, project-related traffic could increase local carbon
monoxide concentrations at congested intersections in the project vicinity
and diesel particulate rnatter concentrations near any proposed generator
location. Any potential ancillary sensitive land uses that may be associated
with the project (e.g., potential child care facility) would no longer be an air
quality consideration under CEQA pursuant to a recent California Supreme
Court decision (BIA v. BAAQMD) in which it was determined that
assessment of impacts of the air quality environment on a project are not
within the intent of the statute.
Iasks
. Generally describe the clirnate and topography of Burlingame and
discuss their influence over air quality.
a Identify federal, state, and local regulatory agencies responsible for air
quality policies, regulations, and standards as they pertain to the project.
In particular, applicable Transportation Control Measures contained in
the 2010 Clean Air Planwill be described.
Discuss current air quality in the project area based on air quality data
frorn the monitoring stations closest to the project site (San Francisco
and Redrvood City). Discuss air quality trends as presented inthe 2010
Clean Air Plan.
Identify major existing sources of air pollutants compiled in the project
vicinity (i.e., U.S. 101) including sources of toxic air contaminants or
odorous emissions on the basis of inventory data cornpiled by the
BAAQMD. Discuss existing emissions associated with activities at the
site.
a
SFo@Technology Center lnitial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-1 3
a\-
3. Scope of Work
Identify the locations ofair-pollutant sensitive land uses or activities in
the project vicinity, such as the residences located across U.S. 101.
Describe the significance thresholds for air quality impacts developed by
the BAAQMD in its 2009 Justification Report as well as the substantial
evidence on which they are based.
Discuss criteria air pollutant emissions likely to be generated during
construction and evaluate the potential for construction dust (especially
during grading ofparking areas, ifrequired) to cause local excesses of
ambient particulate standards. Construction-related criteria pollutant
emissions will be quantified and compared to the most recent
BAAQMD-developed si gnifi cance thresholds.
Discuss the types of criteria pollutant and ozone precursor emissions
sources associated with the project, primarily related to increased motor
vehicle traffic.
Calculate the net change in emissions that would be generated by the
project and estimated energy consumption using the CalEEMod
estimator model and the results of the Traffic Lnpact Report by Crane
Transportation Group. Evaluate whether projects operational emissions
would exceed any of the BAAQMD-developed operational significance
thresholds.
Assess the potential for localized carbon monoxide impacts based on
BAAQMD-developed screening criteria and traffic volumes estimated in
the Traffic Impact Report.
Assess the potential for the project to generate odorous emissions.
Evaluate whether the proposed project would conflict with the regional
air quality plan, the 2010 Clean Air Plan.
Assess the increased cancer risks, chronic non-cancer risks, and localized
fine particulate (PM-2.5) concentrations posed by any proposed back-up
diesel generator(s) and compare to BAAQMD-developed thresholds.
Discuss the potential for the combined emissions from the project and
cumulative development to adversely affect air quality or impede
attairunent of air quality goals.
Identify practical, feasible rnitigation rneasures for air quality impacts
identified for the project. Evaluate whether mitigation measures would
reduce the irnpacts below a level of significance and identify the parties
rvho would be responsible for implernenting each measure.
a
a
a
\-a
a
a
a
\-
3-14 SFO@Technology Centet lnitial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
r trSA
)
3. Scope of Work
Biological Resources
Issues
The 1300 Bayshore property is currently developed andbiological resources
within the proposed project site are limited. Habitat of significance is located
within the Easton Creek channel, which bisects the site, and San Francisco
Bay, which borders the site to the east. We anticipate that impacts to
biological resources for the proposed project would be associated with
disturbance to these areas which could compromise habitat or local species of
concern. Any potential proposed project features that would span the Easton
Creek channel would require coordination with regulatory agencies with
jurisdiction over such features such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Bay Conservation and
Development Commission, to ensure potential impacts to these resources are
avoided or minimized with project implementation. We anticipate impacts to
biological resources for the proposed project would be found to be less than
significant or less than significant with mitigation and would be adequately
addressed in an IS/MND.
Iasks
Review existing biological studies relating to the project site and regional
surrounding area as well as relevant components of the Burlingame
Bayfront Specific Plan.
Consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's lnformation for Planning
and Conservation online system, the California Deparhnent of Fish and
Wildlife's California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), and the
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) databases to identify local
biological constraints. Obtain additional information on special-status
species presence, communities of concem, and permit requirements
through consultation with biologists at USFWS Endangered Species
Office and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Perfonn a lirnited reconnaissance-level biological survey to assess
habitat, local wildlife and aquatic resources in the area based on direct
and indirect observation (e.g., scat, tracks, nests, indicator plant species,
etc.)
Detennine the likelihood of the presence of populations or individuals of
listed or other special-status species. Identify suitable habitat for species
of concem, and assess and determine the potential for impacts to existing
populations due to the proposed project.
ESA can continue coordination rvith the Bay Conservation and
Development Comrnission and other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction
over aquatic resources within or adjacent to the project site to solicit input
a a
a
a
SFO@Technology Cenler lnilial Sludy / Mitigaled Negative Declaralion 3-'15
3. Scope of Work
on the conceptual plan that is forming the basis for the project description.
This effort is aimed at preventing costly redesign of the proposed project
should design elements conflict with agency objectives conceming
biological resources.
Cultural Resources
/ssues
Historic Architectural Resources: The project site contains 5 existing
buildings proposed to be demolished under the project, including a former
movie theater designed in a Mid-Century Modern style of architecture. The
Phase I Environmental Assessment indicates the buildings on the project site
were built over the period befween the late 1950s through early 1970s.
Buildings 45 years old or older meet the minimum age threshold for potential
eligibility for the Califomia Register of Historical Resources, if other criteria
apply.
Archaeological Resources: Based on geologic maps and previous analysis,
the project area was originally marshland and tidal area. Fill was brought into
the area in the 1950s and 1960s. No known cultural resources are located in
the vicinity. Although unlikely, there remains a possibility that unidentified
subsurface cultural resources could be present in the project area.
Iasks
Historic Architectural Resources: ESA architectural historians, will
complete a survey and evaluation of up to five commercial buildings on the
project site. (Any of the existing buildings that were built after 1971 rnay not
require a full evaluation, based on their age.)
ESA architectural historians will complete a 1-day pedestrian survey to
photograph and document each building, and record them on Department
of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 5234' and B forms.
ESA architectural historians will complete archival research at state and
local repositories of historical infonnation, including building pennit and
plan infonnation from the City of Burlingame.
ESA will evaluate each building for their eligibility for listing in the
federal, state, and local historical registers by applying standard
evaluation criteria A"/l (associations with historical events), B/2
(associations rvith important people), and Cl3 (embodiment of a
particular style of architecrure or associations with master
architects/builders). Issues of integrity will also be addressed. ESA will
pay particular attention to former theater; this building may have
compromised integriry due to prior alterations to convert it from a theater
to a bar.
a
a
\/
3-1 6 SFo@Technology Center lnitial Study / Mitigated Negative Declarclion
a
r rSAj
3. Scope of Work
Based on the findings of the survey and evaluation efforts, ESA will
identify historic resources on the project site (if any) and the impacts to
those resources as a result ofthe proposed project. Ifneeded, ESA will
identify mitigation measures to avoid or reduce significant impacts to
historic resources. The DPR forms will be appended to the IS/MND.
a
a
Archaeological Resources:
. ESA's archaeologist will complete the archaeological, tribal cultural
resources, and human remains components of the Culrural Resources
section. Based on geologic maps and previous analysis, the project area
was originally marshland and tidal area. As needed, ESA will provide
mitigation measures to ensure that inadvertently discovered culrural
resources are treated appropriately if discovered during construction.
ESA will also assist the City with Assembly Bill52 Native American
consultation requirements by contacting the Native American Heritage
Commission and any culturally affiliated Native American tribes to
request information on potential tribal cultural resources in the project
viciniry.
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Issues
A preliminary geotechnical study (by Rollo and Ridley Geotechnical
Engineers and Scientists) has been completed for the project site..
The project site is located in a very seismically active region that will likely
experience a significant earthquake over the next 30 years. The rnajoriry of
Burlingame is characterized as an alluvial plain where eroded material from
the Santa Cruz Mountains to the southwest is transported toward the Bay.
The site is located in an area that was originally marshland and tidal areas
that were filled in the 1950's and 1960's. The fill could be as much as
approximately 15 feet deep and is underlain by weak, compressible marine
clay known as Bay Mud, which is in turn underlain by at least 85 feet of
interbedded stiff to very stiff sandy gravelly clay and medium dense to very
dense clayey gravel.
The project site lies between the Hayward and San Andreas faults although
the San Andreas is closer at approximately 4 miles to the southwest. The site
is also proximate to many other srnaller potentially active and active faults.
The Hayward and San Andreas faults have the highest capability of
producing strong seismic ground shaking in the relatively near future
according to srudied probabilities. The project site is also in an area that has a
high potential for liquefaction. However, adherence to building code
requirements can reduce the potential for seismic hazards to impact proposed
SFO@Technology Center lnilial Study / Mitigaled Negative Declaralion 3-17
3. Scope of Work
a
development. Other geological issues associated with development at the
project site may include compressibility of clay and silts, which lead to
subsidence and long-term damage to building, artd shallow water table,
which can be problematic if not designed appropriately. Geotechnical
engineering challenges that are encountered when designing and constructing
multistory structures can generally be overcome using current engineering
practices in accordance with building code standards; these practices have
proven effective at many similar Bay margin locales throughout the region.
Iasks
ESA will peer review the project sponsor's preliminary geotechnical
investigation. As needed, ESA will compare the data in the project
sponsor's preliminary geotechnical investigation with known geologic
and seismic information for this area. ESA will evaluate geotechnical
and seismic analysis to determine any areas of special concern and
potential constraints. (No additional geologic testing is included in this
scope of work.)
ESA will identify the manner in which any proposed grading,
excavation, and other soil disturbances that could cause soil erosion or
loss of topsoil.
ESA will identify the major earthquake fault systems in the region, their
distance to the site, earthquake histories, and potential to generate large
earthquake magnirudes. ESA will consider and evaluate seismic safely as
it relates to the proposed project.
Using published information or previous reports, ESA will identify areas
on the site subject to ground failure caused by liquefaction and/or soils
and conditions that could be subject to such hazards based on known
performance elsewhere. This task would include a review of groundrvater
elevation data and other published data. Ifsuch site constraints are
present, ESA will discuss the potential lirnitations that they could pose, if
any, for site development.
ESA will include the building code standards that are required by the
City of Burlingame, and where necessary and appropriate, mitigation
lneasures will be developed to reduce the significance of any potential
impacts considering the project description, local ordinances, and seismic
rnitigation requirements set forth by the State of California.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
/ssues
The project would result in an increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
frorn increased motor vehicle trips and increased water and space heating
demands. California Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Waming
a
a
\-
a
a
\-,
3-1 8 SFo@Technology Centet lnitial Sludy / Miligaled Negative Declaralion
7 ESA
)
3. Scope of Work
Solutions Act of 2006, requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to
establish a statewide GHG emission cap for 2020 based on 1990 emission
levels, and to adopt mandatory reporting rules for significant sources of
GHGs. At the present time, CARB has adopted a Scoping Plan identifying
39 Recornmended Actions to reduce GHG emissions within the state. The
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has developed GHG
Significance Thresholds Under CEQA. In addition, the City of Burlingame
has adopted a Climate Action Plan.
Iasks
Summarize statervide planning efforts relative to climate change and the
generation of GHG emissions, including Assernbly Bill32, Executive
order S-01 -07 and the reporting and recommendations to date of the
California EPA Climate Action Team.
Identify the recommendations of BAAQMD and California Air Pollution
Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) on how to analyze GHG
emissions and global climate change in CEQA documents.
Discuss BAAQMD-developed GHG Signifi cance Thresholds under
CEQA as well as the substantial evidence supporting them and recent
California Supreme Court decision related to GHG assessment in Center
for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and lilildlife (Newhall
Land and Farming Company, No. 5217763).
Discuss existing GHG emissions in the City of Burlingame based on data
compiled inthe Burlingame Climctte Action Plan.
Calculate the projects contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
resulting from increases in traffic generation, natural gas combustion,
electricity demand, water and wastewater treatment and conveyance and
solid waste generation using the CalEEMod estimator model. These
calculations r.vill be adjusted to account for sustainable design features of
the applicant as appropriate and feasible. Compare these emissions of the
significance thresholds developed by the BAAQMD.
Discuss the project's sustainable features and GHG emissions with
respect to the goals and recommended actions of the state's Climate
Change Scoping Plan and the policies and recotnrnendations of the City's
Climate Action Plan.
1
a
a
1
a
a
Identify mitigation lneasures, as needed, to reduce GHG emissions of the
proposed project and to reconcile and inconsistencies between the project
and the Ciry's Clirnate Action Plan or the State's Climate Change
Scoping Plan.
SFO@Technology Center lnitial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-1 I
a
\-,
3. Scope of Work
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The proposed project site is located in an area that includes commercial and
light industrial land uses. The release of pollutants including petroleum
hydrocarbons, solvents and other chemicals that are potentially hazardous to
humans and the environment have occurred at some properties in the region.
The project site itself, is not included in environmental databases as having a
documented release of hazardous materials. For sites in the area, the releases
have resulted in localized extent of contamination and most have completed
regulatory requirements indicating that no further threat to human health or
the environment remains.
The site is rvithin the Airport Influence Area (AIA) as defined in the
Comprehenstve Airport Land Use Compatibility Planfor the Environs of
San Francisco International Atrport prepared by the City/County
Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) - the designated
Airport Land Use Commission for San Mateo County. While the project site
is outside of the safety compatibility zones defined for SFO, the airspace
protection policies described in the ALUCP apply to the project. The project
proponent will need to coordinate with C/CAG and the FAA to detennine if
the proposed building height would be a hazard to safe air navigation or if
glare/glint could be an issue. The City would consider the FAA
determination study findings as part of its review and decision on the
proposed project.
Although the proposed project may involve the use, transportation, and'
storage of hazardous chemicals, the risk of upset is usually minor given the
current regulatory requirements governing storage, and transportation, and
waste generation. However, short-term chemical exposure hazards to
groundwater-borne contaminants could be associated with construction if
excavation dewatering is required. ESA will review the Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the site as well as a current
search of available environmental databases. Existing regulatory
requirements should be sufficient to reduce potential impacts to less than
significant levels.
Iasks
ESA will develop a comprehensive understanding of the existing site
conditions as it relates to potential past chemical contamination of the
underlying soils and groundlvater. ESA will review databases rnaintained
by the Califomia Department of Toxic Substance Control and Regional
Water Quality Control Board, to detennine risks and current regulatory
status of nearby and onsite contaminated properties.
\-"
\-,
3-20 SFo@Technology Center lnilial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
{ tisA
)
3. Scope of Work
ESA will review the Phase I report prepared for the site, to help establish
the potential for subsurface hazardous materials to be encountered during
construction and the potential constraints associated with it.
ESA will identify and discuss the adequacy of specific measures
proposed to handle contaminated soil and groundwater or suspect
artificial filI materials, if discovered, and describe tneasures to reduce the
risk of exposure to workers onsite and the public offsite.
ESA will include the regulatory requirements that would apply to the
project related to hazardous materials and any additional mitigation
measures, where appropriate, to reduce the significance of the impacts.
ESA rvill discuss applicable plans and policies associated with the
project related to airport land use compatibiliry, including the ALUCP
airspace protection policies and any regulations established by City,
identify and describe applicable detenninations and/or approvals the
project would be subject to that would ensure consistency and
compliance.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Issues
The proposed project site meets the waters of the San Francisco Bay on its
eastem boundary and Easton Creek Channel partially bisects the site. The
site is essentially flat and drainage is currently conveyed to Easton Creek
channel. Portions of the site appear to be within the 100-year flood plain
associated with Easton Creek, according to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate
Map. Areas within the 1O0-year flood plain would be subject to municipal
code requirements for construction within a flood zone. Any development
would also be subject to the state-mandated water conservation program. A
complete Irrigation Water Management Plan is required with landscape and
irrigation plans at time of any permit application.
Proposed development can alter stonn water drainage patterns and flood
conditions through changes to irnpervious surfaces. However, the proposed
project would be required to adhere to NPDES C.3 and local requirements
and would include bio-retention basins to treat all stormwater before
discharging offsite. With a project site size of over I acre, potential water
quality irnpacts associated with construction would be mitigated by
adherence to NPDES General Construction permit requirements.
Given that the site is located along the margin of the San Francisco Bay, the
potential for sea level rise tnust also be considered an issue to long tenn site
use. Secondary issues to be considered for this project include the irnpact of
a
a
a
SFO@Technology Cenler lnitial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaralion 3-21
3. Scope of Work
\-,on the flow and quality of the shallow groundwater system and potential for
tsunami and seiche inundation in the event of an earthquake.
Iasks
ESA will discuss the effects of the proposed development on stormwater
runoff and the existing regulatory requirements that are in place to
address stormwater quality. Potential water quality impacts will be
addressed for both the construction and operational phases of the project.
In the event that any dewatering activities are required during
construction, ESA will discuss the appropriate regulatory requirements
necessary for safe and effective treatment and disposal.
Changes to the drainage patterns with the construction of the proposed
project will be evaluated in terms of the potential impacts to water
quality as well as stormwater volume. Review of any preliminary
drainage plans will be included in this analysis for adequacy at
addressing potential requirements.
ESA will review current online versions of the FEMA's Flood maps to
more accurately determine areas that are susceptible to flooding under
extreme storm and tidal events. ESA will also include discussion of
potential flooding effects from sea level rise associated with global
warming.
a
a
a
a\-Depending on the results of the our analysis, if necessary and
appropriate, ESA will identify the relevant regulatory requirements as
well as any appropriate mitigation measures to reduce identified impacts
to a reduced level ofsignificance.
3-22
Land Use and Land Use Planning
/ssues
The project site is located within the "Shoreline" area of the Burlingame
Bayfront Specific Plan, and designated "Shoreline Waterfront Commercial,"
which allows a range of waterfront commercial uses, including office
developrnent. The project is zoned Shoreline (SL). In addition, BCDC
maintains jurisdiction over the 100-foot band of the bay shoreline and Easton
Creek channel portions ofthe project site. The project site is also located
within the boundary of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. As described
under Understanding of the Project, above, the proposed project would
require a nurnber of City approvals, including Commercial Design Revielv;
Lot Merger; a Conditional Use Permits for Height and Building Width; and a
Parking Variance for reduction in required on-site parking.
\-.
SFo@Technology Center lnilial Study / Mitigatod Negative Declaration
r ESAj
3. Scope of Work
Iasks
. Describe existing land uses on and near the project site.
Review applicable land use policies of the Burlingame General Plan,
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan, and Zoning Regulations, and other
relevant land use and planning documents.
Discuss the project's consistency with City and other relevant plans and
policies (in accordance with Section 15125[b] of the CEQA Guidelines).
Describe any inconsistencies between the proposed project and local
planning policies.
In consultation with the City, identifu any approved and/or foreseeable
development that could have significant cumulative land use effects in
combination with the proposed project.
Discuss the relationship of the proposed project to any development
plans for nearby areas.
Discuss land use compatibiliry of proposed land uses and adjacent off-
site uses.
Noise
Issues
The project would temporarily affect ambient noise levels in the immediate
project vicinity during construction. Over the long-term, the project could
affect noise levels as the result of maintenance operations of any required
back-up diesel generators and HVAC equipment and increased traffic
generation on local roadways. While the proposed project uses would not be
considered a sensitive noise receptor, the localized presence of U.S. l0l and
air traffic related to SFO has led to development of noise-related community
development standards for the area.
Iasks
Describe the existing noise environment within the project vicinity based
on a site reconnaissance during which one long tenn (24-hour) noise
measurement and up to three short-tenn noise measurements will be
taken. The principal noise sources (and associated noise levels) will be
identified.
Identify the locations ofexisting noise sensitive land uses in the project
area, including residences across U.S. Highway 101.
Discuss relevant noise policies, regulations and standards, including
those in the City's General Plan, City ordinances and cornmunity
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
SFo@Technology Centet lnitial Study / Mitigaled Negative Declaration 3-23
\-.
\-,
3. Scope of Work
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
standards for freeway and aircraft noise impacts for the project area
specified in the Burlingame Bayfront Spectfic Plan.
Discuss the project's location with respect to the noise contours of the
Noise Exposure Map for San Francisco International Airport.
Discuss the noise levels likely to be generated during construction
activities and evaluate the potential for construction to adversely affect
adjacent land uses or violate noise control ordinances.
Describe typical noise likely to be generated by activities on the project
site by office, restaurant and retail land uses.
Calculate the change in roadside noise levels resulting from the increase
in vehicle trips generation resulting from the project. The FHWA Traffic
Noise Model will be used to determine any increases in roadway noise
for up to three roadways used to access the project site.
Assess noise exposure ofthe proposed project relative to the land use
compatibility categories of the City's General Plan noise element based
on long-term monitoring data and aircraft and freeway noise metrics for
the project area specified in the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan.
Identify practical, feasible mitigation measures for noise impacts
identified for the project. Evaluate rvhether mitigation measures would
reduce the irnpacts below a level of significance and identify the parties
who would be responsible for implementing each measure.
Population and Housing
Issues
The proposed development would provide a place of employment for new
employees in Burlingarne, and would displace a number of existing
businesses currently operating on the project site. Housing, particularly
affordable housing, is in short supply in the Burlingame area, and throughout
the portion of the Bay Area that is rvithin reasonable commute distance of the
project site.
Iasks
Review the 2015 - 2023 Burlingame Housing Element and applicable
regional housing plans, and summarize policies and objectives relevant
to the proposed project.
Characterize available recent historic, current, and projected data that
describe the housing inventory, vacancy, and availability in Burlingame
and the general Peninsula area.
\-/
3-24 SF9@Technology Cenler lnitial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
{ IiSA 3. Scope of Work
Discuss the consistency of the project with the applicable housing goals,
policies, and objectives oflocal and regional plans, including those for
achieving jobs/housing balance.
If needed, identify any reasonable, project-specific mitigation measures
to reduce any identified adverse effects.
Characterize qualitatively the growth-inducing impacts of the proposed
project.
Public Services
lssues
The proposed project would be expected to incrementally increase demand
for public services, including fire protection, police protection and other
public facilities. Given the project is located in an urban area with existing
public facilities in place, such demand is not anticipated to result in
substantial new or physically altered govemmental facilities.
Iasks
o Briefly document the availability of public services to serve the proposed
project.
a Based as applicable on consultation with the service providers, determine
the project's effects on these services and their ability to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.
)
a
a
a
1
Recreation
Issues
A review of ABAG's San Francisco Bay Trail plans indicate a segment of
the Bay Trail is planned along the bayshore past the project site. The
San Francisco Bay Conservation Developrnent Commission (BCDC)
maintains jurisdiction over the 100-foot band of the San Francisco Bay
shoreline and Easton Creek channel portions ofthe project site. It is our
understanding the project sponsor has been in initial consultation with
BCDC; and that under the project, large areas of public and semi-public open
space are proposed on-site, including along the bay shoreline and Easton
Creek channel. The applicant would be required to obtain a permit from
BCDC for any rvork proposed to be conducted rvithin BCDC jurisdiction.
Please see Wind section, below, for how the Initial Study proposes to address
potential wind effects of the project on recreational windsurfing areas.
SFo@Technology Cenler lnitial Study / Mitigated Negalive Declaralion 3-25
\-,
3. Scope of Work
Iasks
. Describe existing recreational facilities in the project site vicinity
Discuss any proposed recreational facility and/or improved access to
recreational facilities, as part ofthe project, or otherwise planned.
Evaluate whether the project would have any adverse effect on existing
or planned recreational facilities.
Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation
Issues
The Transportation section will evaluate the potential impacts of the
proposed project on the surrounding transportation system and will identify
feasible measures to mitigate those impacts. It is understood that the basis for
the Transportation, Traffic and Circulation section will be the May 2015
traffic impact sludy prepared for the applicant by Crane Transportation
Group (Crane).
Preliminary review of the Crane report (excluding the report appendices,
which will be needed for the full peer review effort) shows that its primary
focus was on traffic impacts on intersection levels of service (LOS). The
Crane report addressed the effect ofnet new vehicle trips generated at the
project, subtracting those vehicle trips generated by existing land uses. In its
traffic analysis, the Crane report also accounted for the redesign ofthe
Broadway interchange, currently under construction. In addition, the report
also assessed available sight distances at project driveways, and described
sidewalks/pathways that would serve the project site.
The Transportation, Traffrc and Circulation section will need to address all
transportation-related topics required by CEQA (i.e., conflicts with C/CAG
LOS standards, and/or r.vith existing and planned alternative transportation
facilities; and potential impacts related to traffic hazards, emergency access,
and air traffic, in addition to project and cumulative traffic congestion). This
proposal assumes that Crane will be directed to revise/expand their traffic
study to address those added topics.
Iasks
The following rvork tasks will be perfonned by ESA.
a ESA's in-house traffic engineer/planners will conduct a critical peer
review of Crane's traffic irnpact study, including a review of the
assumptions and rnethodologies, and will spot-check the computations
and referenced sources for accuracy. Also, ESA will ensure that the data,
a
\-.
\-,
3-26 SFo@Technology Centet lnitial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
7' IiSA 3. Scope of Work
analysis, and impact determinations are presented in the context of
CEQA requirements.
ESA will contact Crane, as needed, to discuss any apparent
inconsistencies in their analysis, and to receive clarification of
methodologies and assumptions. ESA will prepare a memorandum after
completion of the peer review, indicating to the City any additional
information required for a complete analysis of transportation issues.
This proposal assumes that Crane will be directed by the City to
revise/expand the traffic study to address missing infonnation.
1)
a
a ESA will prepare the Transportation, Traffic and Circulation section on
the basis of Crane's analysis, as revised following the peer review. ESA
will be responsible for the presentation of data, analysis, and impact
determinations to ensure that issues as outlined in Appendix G of the
CEQA guidelines are addressed.
ESA will review transportation mitigation measures contained in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program for adequacy and completeness, and
suggest text changes/expansion, as needed.
Utilities and Service Systems
Issues
\Vater Supply: The City of Burlingame provides the public water system for
the city. The Ciry of Burlingame receives potable water from the water supply
of the City and County of San Francisco, as operated by the San Francisco
Public Utilities Commission. The Ciry and Counly of San Francisco maintains
a water supply contract with the City of Burlingame, providing a supply
assurance allocation to Burlingame. The City of Burlingame updated its Urban
Water Management Plan (UWMP) in 2011 to reflect a number of recent
regulatory changes (e.g., Senate Bill 7 water conservation), and changes in the
City's Water Supply Contract with the City and County of San Francisco.
The proposed project may meet the definition of a "water-demand project" as
defined in the CEQA Guidelines. Should a Water Supply Assessment (WSA)
be required for the project, the Ciry has requested the CEQA consultant to
prepare the WSA. In this case, ESA includes the services of Erler &
Kalinowski, Inc. (EKI) as an optional subconsultant to prepare the WSA, the
results of rvhich the Initial Srudy/Ivlitigated Negative Declaration rvill rely on;
and that the WSA would be included as an appendix to the environmental
docurnent.
Sanitary Selver: The project would increase wastewater generation on the
project site and the need for collection and treahnent. The City of Burlingarne
owns, operates and maintains the Cify's sanitary sewer collection system.
a
SFO@Technology Center lnitial Study / Mitigaled Negative Oeclaration 3-27
1
\-.
\-.
3. Scope of Work
a
a
Many of the City's sanitary sewer collection facilities are aging and in need of
rehabilitation. Wastewater generated within the City is treated at the
Burlingame Wastewater Treatment Plant. This plant underwent a substantial
upgrade in 2006. The project has potential to create impacts to these sanitary
sewer and treatment facilities.
For purposes of scoping, it is assumed the City will require the project
applicant to prepare a sewer study to identify project demands on the City
sewer facilities and potential improvements required. However, should such
information not be available from the applicant, ESA could conduct that
study, using a qualified engineering consultant, as an optional task.
Iasks
Water Supply:
. Review the applicant's preliminary estimates of project water demand
estimates, and any additional project water demand/management
information that may be available.
Describe any water conservation features proposed as part of the project.
Should it be required, EKI would prepare a WSA. ESA would present
relevant information from the draft WSA for the project, and the City's
UWMP update, including a description of the water service system,
existing City supply sources and entitlements, and water service
contracts; a discussion ofapplicable regulations governing water supply
and use; a determination of whether total water supplies are available to
'the City to meet the project's water demand in addition to the demand of
existing and other planned fulure uses; and a discussion of water
conservation measures being implemented by the Ciry, and the City's
water shortage contingency plan.
As needed, identify any potential mitigation measures to further reduce
project water dernand.
Sanitary Sewer Collection and Wastervater Treatment:
. On the basis of available information and that provided by the applicant
and/or City, describe the locations, conditions and capacities of the
sanitary sewer lines, pump station(s), and wastelvater treatment facilities
that would serve the project.
Describe any planned improvements to the City's sanitary sewer
collection and/or wastewater treatment facilities.
On the basis of infonnation provided by the applicant and/or City,
characterize project-specifi c and cumulative waster.vater fl ows.
a
a
\-,
3-28 SFo@Technology Center lnitial Study / Mitigaled Negative Declatation
rffiA
j
3. Scope of Work
Assess the ability of the affected wastewater collection and treatment
system to accommodate anticipated project and cumulative wastewater
flows.
Using information provided by the project applicant and/or Ciry, identify
measures required to mitigate any identified project-related impacts to
the sanitary sewer and wastewater treatment system.
Wind and Shadow
lssues
The proposed development would have the potential to alter wind flows
downwind from the site, including those on the Bay to the north and east of the
development. Although the project site is on the bayfront, it is well more than
a mile west of the Coyote Point Recreational Area, a popular windsurfing
location on the San Francisco Bay.
The Coyote Point Recreational Area and vicinity has been studied to
charactenzepotential wind effects from several new bayfront developrnents in
the east end of the Bayfront Specific Plan area.. This includes detailed wind
evaluations conducted by ESA for various proposed office development plans
on the 300 and 301 Airport Boulevard sites in support of project EIRS. In
addition, in support of the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan,ESA evaluated
wind characteristics within the plan area, and provided a number of criteria and
recommendations for preserving recreational wind resources, protecting the
public from hazardous wind conditions, and protecting wind sensitive uses in
public parks and public access areas. Most recently, ESA conducted additional
wind testing for the Burlingame Point (300 Airport Boulevard) EIR.
According to our preliminary review of the proposed project and our
understanding of the existing wind conditions, the area of measurable wind-
reducing effect on the Bay would occur only at distances much less than a
quarter mile from the project building. Several other factors indicate that the
project's effect on windsurfing could be less than significant:
given the project's range ofeffect and the distance from the Coyote
Point Recreational Area's primary windsurfing area, it is not expected
to have any effect on r,vindsurfing at Coyote Point Recreational Area;
due to the site's location on the Burlingame's shoreline, the project
lvould have no effect on desirable northwest and west-northwest winds
winds in the Bay; and
-
a
a
a
SFO@Technology Centet lnitial Study / Miligated Negative Declaralion 3-29
\-.
3. Scope of Work
\-
a
a
due to the site location, the project could affect west winds in near-
shore areas of the Bay that are much less than a quarter mile from the
project building. These are areas of the Bay which already have
reduced wind speeds caused by existing landforms and development
upwind.
It is expected that this relevant information can be applied to evaluate
potential wind effects of the proposed SFO@Technology Center
development. Otherwise, the wind analysis is expected to focus on potential
landside wind effects on pedestrians. For purposes of scoping this IS/MND,
it is assumed that no new wind tumel testing is required, however, should the
City require wind testing, it could be provided as an optional task, below.
Iasks
. Review all available wind test data. ESA already has this information.
a Based on the results of this review, make a determination as to whether
adequate information exists to apply the City's wind impact criteria to the
proposed project. If not, make a recomlnendation for additional wind
tunnel testing. Make recommendations regarding the scope, extent and
nature of the recommended wind tunnel tests.
If available wind tunnel test data are adequate to address project impacts,
determine the potential for the project to result in a significant project
and/or cumulative impact.
Evaluate the potential for adverse wind effects on pedestrians in outdoor
areas, including both active and passive open space based on building
orientation, massing and exposure. Identify areas where landscaping is
likely to provide inadequate wind protection for the uses proposed.
Discuss the tradeoffs between trying to protect on-site uses and trying to
conserve the r.vind resource at the nearby windsurfing area.
Recommend design changes or modifications to rnitigate identified
problems. If needed, suggest design changes in building size, orientation,
massing and surface treatments to reduce'uvind impacts.
Prepare a technical melro describing results, hndings and
recornmendations, and prepare a wind impact chapter for the EIR.
Using the sponsor's shadow diagrams provided, provide a brief
qualitative write up of potential shadow effects on the Bay Trail and
biological resources.
Optional Task - Additional Wind Tunnel Study
If lvind tunnel testing is required, the following tasks would be completed:
a
a
\,
3-30 SFO@T?chnology Center lnilial Study / Mitigated Negalive Declaration
a
a
7 X*i\
)
-&
3. Scope of Work
A scale model of the project and vicinity would be constructed.
The speed and turbulence profiles of the flow within the wind tunnel
would be measured and documented, to ensure that the approach flow
within the tunnel has an appropriate boundary layer for the scale of the
model and the nature of the surrounding terrain.
Wind speed and turbulence would be measured at locations to be
identified in consultation rvith the City staff. Tests would be conducted
for the northwest, west-northwest and lvest wind directions.
A technical report would be prepared explaining the wind nrnnel
methodology, outlining assumptions, and analyzing the results. The
acceptability of winds would be assessed based on the City's wind criteria.
If significant rvind/comfort impacts are identified, possible design
changes would be suggested that could reduce these impacts.
a
a
a
,1
SFO@Technology Cenler lnitial Sludy / Mitigated Negalive Declaration 3-31
a
r ESA
)
\-
\-.
SECTION 4
Cost Estimate and Conditions
A. Cost Estimate
ESA proposes to conduct the proposed services on a time-and-materials
basis, in accordance with the ESA Time and Materials Compensation
Schedule in effect at the time the work is performed. The cost estimates are
detailed in Table 4-1, Detailed Cost Estimate. Table 4-l also presents staff
billing rates, anticipated labor hours by task and individual, and direct cost
estimates.
The estimated cost for the Response to Comments task is dependent upon the
nature and volume of comments received and would be revisited by ESA
with the City upon receipt of the public comments received on Draft Initial
Study.
B. Conditions
The Scope of Work (Section 3), Cost Estimate (Table 4-1 in this section) and
Schedule (Section 5) are based upon the following assumptions and
conditions:
The scope ofwork, schedule and cost provisions are valid for 60 days.
The project description will not substantially change from that described
in the RFP.
The project site will be available to the project tearn subject to
notification.
The applicant, City staff, and other public agencies will respond to
infonnation requests in a timely manner. If information is identified as
relevant and available through project participants subsequent to the
initial data request, the project participants rvill provide it to the project
team in a timely lnanner.
The Adrninistrative Draft Initial Srudy will receive one round of review
by City staff (plus screencheck) prior to publication.
a
a
a
\-,
SFo@Technology Center lnitial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration 4-1
4. Cost Estimate and Conditions
a
The project sponsor will provide descriptive graphics in a form that is
readily adaptable for use in the Initial Study.
It is assumed the City will be responsible for noticing of intent to adopt
the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and distribution of the Draft
IS/MND and transmittal to the State Clearinghouse.
The fee estimates for Tasks 3 through in 5 of this proposal will be
adequate for the respective tasks; should the actual cost for any ofthese
tasks exceed the estimated fee for that task, costs in excess of the
estimated fee will be reimbursed on a time-and-materials basis as
additional work.
Consultant team labor hours assignable to project rneetings and hearings
(Task 2) shall include time required to prepare for meetings, travel time
to and from meetings, and any time required for follow-up activities.
Any costs for this task in excess of the amount for this task shown in the
cost estimate shall be compensated on a time-and-materials basis as
additional work.
No SB 610 Water Supply Assessment is proposed as part of the scope of
work, but can be provided as an optional task.
No engineering, utility, or hydrologic, or biological studies are proposed
to be prepared by the ESA team as part of this scope of work.
ESA will document all billings with progress reports.
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
4-2 SFO@Technology Center lnitial Study / Miligaled Negative Declaration
(
Table 4-1
Detailed Cost Estimate
Services/Tasks
Science Associates Direct Costs TOTAL
cosTs
!
9.oxBEo=
dq
9q
!
p.
3
f
@
!
I
=
j
9.
I
m,
)
I
o
!m
a
=6
ocg
zoo
6a
t@
q9
6',s
o
:.o
o
9.3m
36'ta
dtrl9. 6'3!.
q-d
m{tIo
@
-@6;6{
qE'
l-
oX
3_8q.E'
g
9.
€.
a
q
o
9.
@
oE9oo*
trdgPoon'*
€o
Eo69
cg
{
o!
o
I
ms o
E
6'
o
3
a
a
!
o
i.o
ESA
TOTAL
HOURS
ESA TOTAL
LABOR
COST
m
<ao1
q9
i!ril<
6- 9.>o
!
o
o
o
m
@
o
o
I
oo
s
EFFORT IN HOURS $,/hr Rate s205 3185 9185 st50 $170 $170 $r70 s205 $155 sl40 s20s s185 3l{5 sr 15 s, t5 $1't 5
ENVI RO N M EN f A L AN ALYSI S
Task 1 Proiect Manaoemenl and Coo.dination s10.680 $1 0,680164056$o
Task 2 Proiecl Meetinos and Hearinos 16 16 s6 240 $500 $75 $6.E15
Draft lS 4 16 32 8 4 64 _$7,soq_
$6,860
__$4q $113 $8.363
$6,860
s16.140
1 26
30
42 $0
Aeslhetics 2 $9.800 s1 470
Air Oueliiv 20 22 s3 770 $0 $3,770
Biolooical Resources 2
20
34 48 $7,590 $0 $7,590
$9,105
$3.770
C!ltural_Eegources
Geoloov. Soils and Seimiciw
2 30 't0 8 50 s8.760 $300
2 $3,770 $0
Greenhouse Gases 2 18 s3.090 $0 $3.090
and
2 -_.-16__29-
_-18-
22
__$1,09,0
s3.770
$0 $3,090
$3,770
$2.770
2
2
s0
16 1 $2,770 s0
Noise 2 20 22 $3.770 $300 $45 $4,1 1 5
Pooulalion and Housinq 2 12 14 $2,1 70 $0 $2.1 70
Public
Recrealion
_2_
2
12 14 s2.1 70 $0-
$0
$2,170
$9704$970
2 46 48 $8.880 $8,880
2 24 $3,970 $0 $3.970
Task 4
_?_40 42 s7.770 $0 $7,770
$900
s1 5 625
6
4 8
$900
$12.750
$0
't6 4 12 4 4 4 4 16 4 6 86 $1.000 $1,500 $375
to Commenls 16 8 8 8 8 4 8 I 4 4 4 2 a2 $13,250 $o $1 3,250
Task 6 16 16 $2.400 $0 $2.400
ToTAL EFFORT lHours)32 136 58 170 68 68 38 10 8 46 12 52 36 44 16 12 806
SUBTOTAL COSTS {S)6,560 25,160 10,730 25,500 11,560 I 1,560 6,460 2,050 1,240 6.440 2,460 9,620 4,140 5,060 '1,840 1,380 $131,760 $9,800 $1,000 $3,350 92,123 i't48,033
Optional Task: Prepare Proiect Water Supply Assessmont (Erler & Kanowski, lnc.) = $17,250 burdened prelimimary cstimats
((
1)
I ahd [Jsa and Land Llse Plannino
Trinan^drti^n ^nd TrAffi.
t r ESA
)
\-.
SECTION 5
Schedule
The preliminary project schedule is presented in Table 5-1. It estimates a
performance period of under nine months from project initiation to adoption
of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The schedule is based on typical
timeframes ESA has experienced on projects of similar scope.
TABLE 5-1
PRELIMINARY PROJECT SCHEDULE
Authorization to Proceed Week 0
Sponsor Data Request and ESA Data Collection /
ESA Prepares lS Project Description Week 1 through Week 6
ESA Prepares Administrative Draft lnitial Study Week 1 through 15
City Review of Administrative Draft lnitial Study Week 16 through Week 19
ESA Prepares Screencheck lnitial Study / Mitigated
Negative Declaration Week 20 through 21
City Reviews Screencheck lnitial Study / Mitigated Negative
Declaration \Neek22 through Week 23
\-
ESA produces Draft lnitial Study i Mitigated Negative
Declaration Week 24
Week 25 through Week 28
(30 days)Draft lnitial Study for Public Review Period
ESA Assists City in Administrative Draft Response to
Comments / ESA Prepares Administrative Draft MMRP Week 29 through 32
Finalize Response to Comments / MMRP Week 33 through 34
City Considers Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration Week 35
NOTE: The preliminary schedule is based on typical timeframes ESA has experienced on projects of
similar scope.
\-,
SFO@Technology Center lnilial Study / Mitigaled Negalive Declaration 5-'l
Schodulo
t
7 ESA
)
\-
\-
SECTION 6
Qualifications
The ESA Team has an extensive resume of relevant projects that demonstrate
our superior qualifications to provide environmental consulting services for
the SFO@Technology Center IS/MND. In this section, we detail ESA's
experience for the following categories:
. Relevant Work History and Experience in Burlingame
. Bay Shoreline Development Experience
. Large Office Development Experience
A. Site-Specific Experience
301 Airport Boulevard Office Development EIR
ESA prepared the EIR and a range ofsupporting technical studies and
supplemental environmental documents for a proposed office development at
301 Airport Boulevard. The project originally proposed consisted of
636,000 square feet, and over 2,100 parking spaces. Principal environmental
issues included transportation, including traffic impacts at critical local
intersections and freeway access points; increases in rnobile air emissions;
visual effects related to obstruction of scenic views; geotechnical
considerations in light of the site being comprised of fiIl;potential flooding
issues associated with water seepage through or over nearby levees; effects
on local sanitary sewer utilities; and evaluation of the culrural status of the
site given its former use as a drive-in theater.
ESA also prepared a Recirculated Draft EIR, an EIR Supplement, and two
EIR Addendums lvhich analyzed a number of new environmental issues
and/or various project design changes. In particular, public concerns were
raised conceming potential effects of the project on windsurfers, as the
project is located near the Coyote Point Recreational Area, a popular
windsurfing site on the San Francisco Bay. In response to these concerns,
ESA conducted a detailed evaluation of the potential wind effects of the
proposed office cornplex, including a wind tunnel test that estirnated changes
in wind patterns at windsurfing launching sites and transit routes. ESA also
developed significance criteria for evaluating windspeed reductions, or
\-
SFO@Technology Center lnitial Study/Mitigaled Negative Declaration 6-1
6. Qualifications
changes in wind turbulence. Two major changes in the design of the project
were subsequently modeled and tested, demonstrating lower wind speeds and
turbulence than previous designs.
The Final EIR was certified by the City Council, however, the project itself
rvas subsequently denied.
301 Airport Boulevard lnterim Grading Proiect lnitial
Stu dy/ Miti g ated N eg ativ e D ec I a rati on
In 2005, ESA prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(ISA4ND) for an interim grading project at the 301 Airport Boulevard site. The
project consisted ofthe placing offill, grading, and installation ofa new storm
drainage system. The purpose of the project was to prepare the site in a more
acceptable condition for potential future development of the site. The project
proposed to create four quadrants on the project site for stormwater collection
and containment; a perimeter drainage swale, connection to an on-site pump
station and stormdrain forcemain, and installation of various sediment control
features.
Prior to this project, the site had been the subject of involvement and/or
oversight by the Ciry, San Mateo County Health Service Agency (CHS), and
State Water Quality Control Board, as it related to potential health risk
concerns of soil that had been imported to the site. Ultimately, CHS
determined through soil sampling and other measures that the potential health
risk had been adequately addressed and resolved. Nevertheless, the IS/IvIND
identified appropriate mitigation to ensure future fill imported to the site under
the interim grading project was fully characterized through laboratory testing
prior to delivery to ensure health risks would remain less than significant.
Wind Testing of Alternative Conceptual Designs for
301 Airport Boulevard Site - 2010
Most recently (July 2010), ESA conducted additional wind testing for the
project site and adjacent site across Airport Boulevard to the north for a
number of alternative conceptual site designs. In support of this effort, a wind
funnel workshop r.vas first undertaken to provide basic information and
feedback for the Burlingame Point design team about how design of the
development could affect wind conditions in the adjacent windsurfing area.
The results of the wind testing provided infonnation on whether such
developrnent would cause a sig-nificant wind impact. The testing also provided
conclusions as it relates to the what mix of buildings would best minimize
wind speed reductions, and insight on horv these results related to existing City
Planning Code building height lirnits.
1
6-2 SFO@Technology Center I nitial Study/Mitigaled Negative Declaration
r trSA
)
6. Qualifications
\,,
\-,
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Wind Study and Noise
Constraints Analysis
ESA conducted a wind study and noise constraints analysis in support of the
Burlingame Bayfront SpeciJic Plan. The Bayfront Specific Plan area is
bounded by San Francisco Bay and U.S. l0l, extending between the Millbrae
city line and unincorporated San Mateo County's Coyote Point. The Anza
Point Area of the Specific Plan contains the 300 Airport Boulevard site. The
wind sludy ESA conducted described wind-related characteristics of the
Bayfront Specific Plan area, and provided a number of criterion and
recommendations for preserving recreational wind resources, protecting the
public from hazardous wind conditions, and protecting wind sensitive uses in
public parks and public access areas. The noise constraints analysis evaluated
the potential for and the possible extent of exterior and interior sound levels
above known criteria associated with motor vehicles on U.S. 101 and aircraft
associated with San Francisco lntemational Airport. The noise study also
provided a number of recommendations for reducing potential noise impacts
from those sources, including specific sound reduction construction
techniques.
B. Bay Shoreline Development Experience
Golden Stafe Warriors Event Center and Mixed-Use
Development at Mission Bay SEIR, San Francisco CA
ESA recently completed a Subsequent EIR for an ambitious proposal by the
Golden State Warriois (GSW) to construct a multi-purpose event center and
a variety of mixed uses, including office, retail, open space and structured
parking totaling nearly 2 million gross square feet on Blocks 29-32 within
the Mission Bay South Redevelopment Plan Area of San Francisco. The
proposed event center would host the Golden State Warriors basketball team
during the NBA season, and provide a year-round venue for a variety of
other uses, including concerts, farnily shows, other sporting events, cultural
events, conferences and conventions. A Subsequent EIR (SEIR) was
prepared for the project, tiering from the 1998 Mission Bay Final SEIR. The
project was processed under CEQA strearnlining legislation of both AB 900
("environmental leadership projects") and SB 143 . Key environmental issues
include transportation and circulation, air quality, noise, and utilities.
Important considerations are ensuring effects on the adjacent UCSF Mission
Bay carnpus and its rnedical center were fully addressed (e.g., vehicular
emergency access, and effects of project construction and operation on the
UCSF helipad), and consideration of cumulative envirorunental effects of
events of the proposed event center in conjunction with concurrent baseball
galnes at nearby AT&T Park.
\-
SFo@Technology Center I nitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaralion 6-3
6. Qualifications
Prior to GSW selecting the Mission Bay site, GSW proposed an equally
ambitious project site on Piers 30-32 in San Francisco for which ESA
prepared an Administrative Draft EIR. This prior proposal included an event
center, retail uses, maritime uses (including a San Francisco Fire Department
fire boat station and water taxi stops), and substantial open space. The
Piers 30-32 site would have required substantial repair and structural
upgrades to the piers, which are currently in disrepair. GSW also proposed to
construct a mixed-use development, including hotel and residential on the
approximate Z-aue seawall lot located directly across The Embarcadero from
the piers. This project presented a variety of environmental concerns to be
addressed in the EIR, including short-term marine biological,
hydrologic/water quality and noise impacts from the pile driving and other
in-water construction; and long-tenn transportation effects from increased
project traffic and associated air quality emissions.
Brisbane Baylands Phase I Specific Plan ElR, Brisbane, CA
ESA worked on the EIR for a "Framework Plan" for a 659-acre planning area
in the City of Brisbane. The brownfield site was formerly occupied by a
landfill and a railroad yard. The project sponsor, United Paragon Corporation,
proposes to develop a Phase I Specific Plan on the eastern 446-acre landfill
portion of the site by 2020 and to develop the Westem 213-acre railyard
portion of the site in future phases, to be complete by 2030. Upon completion,
the proposed project would include more than 8 million square feet of
commercial development. Major issues include traffic and transportation, air
qualiry, aesthetics, and sustainabiliry, particularly with respect to energy use,
green building technology, climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and sea
level rise.
A unique feature of the EIR is that the development of alternatives were be
the product of an extensive community outreach process involving surveys,
stakeholder interviews, community workshops, and multiple public hearings.
Once a reasonable range ofalternatives is identified through this process, the
City Council will choose choose one of the alternatives to be analyzed at a
level of detail equal to that of the project analysis.
Treasure Island Development Plan EIR, San Francisco, CA
The Treasure Island Redevelopment Authority (TIDA), proposed a
Redevelopment Plan for the Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island that
lvould provide the basis for redevelopment of the portions of fonner Naval
Station Treasure Island still owned by the Navy. The Naval Station was
closed in 1997 as part of the Base Realignrnent and Closure Program. The
islands include a U.S. Coast Guard Station, a U.S. Deparhnent of Labor Job
1
,1
6-4 SFo@Technology Center lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
T b*/z
)R
6. Qualifications
Corps campus, and Federal Highway Administration land occupied by the
San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge and tunnel structures. The project is a
nearly 2}-year, phased redevelopment of existing low-density residential and
vacant, underutilized non-residential structures to create a new mixed-use
community. Proposed are 8,000 residential units, up to 140,000 square feet of
retail and commercial space, approximately 100,000 square feet of new
office space, up to 500 hotel rooms, nearly 300 acres of parks and open
space, a ferry terminal/transit hub, community services and new
infrastruclure systems. The project also entails supplemental remediation and
geotechnical stabilization to support the proposed uses and utilities, and the
adaptive reuse of existing historic structures. ESA's work involved the
environmental impact analysis and mitigation for the following topics: air
quality; greenhouse gases; noise; geology, soils and seismicity; hazards and
hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; biological resources, and
shadow and wind hazards. In addition, ESA prepared a Habitat Management
Plan for the project.
lnner Harbor Specific Plan and Harbor View Project EIR -
Redwood City
ESA is currently preparing an EIR for the City of Redwood Cify's Inner
Harbor Specific Plan (IHSP) as part of its implementation of the Ciry's 2010
General Plan. The IHSP Area is approximately 100 acres along Redwood
Creek near San Francisco Bay. The EIR includes a program-level analysis
for a maximum theoretic buildout program of approximately 7.24 msf of
commercial office and retail uses, 550 residential units (including
approximately 100 floating homes), and approximately 43 acres of active and
passive recreation and open space.
The EIR also includes (separate from the analysis, impacts, and mitigation
measures identified for the IHSP) the projectJevel analysis of the Harbor
Vier,v Project (HVP) of 1.25 msf of office use - a program larger than that
analyzed for the HVP site under the IHSP. To address this, the EIR includes
various alternatives that could allow the City to adopt a modified IHSP that
fully accornmodates the HVP. Other near-tenn project proposals are
anticipated after cornpletion of the IHSP and EIR, and the EIR analysis
(paired with mandatory developrrent standards in the IHSP) has been
carefully considered to easily facilitate the CEQA review and clearance of
those projects tiered directly from the prograrn EIR.
\-
\-
SFO@Technology Center lnitial Study/Miligated Negative Declaration 6-5
\-
6. Qualifications
Jack London Square Redevelopment EIR and Addendum,
Oakland, CA
ESA prepared the EIR for the phased, long-term redevelopment of the Jack
London Square area located along Oakland's waterfront. This project is a
multi-block Planned Unit Development (PUD) to intensify the retail, dining,
and entertainment uses within Jack London Square, resulting in
approximately 1.2 million net gross-square-feet (gsf) of office, retail and
restaurant space, hotel, conference,fuanquet space, theatre, supermarket, and
associated parking. The project also would create a major open space area
and continue a pedestrian walkway along the Oakland Estuary fuart of the
Bay Trail). ESA recently prepared an Addendum to the EIR to assess
residential uses on specific development parcels where only commercial uses
were previously considered. Key issues analyzed in the EIR and revisited in
the Addendum include traffic, construction related effects and health risk,
noise compatibility, utility and service demands, and aesthetics (as the
residential buildings would be substantially taller than the previously
approved commercial buildings).
C. Large Office Development Experience
Sa/esforce Tower EIR
As part of the EIR for the Transit Center District Plan in downtown San
Francisco, ESA completed project-specific analysis of this 61-story office
tower, which will be the tallest building in San Francisco once completed.
Issues of particular concern included groundJevel winds and shadow; orving
to the building's 1,070-foot height, shadows wili reach several city parks up
to almost one mile distant. With respect to wind, however, the tolver's gently
curving facades and rounded comers mean that it would not result in adverse
effects on pedestrian wind conditions. The EIR also contained detailed
analysis oftransportation and air quality effects and construction noise
impacts.
Central and Wolfe Campus EIR
ESA prepared the EiR for a 770,000-square-foot, three-building office
campus at the rnajor intersection of Central Expressway and Wolfe Road in
Sunnyvale. The six-story campus (four office floors above tlvo floors of
podiurn parking), reportedly to be fu1ly occupied by Apple Inc., comprises
three interconnected buildings in a clover-like shape amid large areas of open
space. The project will replace a single-story concrete tilt-up business park
and surface parking lots. The EIR analyzed all issues in the CEQA checklist
and identified rnitigation lneasures to reduce impacts to a less-than-
:t
6-6 SFO@Technology Cenler lnitial Study/Mitigated N egative Declaralion
7 g*t\
*
6. Oualifications
significant level in the areas of Air Qualify, Greenhouse Gases and Clirnate
Change, Biological Resources, and Cultural Resources; significant,
unavoidable impacts in regard to traffic (because the City, as lead agency,
could not implement necessary mitigation without the cooperation of Santa
Clara County) and construction noise (because of the potential for pile-
driving noise to adversely affect nearby residents). Nevertheless, the project
was approved by the Sunnydale City Council in October 2014.
222 Second Street Office Project EIR
ESA completed an Environmental Impact Report for a proposed 25-story
offrce building, located at the southwestern edge of San Francisco's Transbay
Terminal Area. The 430,000-square-foot building is planned at the site where
a prior office proposal was approved in the late 1980s but never built. Most
recently, the site has been used as a parking lot. ESA staff prepared in-house
analyses of transportation, shadow and rvind impacts, and analysis of land
use consistency and policy conformance, along with a sub-consultant's
evaluation ofeffects on archeological resources and the project architect's
preparation of photomontages for use in ESA's visual quality analysis. The
Final EIR was certified in August 2010 and upheld upon appeal to the Board
of Supervisors in October. The key issue on appeal involved new shadow
that would be cast by the 350-foot-tall building on sidewalks designated in
the General Plan for protection of sunlight. However, the Supervisors
determined that the EIR's shadow analysis was adequate.
350 Mission Sfreef Office Project EIR
ESA is preparing an EIR for a proposed 24-story office tower, to be located
across the street from San Francisco's new Transit Center (replacernent for
the Transbay Terminal). The Draft EIR was published shortly after the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted its new CEQA
Guidelines in June 2010, and the Draft EIR therefore included a quantified
health risk analysis of both construction emissions and emissions from the
building's proposed emergency generator on nearby sensitive receptors. The
EiR also contained an exhaustive analysis ofpotential construction-period
effects on transit service and pedestrian activity, given that construction
could overlap with dernolition of the Transbay Tenninal, currently under
lvay, and construction of the new Transit Center. ESA also evaluated shadow
and wind impacts on nearby public and publicly accessible open spaces, and
quantified greenhouse gas ernissions consistent with BAAQMD direction.
\-
\-
\-
SFo@Technology Cenler lnilial Sludy/Mitigated Negative Declaralion 6-7
6. Qualificatlons
560 Mission Street EIR
ESA prepared the EIR for a 660,000-square-foot office building in
San Francisco's South of Market office district. The building is one of the
largest built in San Francisco in 15 years. It occupies one acre near the
Transbay Transit Terminal. Internationally famed architect Cesar Pelli
designed the building to evoke early 20th century commercial architecture
while complementing nearby modem high-rises. The EIR analyzed
transportation, air quality, wind, and shadow effects. Historic architectural
resources were also examined, because the site was partially occupied by a
& six-story, reinforced-concrete building constructed in 1919. Prior to initiating
the EIR, ESA defined the maximum building envelope that would avoid new
shadow on Union Square during hours when the square is protected under the
planning code.
and shading; wind; cultural resources; traffic, transit, parking, and
circulation; noise; air quality; geology and soils; public health and safety; and
population and housing.
Oakland City Center Project EIR and Addenda
ESA originally completed an EIR for a four-site project that included Block
T12 for the Shorenstein Company, resulting in the development of 555 Ciry
Center, the first private high-rise office building constructed in Oakland in
more than a decade. A second site was subsequently sold and re-entitled for
residential development, after ESA prepared a first EIR Addendum for that
site. Including the newly re-entitled office tower, the Shorenstein Company
proposed to construct three office towers totaling 1.6 million square feet in the
Oakland City Center complex. ESA's original EIR provided a complete traffic
and parking analysis for the project, as well as analysis of potential impacts
related to ground-level winds; shadows on nearby open spaces; vier.vs of the
City Center area; nearby historic districts; and air quality and noise. The
cumulative traff,rc irnpact analysis was based on ESA's previous EIR for the
Oakland General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element. In addition, the
EIR analyzed six alternatives to the proposed project. ESA prepared a third
addendum to revert an existing entitlernent for residential developrrent back
to the originally approved office tolver. The new building will have 23 stories
and 588,000 square feet ofoffice space, as well as 9,500 square feet of
ground-floor commercial space.
6-8 SFo@Technology Center lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declarclion
-
STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8j
U MEETING DATE: August 15,2016
To:Honorable Mayor and Gity Council
Date: August 15,2016
From Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director - (650) 558-7307
Karen Hager, Management Analyst - (650) 558-7317
Subject: Rejection of All Bids and Authorization for Staff to Re-Bid the Village Park
flayground Renovation - C
Staff recommends that the City Council reject all bids for the Village Park Playground Renovation
and authorize staff to re-advertise the project to obtain new bids.
BACKGROUND
The Village Park Restroom Replacement Project was approved as a Capital lmprovement Project
in FY 2015-16. The scope of the work included providing all labor and materials required for
demolition and off-haul, grading, and drainage as well as concrete paving, curbs, banding, seat
wall and ramp at sand play, resilient surfacing including sand play, poured-in-place surfacing and
synthetic turf surfacing, ornamental fences and gates, and job clean-up. The equipment will be
purchased by the City of Burlingame under another contract. However, the play equipment
installation, including pick up within city limits and transporting to site, is included as part of the
scope of work.
DISCUSSION
The project was first advertised for bids on June 14, 2016. The City received three bids, which
were opened on July 12, 2016, in the amounts of $249,844, $256,925, and $280,288. The
Engineer's cost estimate for this scope of work was $249,884.
During the review of the contract proposals, staff discovered that the project specifications and
special provisions were inadequate and may potentially create problems during construction.
Therefore, it is necessary to reject all bids and re-advertise the project.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Village Park Restroom Replacement Capital lmprovement Project was approved in Fiscal
Year 15-16 for $350,000.
\-
\-
1
RECOMMENDATION
t
Village Park Playground Renovation Rejection of All Bids August 15, 2016
Exhibit:
. Bid Summary
2
(
-ffi1.)M\W Proposa I Opening
C f..,0,.A
Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department
.-t
Proposal Results Villaee Park Playground Renovation
city Project: 84430 Date:71t2/16 Time:2:00pm
Base Bid
F{r'l+t
'tr:,(Jollt6
oo-o
o-
o
Fl
{+
.9
-:zo
OJ
U
(Joo
ciod.
Ollt
o
bo(o
o-
6oL:,
(t,
oO1*
ci
EoU
6
(u
-:zLo
=r+o
PL
r\+f
PL
OJ(J
-o
(t,
.E
L(J
.9o
o
(o
1t
o)
bo(o
=oo
=(o
c,
lfllt
o
E
OJP(UPt,
o'ooU
.(J
-o
=
sl
++
.9
:oU
I
o
cnt+
(t,5d
OJ(J
OJ
oo-xlrJ
Ntt
o
Q(o
L
oUI
-o:,
rl1*
Gqoo-o
o-Compa
1 McNabb Construction
2 lnterstate Gradi and Pavi
3 Commun Pla I nc.
$249,844
$2s6,925
s280,288
5
5
6
x x x x x x xxxxx
xXxxxxxxxX
x xxxxxxxXx
STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO:BK
\-MEETING DATE: August 15,2016
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: August 15,2015
From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director - (650) 558-7222
Subject:Annual Renewal of the Burlingame Avenue Area Business lmprovement
District (DBID): Adoption of a Resolution Approving the 2015-16 Annual
Report, Declaring the City's lntention to Establish and Levy Assessments
for Fiscal Year 2016-17, and Setting the Required Public Hearing for
September 19,2016
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution:
a
a
Approving the 2015-16 annual report of the Burlingame Avenue Area Business
lmprovement District;
Stating the Council's intent to levy assessments on businesses within the district for the
2016-17 fiscal year; and,
Setting a public hearing for Monday, September 19,2016 at 7:00 p.m.\-,a
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq., the Burlingame City
Council adopted ordinance 1735 in 2004, establishing the Burlingame Avenue Area Business
lmprovement District (DBID) for the purpose of promoting the downtown Burlingame Avenue
business area. ln the summer of 2010, the DBID was re-instituted after a hiatus of several years.
For the past six years, the DBID has provided business-enhancing activities, events, and publicity
for the downtown Burlingame businesses. Pursuant to the Streets and Highways Code, the DBID
must file a report with the City each year detailing its activities, its pastyear activities, its finances
for the past year, and its proposed budget for the coming year.
DISCUSSION
The DBID submitted its annual report and its 2016-17 fiscal year proposed budget on July 11,
2016. Copies of the documents are attached to the Resolution of lntention. Note that the DBID's
operating year begins October 1't and ends September 30th. The proposed budget for the DBID's
2016-17 fiscal year provides a total of $100,000 for Special Events, Marketing and Advertising,
Member Enhancements, and Administration. The $100,000 budget exceeds the estimated
$90,000 in annual member assessments, as the Events budget includes the costs associated\-,
1
Burlingame Ave. (Downtown) BID - lntent fo Assess August 15,2016
with the First Annual October Fall Fest. The DBID has available fund balance to cover the
difference between the budget and this fiscal year's assessment.
Under the law, the City must, after a noticed public hearing, levy the annual assessments on the
businesses within the district. The resolution attached to this report sets that public hearing and
provides notice to the businesses in the district. The public hearing will be conducted at the
Council meeting on September 19,2016. The method of assessmentwill remain the same as in
prior years.
Following the Council's adoption of the Resolution of lntention, the Finance Department will mail
a letter to all affected businesses within the DBID. The letter will inform each business that the
annual renewal process has commenced. The letter also will provide each business with the
geographic zone and building floor in which they are located, the square footage used to
determine the annual assessment, and the proposed assessment to be charged in the new fiscal
yeat.
ln addition, each business will also receive a copy of the adopted Resolution of lntention and a
Notice of Public Hearing as required by law. The Resolution of lntention to Levy Assessments
notifies all businesses within the district of the City Council's intention to levy and collect fees.
The public hearing gives the businesses an opportunity to voice their opinions, comments,
suggestions and concerns directly to the City Council The recomme hearino date is
September 19. 2016 at 7:00 p.m.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approximately $90,000 in assessments is anticipated to be collected annually. The funds are
fonruarded to the DBID for expenditures as authorized by their board of directors. The City is
reimbursed $4,000 for the cost of preparing and mailing the required DBID notices.
Exhibits:
o Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Approving the 2015-16 Burlingame
Avenue Area Business lmprovement District Annual Report and Declaring its lntention to
Establish and Levy 2016-17 Assessments for the Burlingame Avenue Area Business
lmprovement District
o Notice of Public Hearing: Consideration of Establishment and Levy of Annual Assessments
on Businesses Within the Burlingame Avenue Area Business lmprovement District for the
2016-17 fiscal year
1
2
\-
U
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COTINCIL OT'THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING TIIE
2015-16 BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ANNUAL
REPORT AND DECLARINGITS INTENTION TO ESTABLISII AND LEVY 2016-17
ASSESSMENTS FOR THE BTJRLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq., the City
Council of the City of Burlingame originally established the Burlingame Avenue Area Business
Improvement District ("DBID") for the purpose of promoting economic revitalization and physical
maintenance of said business district, and
WHEREAS, a majority protest was made against renewal of the DBID in2007 and, accordingly, the
DBID was not renewed at that time; and
WHEREAS, in 2010 the DBID was re-instituted after the City Council amended the ordinance to
revise the method and amount of the assessments and no majority protest was made against the revised
assessments; and
WHEREAS, the DBID Advisory Board has filed its 2015-16 annual report with the City Clerk and
has requested the Burlingame City Council to set a public hearing and to levy the DBID assessments for the
2016-17 year; and
WHEREAS, the DBID has provided important services in enhancing the downtown Burlingame
Avenue business area, its businesses and properties;
NOW, THERBFORE, THE CITY COIJNCIL OF' THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND FIND AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City Council accepts and approves the 2015-16 annual report of the Burlingame Avenue Area
Business Improvement District, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A".
2. The Burlingame City Council intends to levy an assessment for the 2016-11 year, beginning October 1,
2016, on businesses in the DBID in order to pay for improvements and activities of the DBID.
3. The types of improvements and activities proposed to be funded by the ler,y of assessments on
businesses in the DBID are set forth in Exhibit "8", incorporated herein by reference; these activities and
improvements are without substantial change from those previously established for the DBID.
4. The method and basis of lerying the assessrnents on the businesses in the DBID for the 2016-17 year
shall remain the same as those used to determine the assessments levied on DBID businesses in the
2015-16 year.
5. New businesses shall not be exempt from assessment.
6. The annual report of the DBID is on file at the Office of the City Clerk at 510 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, Califomia, and is available for review during regular business hours, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm,
Monday through Friday.
7. The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby schedules a public hearing on the proposed DBID
assessments for 2016-17 for Monday, September 19, 2016, at 7:00 p.rn., in the Council Chambers,
Burlingame City Hall, 501 Prirnrose Road, Burlingame, Califomia.\-
8. At the public hearing, the City Council will receive testimony and evidence, and interested persons may
submit written comments before or at the public hearing, or they may be sent by mail or delivered to the
City Clerk, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010.
9. At the public hearing, any and all persons may make oral or written protests against the proposed
assessments. In order for a protest to be counted in the majority protest against the proposed assessments
or programs and services, the protest must be submitted in writing to the City Clerk at or before the close
of the public hearing on September 19,2016. Each written protest shall identify the business and its
address, include a description of the business and the amount of the assessment proposed for that
business. If the person signing the protest is not shown on the official records as the owner of the
business, then the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person is the
owner of the business or otherwise empowered to enter a protest on its behalf. A written protest that does
not comply with the provision of this paragraph will not be counted in determining a majority protest.
Any written protest as to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceeding shall be in writing and clearly
state the irregularity or defect to which objection is made. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing
at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing.
10. At the conclusion of the public hearing, if the City Council determines that there are, of record, written
protests by the owners of businesses within the downtown Burlingame Avenue Area Business
Improvement District which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire
District, as to the proposed assessments, the City Council shall not levy any assessment for the District.
At the conclusion of the public hearing, if the City Council determines that there are, of record, written
protests by the owners of businesses within the District which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the
total assessments of the entire District only as to a particular improvement or activity proposed, then that
particular improvement or activity shall not be included in the District.
1 l. Further information regarding the proposed assessments and the procedures for filing a written protest,
may be obtained from the City Clerk, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, Califomia,
6s0-558-7203.
12. The City Council directs the City Clerk to provide notice of the September 19, 2016 public hearing by
publishing notice as well as this Resolution in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of
Burlingame in accordance with the requirements of the Government and Streets & Highways Codes and
mailing them in accordance with those requirements as applicable.
Ann Keighran, Mayor
1
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 15tr' day of August, 2016, and was
adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers
Councihnembers
Councilmembers
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
\-.
\-
Exhibit A
luly L7,2016
Burlingame City Council
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 9 40L0-3997
Honorable Council Members:
The DBBID Advisory Committee is planning no changes to the assessment or
boundaries of the district.
We'd also like to report that there were N0 DBBID Officer changes in 2016. The
Advisory Committee is made up of the below individuals:
fesse |ones - DBBID President - Basecamp Fitness
fae Lim - DBBID Vice President - Barracuda Sushi
Angeline Sebastian Stafford - DBBID Treasurer - Massage Envy
Jenny Keleher - DBBID Secretary - A Runner's Mind
Following enclosures include our financial statement to date and our proposed
budget for the 20L6 - 2017 fiscal year.
Proposed expenditures for the remainder of the current year includer. $9,000 for Administrative Assistant & Marketing Consultant costs. $3,000 maintenance of Lighted Trees on Burlingame Avenue.. $12,000 for continued Marketing and Advertising endeavors [Kiosk Map
Updates / Printing, Trolley Map Printing, Mixer, Sidewalk Sale, Flag
Replacement, Marketing Material, Website Overhaul, App maintenance, First
Friday Entertainment, Fall Fest Event Kick OffJ. $1,000 for continued website development / app development &
maintenance
Our activities and programs completed for this fiscal year or in development to date
include:
Holiday Parade on Burlingame Avenue and Live Entertainment on Park Road.
Sponsor and promote Fall & Spring Sidewalk Sales. (May & August 2016)
DBBID Website, Interactive Map development & maintenance.
o Revamped Website to include Marketing tools for merchants to
promote specials and events.
Downtown Burlingame Business Improvement District
P.O. Box 563
Burlingame, CA 94011 - 0563
a
a
a
\-,
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
iPhone and Android App maintenance for all Merchants to use for Marketing
opportunities and the general public to utilize to find out about happenings
in Downtown Burlingame.
Created Concierge Passport featuring downtown Burlingame Merchants and
rolled out to all Major Burlingame / Millbrae Hotel Concierge to increase
awareness of Downtown Burlingame Businesses.
Hired part time Marketing Consultant to help increase Marketing support to
merchants as well as increase the Social Media Presence of the DBBID and
Downtown Burlingame Merchants (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc')
Continued "First Friday" events May - November 20L6 Live entertainment
in two locations each "first Friday" to promote ambiance and community
spirit.
Maintain Kiosk Maps with quarterly updates to showcase the downtown
businesses.
Shuttle support
Maintain Shuttle / Trolley Maps with quarterly updates and distribution to
local hotels for clients to increase business downtown.
Maintain communication network for important information and
distribution.
Merchant Communication efforts include: Email / Newsletter contact
regarding downtown updates, parking updates, upcoming events, etc. , New
Merchant Outreach [individually contacting new merchants to introduce the
DBBID and welcome them to the community and to engage in future DBBID
efforts.
Monthly Email to merchants and subscribed members regarding community
events and notices regarding events / issues happening in the Downtown
area.
Maintenance of lighted trees on Burlingame Avenue. This is done 2x per
month (due to the growth of the new trees) Trees are re wrapped as needed
and broken Iights / strings are replaced as needed.
Planning First Annual "October Fall Fest" on Howard Avenue. The intent to
bring people to the other wonderful street's that make up Downtown
Burlingame. Planned date 1,0 /30 /1,6.
Continuing Marketing efforts to promote ALL businesses downtown (not just
retail, restaurants and salonsJ.
Created new downtown banner's to replace the existing banner's [including
new Public Parking BannersJ.
Purchased American Flags, Poles and FIag Holders to celebrate patriotic
holidays [President's Holiday, Memorial Day,4th of July, Labor Day &
Veteran's Day). Have had to replace 1 - 3 r-rnits after every holiday due to
theft / vandalism.
Established relationship with Community Gatepath and hired teams to clean
the streets [entire DBBID District on the znd Monday of each month. Working
together with merchants to keep our streets clean.
Downtown Burlingame Business Improvement District
P.O. Box 563
Burlingame, CA 94011 - 0563
1
o
o
a
a
a
o
a
a Held 3 Member Mixer's [March, June, September) to promote the DBBID, our
members and merchants and celebrate our successes while giving the
merchants a forum to discuss what they'd like to see happen. Invited City
Officials as well as Hotel Concierge.
\-
\,
Planned Activities of interest for next year include:. 201.5 Holiday Parade and Entertainment to coincide with Tree Lighting. First Annual October Fall Fest - October 2076 on Howard Avenue. First Friday event April - November. Possible Wine Walk in the Spring 201-9. Continuation of existing programs.
Respectfully submitted by,
The DBID Advisory Committee
Jesse f ones - DBBID President - Dethrone Basecamp Fitness
Jae Lin - DBBID Vice President - Barracuda
Angeline Sebastian-Stafford - DBBID Treasurer - Massage Envy
f enny Keleher - DBBID Secretary - A Runner's Mind
Downtown Burlingame Business Improvement District
P.O. Box 563
Burlingame, CA 940L1, - 0563
\-
Special Events
Marketing and Advertising
Print Advertising/Banners
Hotel Advertising
Web Site Maintenance & new materials
i0S & Android App Maintenance
Member Enhancements
Beautification
Shuttle Contribution
Communications
Tree Lighting Maintenance
Administration
Part Time Assistant
Part Time Marketing Consultant
Accounting
Office Supplies
City Collection Fees
Insurance
Total
DBBID Annual Budget Proposal
October 201,6 - September 201,7
$30,000.00
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
$30,000.00
$100,000.00
1
07 l09l t6
Downtown Burlingame lmprovement District
Profit and Loss Standard
October 2015 through September 2016
Oct '15 - Sep'16
Ordinary lncome / Expen se
lncome
Direct Pu blic Support
l\4ember Dues 2015 - 2016
l\4ember Dues 2074 - 2015
Total Direct Public 5u pport
Total lncome
Expen se
Marketing and Advertising
Hotel Advertising
Maps and Sched u les
Total Hotel Advertisin g
Street Banners
Pu rchase/ Repair/ Replace
Street Ban ners - Other
Total Street Banners
Marketing and Adve rtising -..
Total Marketing and Advertis ing
Member Enhancements
Beautification - Labor
Beautifi cation- Supplies
Shuttle Contribution
Total lvlember En hancem ents
Operation s
Contract Services
Marketing Assistant
Accou nting Fees
Webmaster
Contract Services - Other
Total Contract Se rvices
lnsu rance
Office Su pplies
Postage, Mailing 5e rvices
59,742.7 5
20,150.75
79,893.s0
79,893.50
L,857.34
r,857.34
L?,720.L3
1,5 3 5.00
L4,?55.L3
1, 15 5.3 5
L7 ,267.82
2,278.00
2,384.67
7,s00.00
72,162.67
4,150.00
180.00
260.00
24,652.50
29,242.50
5 5 4.00
1,3 40.6 8
404.80
Total O pe rations 31,541.98
Page 1
07 109 116
Special Events
Fall
Entertain ment
Total Fall
Spring
Entertain me nt
Posters / Flyers
Total Spring
Summer
Entertainment
Rentals
Total Summer
Winter
Advertising, Print & Multi Medi
Entertainment
Posters / Flyers
Re ntals
Total winter
Special Events - Other
Total Special Events
Net Ordinary lncome
Net lncome
Downtown Bu rlingame lmprovement District
Profit and Loss Standard
October 2 015 through September 2 016
Oct'15 - Sep'16
1,3 0 0.0 0
1,3 00.00
8 13. 13
2,366.3t
146.00
2,512.3t
722.73
1,8 5 5.9 3
2L3.79
3,543.09
6,334.94
400.00
11,3 60.3 8
72,332.85
7,5 6 0.6 5
Page 2
Total Expen se
2 00.00
613.13
7,5 60.6 5
\-
\-
NOTICE OF' PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR THE
BURLINGAME A\TENUE AREA BUSINESS
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR 2016.17 AND TO
DETERMINE WHETIIER A MAJORITY PROTEST IIAS
BEEN MADE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 19,2016 at7:00 p.m., in the Council
Chambers, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, the City Council of the City
of Burlingame will conduct a public hearing to consider the following:
l. The adoption of a Resolution imposing proposed assessments on businesses in the
Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District for the 2016-17 fiscal year,
the amounts of those assessments, the types of improvements and activities proposed
to be funded by the assessments, and the method and basis of levying the assessments
2. Any and all written protests against said assessments.
3. Whether there are written protests to the proposed assessments by the owners of
businesses within the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District which
will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District.
4. Whether there are written protests to a particular District improvement or activity by
the owners of businesses within the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement
District which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the
entire District.
The proposed basis for the 2016-17 assessment is the same as that used for the 201 5- 1 6 fiscal
year. The pu{poses, programs and activities to be supported by the proposed assessments are
described in the Resolution of Intention, a copy of which is available for review at the City
Clerk's Office, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame California.
The public hearing on the proposed Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District
programs and the assessments for the 2016-17 fiscal year is set for September l9r2016 at 7:00
p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, in the Council's Chambers, Burlingame
City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. At that time, the Council will hear from
any interested person who wishes to submit r,vritten or oral testimony regarding the proposed
assessments.
Oral or written protests may be made before or at that public hearing, but no later than the close
of the public hearing. See the Resolution of Intention for information on how protests are made
and what effect protests have.
Further information regarding the proposed assessments may be obtained from the City Clerk at
City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010 (650-558-7203). Written comments
and/or written protests may be directed to the City Council, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, CA 94010.\-
STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO:ol
MEETING DATE: August 15,2016
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: August 15,2016
From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director - (650) 558-7222
Subject: Quarterly lnvestment Report, Period Ending June 30,2016
\-
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and approve the City's investment report through
June 30, 2016.
BACKGROUND
This report represents the City's investment portfolio as of June 30,2016. 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.
DISCUSSION
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 July 5,
2016. 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 lt/anagement, and also maintains funds
invested in the State's Local Agency lnvestment Fund (LAIF) and the San lt/ateo County Pool, to
achieve its investment goals.
CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS
The modest U.S. economic expansion continued in the second quarter, and the national
unemployment rate ended the quarter at 4.9%. However, measures of economic strength in the
U.S. remained mixed. A weak May employment report was followed by industrial production,
durable goods orders, construction spending and new home sales all below expectations.
However, retail sales and existing home sales exceeded expectations, and measures of
consumer confidence were surprising ly strong.
Reflective of the mixed economic conditions, the Federal Open lt/arket Committee (FOIMC) kept
rates unchanged during the quarter. At its meeting in mid-June, the FOltllC once again lowered
1
lnvestment Report, June 30, 2016 August 15, 2016
its expectation for rate hikes in 2016. As of June 30th, the market was pricing in a 0o/o chance of
a rate hike in July, and less than a 10o/o chance for a hike in 2016. Treasury yields ended the
quarter significantly lower with the United Kingdom's decision to leave the European Union. The
"Brexit" vote on June 23rd induced volatility and uncertainty, inciting a flightto-quality toward the
quarter's end. This vote was the first of its kind, shocking markets and triggering outsized market
reactions. Bond yields fell sharply, sending 10- and 3O-year Treasury yields to all-time lows.
Equity indexes also saw a sharp pullback following the vote, but pared losses by the quarter's
end amid anticipated central bank accommodation.
U.S. Treasury Yield Curves
1.25%
1.00%
0.75o/o
0.50%
O.25Yo
0.00%
J
v
Source: Bloambery
PORTFOLIO INFORMATION
The City's cash, excluding bond proceeds, is pooled for investment purposes. As of June 30,
2016, invested funds totaled $125,540,187 (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. 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.
36
mm
Maturity
2
v
1
v
5
v a
-March
31,2016
-June
30, 2016
3 month
6 month
1 year
2year
3 year
5 year
10 year
30 year
0.20o/o
0.387o
0.59%
A.720/a
0.86%
1.21%
1-77Yo
2-61o/o
4.264/a
0.35o/o
0.43o/o
0-58o/o
0.6970
1.00o/o
1.47Vo
2.27Ya
lMain lnr,estment Portfolio
lVain lnvestment Portfolio - Cash Balance in Custody Account
lnvestment Portfolio B
San Mateo County Pool Balance
LAIF Balance
$ 73,609,120.91
69,086.88
3,000,201.00
712,190.38
48,149,587.46
$ 125,540,186.63
2
\-,
\-,
lnvestment Report, June 30, 2016 August 15, 2016
Given the market uncertainty during the quarter, PFM recommended a near-neutral duration
position for the City's main portfolio. At the end of the quarter, the portfolio's duration was 2.69
years, nearly matching the benchmark's duration of 2.66 years. Factoring in additional
investments such as the San Mateo County Pool and LAIF, the average effective duration was
1.59 years.
The yield relationship between U.S. Treasury and federal agency securities remained mostly
range-bound during the quarter, but agencies could not quite keep pace with the significant
Treasury rally that resulted from the Brexit vote at quarter-end. New issue supply helped keep
shorter-maturity yield spreads elevated at attractive levels. For the quarter, the agency sector
performed generally in-line with comparable maturity Treasuries. During the quarter, over $9
million of federal agency securities were purchased in the City's main portfolio, increasing the
portfolio's allocation to federal agency securities by 8o/o compared to last quarter.
Shortterm money market instruments continued to add value during the quarter. ln mid-June,
when a BNP Paribas commercial paper issue matured, the proceeds were reinvested in 6-month
commercial paper, also issued by BNP Paribas, at a yield of 0.93%, representing a yield pick-up
of 55 basis points over similar-maturity U.S. Treasury issue.
Late in the quarter, PFNI revised its assessment of the corporate sector and reduced purchases
of corporate and other credit holdings due to a variety of factors: generally narrow yield spreads;
modest deterioration in the credit fundamentals of the industrial sector due to lower profits;
increased leverage and greater capital devoted to dividends and share buybacks; and increased
economic risks to the banking sector, especially for European banks, from the potential impact of
Brexit.
Looking fonruard, PFIt4's recommended strategy continues to favor credit sectors, including
corporate notes, commercial paper, and negotiable CDs. The best opportunities are currently
with issuers in the U.S. financial industry, where capital is strong and spreads are wide. PFM
continues to closely review issuers' exposure to the UK and Europe, and is being more cautious
about adding credit exposure at this time.
Please see below for a summary of transactions for the quarter ended June 30, 20'16
\-
51612016 Purchase 91 2828890 U.S. Treasury
Notes 58 1.260/o 2,625,000
FHLtvlC Notes5t612016Sale3,137EADUO I 0.57o/o 645,000
51612016 Sale 91 2828SS0 U.S. Treasury
Notes 12 0.57%1,975,000
5t1212016 Maturity 22533TEC6 Credit Agricole
NY CP 0 1,500,000
511312016 Purchase 0653881E1 Bank of Tokyo
Mitsubishi CP 6 0.920/o 1,500,000
5t15t2016 Call 3135G0RQ8 FNMA Notes 0 1,000,000
5t16t2016 Purchase 31 35G0Js3 FNIVA Notes 33 0.96%995,000
3
lnvestment Report, June 30, 2016 August 15, 2016
05531 FAVs Branch Banking
and Trust Notes 60 2.080/o 1,500,000511612016Purchase
91 2828B90 U.S. Treasury
Notes 58 1.24o/o 1,500,0005t1612016Sale
0 2,000,0005t2712016Call31 36G06M8 FNMA Notes
1.47%2,000,000Purchase31 35G0F73 FNfvlA Notes 54513112016
313048DB6 FHLB Notes 37 1.14%1,605,00061312016Purchase
912828D23 U.S. Treasury
Notes 35 1.02o/o 1,605,0006t312016Sale
GE Capital
Notes 0 250,0006t812016Itlaturity36161TAQ8
b 0.93%1,500,000Purchase09659BI\472 BNP Paribas NY
CP611012016
1 000 000Maturity096598FA3BNP Paribas NY
CP 0
2,000,000Call3134G46D5FHLMC Notes 06t1212016
3130488D4 FHLB Notes 25 0.86%1,150,0006t1312016Purchase
3130A8D86 FHLB Notes 36 1.00o/o 1,150,0006t1312016Purchase
31 35G0K69 FNI\4A Notes 58 1.15%2,500,0006t2912016Purchase
Wells Fargo
Notes 10 1.09%1,000,0006t29t2016Sale949748FD7
Bank of Tokyo
Mitsubishi CP 5 0.84o/o 1,500,0006t2912016Sale0653881E1
Qu arter tran sactio n s (cont.)
As noted in the pie chart below, the City's investment portfolio as of June 30,2016 was heavily
weighted towards the State Local Agency lnvestment Fund (LAIF) and high-quality (AA+ rated)
federal agency and U.S. Treasury securities to maintain the focus on safety and liquidity.
lnvestments By Security Type
As of June 30, 2016
1
FederalAgencies
26Yo
Commercial
Paper
2%
Certificates of
Deposit
40/z/o
Corporate Notes
16%
U.S. Treasuries
15%
Other
San l/lateo
County
lnvestment Pool
4 0/t/o
<1o/o
4
Transaction
611012016
lnvestment Report, June 30, 2016 August 15, 2016
Credit Quality of lnvestments
As of June 30, 2016\-
\-,
NR (San lVateo
County Pool)
A-
12%
NR (FDIC lnsured)
.t olt/o
A-1 (Short-Term)
oo/JlO
Other NR
<1o/o
The City's lnvestment Policy allows for a five-year time horizon with an emphasis on liquidity. As
of June 30,2016, 39% of the City's funds were invested in very short-term liquid investments,
19% of the funds were invested with maturities between one day and two years, and 42o/o 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 1.59 years and currently generate annual interest income (yield to
maturity) of 1.04oh. 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 June 30, 2016, the yield to maturity at cost on the main portfolio of securities was 1.36%.
lncluding additional investments such as LAIF and the San Mateo County Pool, the aggregate
investments averaged a yield to maturity of 1.04%.. During the quarter, the main portfolio
generated interest income and realized gains that totaled $261,504.
-Ratrngs by Standard & Poor's. Average excludes 'Not Rated'securlfles.
As noted in previous reports, staff has arranged for a gradual drawdown of the City's holdings in
the San lt/ateo 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 operating and capital needs, and the City's managed portfolio will
grow as the County Pool funds are withdrawn. A total withdrawal of these funds (which
5
Market Value $125,540,1 96.63
1.59 YearsWeighted Average Maturity
Average Credit Qual ity*AA
Yield To Maturity 1.04o/o*
\-
.t olt/o
1%
NR (LArF)
38%
lnvestment Report, June 30, 2016 August 15, 2016
approximated $5.2 million in March 2015) will continue throughout the next fiscal year, as
withdrawals from the fund are limited lo 20% of the City's balance in the pool.
Yield History
October 31, 2014 - June 30, 2016
1.75%
1.50%1.34%
1.25%
1.05%
1.00%
0.75%
0.50%
0.55%
0.25%
0.00%
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb lvlar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb lt/ar Apr May Jun
14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16',16 16',16
* The finat net earnings rate for June 2016 was not yet available at the time this repoft was produced. The
San Mateo County Treasurer's office provided an estimated net earnings rate of 1.045% which is used in
the yield history chart above and elsewhere in this report where the yield to maturity on the City's
investments is calculated.
Maturity Distribution
As of June 30, 2016
45%
40%
35o/o
30%
25%
20Yo
15%
11Yo
5%
0%
39%
1B%
13Yo 12o/o 12o/o
3%3To
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 June 30,
2016, which includes invested funds, debt service reserves, amounts held in overnight (liquid)
accounts, the City's main checking account and other operating funds:
-
-{- Portfolio Under Management
.,,@*LAIF Pool*
reasuryeal
.-X-San Mateo Cou
6
lnvestment Report, June 30, 2016 August 1 5, 201 6
\-
\-.
General Fund
lnternal Service Funds
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
Solid Waste Fund
Parking Fund
Building Fund
La ndfill Fund
Subtota l, Operating Funds
Other Funds
Total Cash and lnvestments S 150,530,449 s 1,44,376,051 s 6,154,398
Cash holdings in the General Fund declined slightly in the fourth quarter of the 2015-16 fiscal
year due to the posting of annual interfund transfers to all other funds, including amounts for debt
service payable on July 1't, and the $3 million budgeted transfer to the City's Renewal and
Replacement Reserve in the Capital Projects Fund. The decreases in the Water and Sewer
funds over the quarter were largely the result of annual debt service (principal and interest on
outstanding revenue bonds) paid on April 1't, as well as capital projectfunding. All capital project
funds are shown as "Other Funds", including storm drain projects which were funded by a draw-
down of bond proceeds in the amount of nearly $1.6 million.
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 the investment portfolio between short-term investments (to meet cash flow needs) and
longer-term maturities (to realize a higher rate of return) is appropriate given current 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 June 30,2016
7
s 27,682,080 s Zg ,343,597 s (1,661,517)
17,277,404 1,6,506,778 770,626
1L,228,136 13,926,656 (2,699,520)
70,297,188 13,701.,582 (3,410,394)
4,556,655 4,452,846 103,809
5,065,487 5,352,896 (287,409)
5,329,597 5,070,199 259,392
829,578 750,451, 79,129
82,260,',J.79 89,105,005 (6,844,895)
68,27A330 55,277,047 12,999,283
Change S
Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending June 30, 2016
Security Type/ Description
Dated Date/Coupon/ Maturity CUSIP
S&P Moody's
Par Rating Rating
Trade
Date
Settle
Date
Original
Cost
YTM
at Cost
Accrued
Interest
Amortized
Cost
Market
Value
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 08/31/2012 0.625o/o OBl3U20l7
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 10131,12012 0.750o/o l0 13t12077
US TREASURY NOTES
DrD 0713U2013 t.375o/o 07131120t8
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 10/31/2013 t.250o/o 70l3U20rB
US TREASURY NOTES
DrD 0413012014 L.625o/o 0413012019
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 09/30/2014 t.t 50o/o 09 130 I 7079
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD tU3012012 1.000o/o 11/30/2019
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 04/0U2013 l.l25o/o 0313U2020
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 04/30/2015 1.37 5o/o 04 130 12020
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 05i 17i 2010 3.500o/o 05115/2020
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 09i03i 20 13 2.125o/o 08 I 3U 2020
US TREASURY NOTES
DrD 09/03/2013 2.r25oh oBl3U2020
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 10/3U2013 1.750o/o l0 13U2020
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 021281 2014 2.000o/o 02128 12027
912828VO0 1,150,000.00 AA+
912828WD8 1.96s.000.00 AA+
912828D23 145,000.00 AA+
912828F39 2,140.000.00 AA+
912828U84 1,000,000.00 AA+
912828UV0 1.000.000.00 AA+
912828K58 1.050.000.00 AA+
912828ND8 1.000.000.00 AA+
912828W9 960,000.00 AA+
912828W9 1,945.000.00 AA+
912828WC0 750.000.00 AA+
912828890
04t30115 05/01/15 1,163.296.88 1.01
t0n4lt5 10/15/15 1.987.106.2s 0.87
12128175 12130115 145,855.27 t.44
10/09/15 r0l74l15 2,181,128.13 1.25
04l23lts 04l24lts 985,000.00 t.34
04129115 041301t5 984.140.63 1.46
02l0ut6 021021t6 1.054,183.s9 1.28
051291t5 05129115 1,095.625.00 1.49
10/05/15 10/05/15 996,225.00 1.33
trl04lt5 Ltl1gl15 1.990,585.94 1.62
12l28lts t2130175 749,736.33 r.76
0sl03lt6 0sl06lt6 1.163.803.71 1.26
912828TM2 2.000.000.00 AA+ Aaa l0ll0ll4 l0ll4l14 1.984.765.63 0.89
912828TW0 2,000.000.00 AA+ Aaa 1ll04ll5 11/05/15 1,998.281.25 0.79
4,L77.99
2.527.77
6.603.02
4.138.25
396.98
9.413.66
846.99
2,827.87
2.432.40
4.470.tt
6,818.48
13.814.52
2,ztt.28
1.993,785.36 2,001,796.00
1.998.845.28 2,004.844.00
1,158.568.97 1,158,058.45
1,981,987.33 7.992.248.66
745.729.43 148.704.32
2,173,873.67 2.206,958.46
988,782.3s 1.006.523.00
987,813.0s 1.010.156.00
r,0s3,793.64 L,069,769.40
1.075,222.79 1,099, r41.00
990,923.66 1.006.874.88
1.984,7t4.39 2.039,970.46
749.768.50 775,224.75
1,176.855.75
Aaa
Aaa
Aaa
Aaa
Aaa
Aaa
Aaa
Aaa
Aaa
Aaa
Aaa
Aaa1.125.000.00 AA+7.s20.38 1.152,616.09
Page 1=--
H P-- 1 Asset lVlanagement LI.C
/)
(
ps&,s.
Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending June 3O, 2016
Security Type/ Description
Dated Date/Coupon/ Maturity CUSIP
S&P Moody's
Par Rating Rating
Trade
Date
Settle
Date
Original
Cost
YTM
at Cost
Accrued
Interest
Amortized
Cost
Market
Value
Security Type sub-Total 18,230,00O.OO t8479,733.6L L.2t 6&199.10 t8,446A24.51 L8,7O7|L25.L3
FREDDIE MAC (E(-CALLABLE)
DTD 05/28/2013 0.750o/o tU28l20t7
FANNIE MAE GLOBAL NOTES
DTD l0 130120t2 0.875o/o t2120 120t7
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS AGCY
DID 05127 120t6 0.875o/o 06129 l20t9
FANNIE MAE GLOBAL NOTES
DTD 10/0U2013 1.6250/o Irl27l20t9
FANNIE MAE GLOBAL NOTES
DTD 10/0 1i 2013 1.6250/0 ll 127 12018
FNMA BENCHMARK NOTE
DTD 02/23120t6 L.000o/o 02126120t9
FREDDIE MAC NOTES
DrD 04 I l6l20t2 1.750o/o 05130 12019
FREDDIE MAi NOTES
DrD 041 L6l20t2 1.750o/o 05130120\9
FREDDIE MAC NOTES
WD 04 I 76 I 2012 r.7 50o/o 0s | 30 | 2019
FHLB GLOBAL NOTE
DTD 06/03/2016 t.L2\o/o 06 l2U20t9
FHLB GLOBAL NOTE
DTD 06/03/2016 t.t2So/o 0612U2019
FREDDIE MAC GLOBAL NOTES
DTD 1010212012 r.250o/o 1010212019
FREDDIE MAC GLOBAL NOTES
DrD fi I 02 I 2012 1.250o/o t0 | 02 I 2079
FNMA BENCHMARK NOTE
DrD fl10712014 7.750o/o Lrl26l20l9
3134G44N5
313scoRT2
3130A88D4
3135G0YT4
3135G0YT4
3135G0Js3
3137EADG1
3137EADG1
3137EADG1
3 130A8D86
3130A8D86
3137EADMB
3137EADMB
3135GoZY2
1.000.000.00 AA+ Aaa 05l29lt3 05128113 1.000.000.00 0.75
1,000.000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/30/15 02102115 1.001,040.00 0.84
1.150.000.00 AA+ Aaa 06109116 061131t6 1.150.276.00 0.86
1.000,000.00 AA+ Aaa
2.000.000.00 AA+ Aaa
995.000.00 AA+ Aaa
980.000.00 AA+ Aaa
1.000.000.00 AA+ Aaa
1.465.000.00 AA+ Aaa
1.150.000.00 AA+ Aaa
1.605.000.00 AA+ Aaa
250.000.00 AA+ Aaa
1.995.000.00 AA+ Aaa
1.000,000.00 AA+ Aaa
01/30/15 02l02lts 1,020.660.00 7.07
t0lt0l14 tol14lt4 2.013,160.00 1.46
0s/]^3l16 0slt6lt6 996,L64.t5 0.96
09l26lt5 08127115 99s.493.80 1.32
t2t0!14 l2l02lr4 1.009,340.00 1.s3
02lr2lt6 02lt6lt6 1,498,050.40 1.05
o6l09lt6 06113116 1.154,266.50 1.00
06102116 06/03/16 r,604,32s.90 1.14
t2l30lt5 t2l3rlr5 246,145.00 1.68
t0lt4lt5 10/1s/15 1.996.s56.10 t.23
687.50
267.36
55.90
1,534.72
3.069.44
3.454.86
1,476.8t
1.505.94
2.207.67
359.38
501.s6
772.57
6.165.10
1,000.000.00 1.001.826.00
1,000.533.97 1.003,533.00
1.1s0.268.62 1.154.603.45
1,013.112.23 1.021.287.00
2,007.785.88 2.042.574.00
996.113.57 999.89s.40
992.083.38 1.006,947.06
1.O05.t27.97 r,027.497.00
r.494,344.65 1,505.283.11
I,154.L96.27 1.160,668.ss
t,604,340.57 1.619,889.s9
246.646.73 252.968.75
1.996,284.44 2.018.690.63
1,028.128.00
-s-
+€W PFl\{ Asset Management LLC
o4l29l1s 04l30lts 1,010.930.00 1.s0 1.701.39 1.008,207.52
Page 2
(
Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending June 30, 2016
Security Type/Description
Dated Date/Coupon/ Maturity CUSIP
S&P Moody's
Par Rating Rating
Trade
Date
Seftle
Date
Original
Cost
YTM
at Cost
Accrued
Interest
Amortized
Cost
Market
Value
FNMA NOTES
DTD 0U12l2015 1.6250/o 01,12U2020
FNMA NOTES
Dm 01/12120 15 t.625o/o 01 l2tl 2020
FNMA NOTES
DTD 0U12l2015 t.625o/o 0U2U2020
FNMA BENCHMARK NOTE
DTD 10/19/20 15 1.500o/o lL 130 12020
FHLB NOTES
Dm 02/18/2016 1.37 5o/o 021 L8 I 2021
FHLB NOTES
DTD 02/18/2016 1.37 5o/o O2l 18 12021
FNMA BENCHMARK NOTE
DTD 05/16/2016 r.250o/o 05 106 | 202L
3135G0A78
3135G0A78
3135G0A78 1,150.000.00 AA+
3135G0F73 2.000,000.00 AA+
3130A7CV5 2.2s0.000.00 AA+
3130A7CV5 2.300.000.00 AA+
3135G0K69 2.500.000.00 AA+
04130115 05/01/15 t.156,772.30 1.50
05/31/16 0513u76 2,002.900.00 t.47
03/03/16 03/10/16 2.234,857.50 t.sz
03t3u16 03/31/15 2.299.s86.00 1.38
061281t6 06129116 2.511,825.36 1.15
1,000.000.00 AA+ Aaa 03124175 03127115 1,005,810.00 1.50
1,000.000.00 AA+06t241t5 061291t5 996,920.00 1.70
7,222.22
-7 ))) ))
8.305.56
2,583.33
11.429.69
11.683.68
3,732.64
1.004.334.00
997.s81.83
1,155.103.93
2,002,846.12
2,235,775.05
2.299,6t2.66
2.s11.825.35
1.023.619.00
1.023.619.00
1.177,t6L.85
2.033,926.00
2.276,532.00
2,327,t2.t.60
2,509.370.00
Aaa
Aaa
Aaa
Aaa
Aaa
Aaa
Security Type Sub-Total 28,790,OOO.OO 28,905,019.01 1,27 75,940,54 28,877,t24.74 29,2L5,L4O.99
IBM CORP GLOBAL NOTES
DrD 0210612012 1.250o/o 0210612017
TE(AS INSTRUMENTS CORP NOTE
Dm 06/18/2007 6.6000/o 06 I LS 12017
CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SE GROUP CORP
NOTE
DrD 0910412007 5.850o/o 0910U2o17
TOYOTA MOTORS CREDIT CORP
DTD 0U10/2013 1.37 5o/o 0U l0 12018
EXXON MOBIL CORP NOTES
DTD 03/06/2015 1.305o/o 03/06/20 18
459200HC8
63764oAE3
1491213K5
30231GA16
840.000.00 AA- Aa3 tlltolL4 t0lr6lt4 846.963.60 0.89
1.450.000.00 A+A1 701101t4 l0lt6lt4 1.657.248.50 7.14
1.580.000.00 A A2 t0lt0l14 10116174 1.786,363.80 1.21
795,000.00 AA- Aa3 l0lt0l74 l0l76lt4 796.502.55 1.31
940.000.00 AA+ Aaa 03104115 03/06/15
4.229.t7
4.2s3.33
30.810.00
s.192.34
841.8L7.66
1,s25.064.21
r.664.594.35
795.778.70
84t.875.72
1.526.665.85
1.665,653.38
800,572.16
947,335.75
-
-
lr-
-=-)
Asset Management I.I C
940.000.00 1.31 3.918.63 940.000.00
Page 3
))
89233P7E0
Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending June 30, 2016
Security Type/ Description
Dated Date/Coupon/ Maturity CUSIP
S&P Moody's
Par Rating Rating
Trade
Date
Settle
Date
Original
Cost
YTM
at Cost
Accrued
Interest
Amortized
Cost
Market
Value
GENERAL ELEC CAP CORP NOTES
DlD 04 I 2U 2008 5.62so/o 05 I 0 t | 2018
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CAP INC NOTES
DTD 05/13/2008 5.650% 05/15/2018
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CORPORATE NOTE
DTD 06/2312008 s.Ls}oh 07 | tsl2018
AMERICAN E(PRESS CRD CRP NT
(CALLABLE)
DrD 0713U20t5 t.800o/o 0713,/2afi
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY NOTES
Dm rc12812013 2.750o/o 0Ut5l20t9
JP MORGAN SECURMES
DTD 04/2312009 6.300o/o 04 12312019
us BANCORP (CALLABLE) CORPORATE
NOTES
DlD 0412412014 2.200oh O4l2sl2\19
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON NT
(CALLABLE)
DrD 0911112014 2.300o/o 09lLU20l9
BRANCH BANKING &TRUSTCORP NOTE
DTD 05/10/2016 2.050o/o 051 l0l202l
1.770.000.00 A
46625HHL7 1.000.000.00 A-
91159HHH6 1,760,000.00 A+
06406HCW7 1,785,000.00 A
05531FAV5 1.500.000.00 A-
t0ll0lt4 101161t4 1,785,345.90 1.94
05/09/14 051091t4 1,188,900.00 2.25
t0lt0lt4 70lt6lt4 t,777,952.00 1.96
L0lt0ll4 t0l76ll4 1.793.353.80 2.20
05112116 0s/16/16 1,497,810.00 2.08
36962G3U6 1.540.000.00 AA+ A1 l0ll0ll4 10116114 1.751.103.20 1.63
377372AD9 1.540.000.00 A+A2 t1ltolL+ tolt6lt4 t.754.614.40 1.63
478160AU8 1.s60,000.00 AAA Aaa t0ll0ll4 10116114 1,771.333.20 t.42
0258M0DV8 1.750.000.00 A- A2 09/15/15 09/18/15 1.756.568.00 1.87
949748FO8
14.437.50
rt.rt7.94
37,04s.67
13,288.00
t7.s47.58
11.900.00
7,098.67
t2.544.58
4.356.25
1.650.768.18
1.653,760.96
1,676,392.80
1.757.501.89
1,779.337.26
1.109.703.32
t.77t.236.17
1.790,508.55
1,497,863.01
1.669.517.08
t.67t.174.t2
1,693,777.80
r,775,602.40
1.807.023.09
1,124,1 15.00
1,805,054.24
7.82t.397.94
1.521,973.50
A2
A3
A1
A1
A2
Security Type Sub-Total 19,820,000.00 21,104058.95 1.68 L77,739,66 20,454,267.06 2O,67L,738.O4
UBS FINANCE DELAWARE LLC COMM PAPER: 0.000o/o 0810912076
BNP PARIBAS NY BRANCH COMM PAPER
- 0.000o/o t210712016
90262CH91
096598M72
1,500,000.00 A-1 P-l 02lttlt6 02lt2lt6 t,493.884.r7 0.82
1,500.000.00 A-1 p-1 061101t6 06lt0lt6 1.493,775.00 0.91
0.00
0.00
r.498.667.57
1.493.971.25
r,499,27t.00
1,494,553.50
Security Type Sub-Total 3,OOO,0OO,00 2,992,639,76 2,993,824,502,9A7,059.17 0.A7 0.00
Page 4j+-
_L
ffW PFil{ Asset Nfanagement I.I".C
((
Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending June 30, 2015
Security Type/ Description
Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP
S&P Moody's
Par Rating Rating
Trade
Date
Seftle
Date
Original
Cost
YTM
at Cost
Accrued
Interest
Amortized
Cost
Market
Value
FIRST BANK OF PUERTO RICO
DTD 0B/15/2013 0.900o/o 08/16/2016
GOLDMAN SACHS BANK
DrD 06/06/2012 7.800oh 06 I 06 I 20t7
DISCOVER BANK
DTD 06/06/2012 1.800o/o 06 I 06 12077
GE CAPITAL RETAIL BANK
DTD 06/08/2012 7.800o/o 0610812O77
BMW BANK OF NORTH AMERICA
DTD 08/16/2013 1.400o/o 08 | t6 12017
CIT BANK
DID 12104 l70l3 t.450o/o l2lo4l20l7
COMPASS BANK
DTD 0B I 2112013 1.800o/o 0B/2112018
AMERiCAN EPRESS CENTURION
DrD 0812212013 1.900o/o 08 l22l20t9
3376qY)B
3B143AUG8
25467|CEB
361570E17
05568P4S3
17284CUX0
20451PC18
02587DSF6
250.000.00
250.000.00
250.000.00
250.000.00
250.000.00
250.000.00
250.000.00
250.000.00
08/16/13
06106112
06t06112
06t08t12
08/16/13
121041t3
0Bl2ut3
0Bl22lt3
08/16/13
06l06lt2
061061t2
06/08/12
08/16/13
tzl04lL3
08l2u13
08122113
92.47
308.22
308.22
283.56
1.304.1 1
1,615.07
t,691.78
250.000.00
250,000.00
2s0.000.00
250.000.00
250.000.00
250.000.00
250.000.00
250.000.00
250.121.50
252,491.25
252,49r.25
252.498.50
251.589.50
252.531.00
254.736.2s
254.733.00
NR
A
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
BBB+
NR
A1
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
A3
2s0,000.00 0.89
250.000.00 t.73
2s0,000.00 7.73
250.000.00 t.73
2s0,000.00 t.37
250.000.00 t.4t
250.000.00
250.000.00
7.73
1.83
Security Type Sub-Total 2,OO0,000.oo 2,00o,oo0,o0 1.56 5,871.58 2,000,0OO.0O 2,o2L,292.25
Managed Account Sub-Total 71,840,OOO.00 73,475,87O,74 1.36 327,750,88 72,770,455,07 73,6O9,t2O.91
Securities Sub-Total
Accrued Interest
$71,840,0OO.OO $73,475,870.74 t.36o/o $327,750.88 $72t77O,455,O7 *73,609,LzO,91
$327,75O.88
Total Investments $73,936,A7L.79
,i-_
-
ffi n" I Asset M*nagement LLC/))
Page 5
268.15
((
Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending June 30, 2016
Security Type/ Description
Dated Date/Coupon/ Maturity CUSIP
S&P Moody's
Par Rating Rating
Trade
Date
Settle
Date
Original
Cost
YTM
at Cost
Accrued
Interest
Amortized
Cost
Market
Value
FREDDIE MAC (E(-CALLABLE)
DTD 05/15/2013 0.6500/o 05 I 75 I 2017
FANNIE MAE NOTES (CALLABLE)
DrD fill4l20l2 0.900o/o tUt4l20r7
FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK (CALLABLE)
BOND
DTD 03/1212013 1.030o/o 03i 1212018
3134G43S5
3136G0261
3133ECHS6
1,000.000.00 AA+ Aaa 05/15/13 05/15/13 1.000,000.00 0.65
1.000.000.00 AA+ Aaa lllr4ll2 tlll4llz 998.s00.00 0.93
1.000.000.00 AA+ Aaa 03lt2ll3 031121L3 1,000.000.00 1.03
830.56
1.175.00
3.118.61
1.000.000.00 1.000.011.00
999,582.29 1.000.163.00
1.000.000.00 1.000,027.00
Security Type Sub-Total 3,00o,000.00 2,998,500,00 0,87 5t,,24.t7 2,999,582,29 3,000,201.00
Managed Account Sub-Total 3,O0O,000.0o 2,998,5O0.OO 0.87 5,124.17 2,999,582.29 3,OOO,201,00
Securities Sub-Total
Accrued Intere*
$3,000,00o.0o $2,998,500.00 O.87olo $5,L24.L7 s2,999,582.29 $3,000,201.00
$5,124.17
Total Investments $3,005,325.17
ffiW- PFM Asset Management I .LC
Page 6
AGENDANO:
10a
STAFF REPORT
Honorable MaYor and CitY Council
August 15' 2016
- (650) 558'7204
ffi1lli ?lJl?l} :'1*l llfJ
MEETING DATE: AUgUSt 15, 2016
\-.
To:
Date:
REcoMMENDAnoN 1-s^.merional report regarding. the current state of
starr recom*":::,ff:::""?::ff1J""'"ffi,1;I:T[?::':i':ffi'['#t],l?n.ff;c*
wouro rixe
law regarding civtttl
to be undertaKen on the subject'
ffiraft,comm.:.lyT:n,:,,^.il:::}.iff;il:.Y.ff::Iil:i::il,II'iij
sophisticat"o "no''rJr"
*iourv *.,n.'J ,o in" g"nt'"I public' They are.used for hobby and
recreation u= *"u u, "o**"rciatty
orones are often usei *in ,rr.ias attached in order to get
images that wourd*Jtn.*,r" ne oiriJurt to obtain. They can arso be used for derivering items or
for monitoring various instaltations J;i;; po*.|. transformers or storm water outflows'
AttorneYFrom:of Givilian Drones
RePort Regarding Regulation
Subiect: I
Given their recent radicar expansion in use, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the
state legislature have moved to introduce new regulations governing drones' The FAA has
issuedtwosetsofrules,governingcommercialandrecreationaluse.Asummaryofthenew
rules is attached to this |."p--ort. The rules apply to drones weighing over .55 lbs as fully loaded for
fright. This excrudes certain smail toy drones but otheruuise sweeps in most commercially
available modets. Key points include that each drone operator must register with the FAA and
that registration number must be visible on any drones flown by the operator. Drones are limited
to a maximum weight of 55 lbs, cannot fly over 400 feet high, are not to be operated over people
who are exposed to the drone and who are not participating in the flight activity, must be within a
visual line of sight of the pilot, and cannot be operated in the dark.
ln addition to these regulations, the FAA has determined that no flights may occur within a S-mile
radius of airports, without first contacting the control tower and developing a mutua lly acceptable
plan for the flight. We contacted SFO and the FAA for further information about th is requirement,
and were told that further regulations to explain the limitations are forthcom ing. After August 2g,drone pilots may check www.faa.gov/uas for updated rules and informati on. The FAA has alsodeveloped an app, "B4uFLy" that will help pilots determine what federal regulations apply in theirarea. ln the meantime, commercial pilots will need to check with the FAA and SFO to determinev
what flishts are possibre. Hobbyists shourd be awarg of the need to stay below 400teetaM
h
Regubtion of Drones
some local jurisdictions have also passed or are considering regulation of drone use. BeverlyHills, which routinely deals with the invasion of its residents' privacy, enacted an ordinanceprohibiting the recordation of visual or audio information in an area where the person affected
would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Hermosa Beach requires local registration and
provides community safety guidelines for the use of drones, as does West Hollywood. Daly City
and San ltllateo County ban the use of drones in parks.
DISCUSSION
The FAA has explicily stated that its rules are not designed to preempt local regulation of drones,
especiary as to community-based safety standards, so rong as rocar regurations are the same or
more restrictive than the FAA's restrictions. one of the pieces of pending state legislation would
preempt local regulation of drones, but it has not been voted on yet and has been in committee
since the sPring.
A list of the additional pending state legisration is attached to this report. Because the FAAissued its new guidance while a number of these oirrs nave been in process, it,s rikery that someof them may be amended or abandoned prior to going ;final vote. The pending biils addresssuch concerns as safety of drones, the use of dronls b-y persons with restraining orders, and theuse of drones to interfere with raw enforcement or emergency response operations.
2
STAFF REPORT AGENDANO: 10a
\-.
\-
MEETING DATE: Augusl 15, 2016
To:Honorable Mayor and GitY Council
Date: August 15,2016
From:Kathleen Kane, City Attorney - (650) 558'7204
Mazarin Vakharia, Asst. City Attorney
Subject: lnformationa! Report Regarding Regulation of Civilian Drones
RECOMM ON
Staff recommends that the Council receive this informational report regarding the current state of
law regarding civilian use of drones and provide direction on any further work Council would like
to be undertaken on the subject.
BACKGROUND
Unmanned aircraft, commonly known as "drones," have recently become significantly more
sophisticated and more widely available to the general public. They are used for hobby and
recreation as well as commercially. Drones are often used with cameras attached in order to get
images that would othenruise be difficult to obtain. They can also be used for delivering items or
for monitoring various installations such as power transformers or storm water outflows.
Given their recent radical expansion in use, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the
state legislature have moved to introduce new regulations governing drones. The FAA has
issued two sets of rules, governing commercial and recreational use. A summary of the new
rules is attached to this report. The rules apply to drones weighing over .55 lbs as fully loaded for
flight. This excludes certain small toy drones but otherwise sweeps in most commercially
available models. Key points include that each drone operator must register with the FAA and
that registration number must be visible on any drones flown by the operator. Drones are limited
to a maximum weight of 55 lbs, cannot fly over 400 feet high, are not to be operated over people
who are exposed to the drone and who are not participating in the flight activity, must be within a
visual line of sight of the pilot, and cannot be operated in the dark.
ln addition to these regulations, the FAA has determined that no flights may occur within a S-mile
radius of airports, without first contacting the control tower and developing a mutually acceptable
plan for the flight. We contacted SFO and the FAA for further information about this requirement,
and were told that further regulations to explain the limitations are forthcoming. After August 29,
drone pilots may check www.faa.gov/uas for updated rules and information. The FAA has also
developed an app, "B4UFLY" that will help pilots determine what federal regulations apply in their
arca. ln the meantime, commercial pilots will need to check with the FAA and SFO to determine
what flights are possible. Hobbyists should be aware of the need to stay below 400 feet and to
1
\-
Regulation of Drones August 15, 2016
never interfere with manned aircraft. The FAA reported in our call that they expect between
800,000 and 4.3 Million requests for drone flight clearances per year. The agency is trying to
prepare for streamlined treatment of those requests. The FAA further stated that new regulations
will be coming out for zone-specific restrictions applicable to the SFO S-mile radius at the
beginning of December. Those regulations should include maps and specific guidance as to
where and in what manner the FAA will allow drone flights within our jurisdiction.
ln addition to federal action, the state legislature and some local governments have taken or are
considering action on drone regulation. The state legislature passed one law that addresses the
potential for invasion of privacy with the use of drones. Civil Code Section 1708.8 now states:
(a) A person is liable for physical invasion of privacy when the person knowingly
enters onto the land or into the airspace above the land of another person without
permission or otherurise commits a trespass in order to capture any type of visual
image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a
private, personal, or familial activity and the invasion occurs in a manner that is
offensive to a reasonable person.
(b) A person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy when the person attempts
to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, any type of visual
image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a
private, personal, or familial activity, through the use of any device, regardless of
whether there is a physical trespass, if this image, sound recording, or other
physical impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the
device was used.
t
1
A list of the additional pending state legislation is attached to this report. Because the FAA
issued its new guidance while a number of these bills have been in process, it's likely that some
of them may be amended or abandoned prior to going to final vote. The pending bills address
such concerns as safety of drones, the use of drones by persons with restraining orders, and the
use of drones to interfere with law enforcement or emergency response operations.
Some local jurisdictions have also passed or are considering regulation of drone use. Beverly
Hills, which routinely deals with the invasion of its residents' privacy, enacted an ordinance
prohibiting the recordation of visual or audio information in an area where the person affected
would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Hermosa Beach requires local registration and
provides community safety guidelines for the use of drones, as does West Hollywood. Daly City
and San Mateo County ban the use of drones in parks.
DISCUSSION
The FAA has explicitly stated that its rules are not designed to preempt local regulation of drones,
especially as to community-based safety standards, so long as local regulations are the same or
more restrictive than the FAA's restrictions. One of the pieces of pending state legislation would
preempt local regulation of drones, but it has not been voted on yet and has been in committee
since the spring.
2
Regulation of Drones August 15,2016
Staff will undertake any additional work requested by the Council. However, Council may wish to
wait to enact any ordinance until the FAA issues its clarifying rules in December. They will control
what flights, if any, are possible in our jurisdiction, and we will have better information about what
state legislation allows at that point as well.
FISCAL IMPACT
None. This is an informational item only
Exhibits:
Summary of laws and FAA regulation
\-
3
Federal Regulation
The U.S. Department ofTransportation's Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") has.iurisdiction to
regulate the use of navigable airspace and it thereby has rulemaking authority over all drone uses to
protect the national airspace system. (49 U.S.C. Section 40103). The FAA Modernization and Reform Act
of 20L2 recognizes three primary categories of drones: civil (used for commercial purposes); public
(used by a government agency) and model aircraft (used for recreation and hobby purposes only).
FAA Drone Registration Req uire ments
Registration is a statutory requirement that applies to all aircraft. On December 15, 201"5, the FAA
announced a web-based aircraft registration process for owners of small unmanned aircraft (UAS)
weighing more than 0.55 pounds (250 grams) and less than 55 pounds.
Any owner of a small UAS who has previously operated an unmanned aircraft exclusively as a model
aircraft prior to Decem ber 2L, 2015, must have registered it no later tha n February 19,2ot6. Owners of
any other UAS purchased for use as a model aircraft after December 21, 2015 must register it before the
first flight outdoors. ln March 2015, the FAA expanded the online registration process to include
registration for uses other than just for hobby and recreational purposes.
Upon completion of the registration process, the web application will generate a Certificate of Aircraft
Registration/Proof of Ownership that will include a unique identification number for the UAS owner,
which must be marked on the aircraft. The certlficate is valid for three years.
Owners using the model aircraft for hobby or recreation will only have to register once and may use the
same identification number for all of their model UAS. ln contrast, a certificate for non-model aircraft
use covers only one aircraft.
14 C.F. R. Part 107
On June 21, 2016, the FAA issued its new rules regarding a broad spectrum of commercial uses for
drones - Part 107 of the Federal Aviation Regulations ("Part 107"). Part 107 establishes numerous
operational limitations and remote pilot in command certification requirements, which are listed in the
FAA's Summary Part 107, which is attached hereto. ln adopting the new regulations, the FAA chose not
to preempt state and local regulations.
7
Summary of Enacted and Pending Law Regarding Use of Drones:
Current California Legislation
tn California, only one recent law relates directly to drones. AB 855 amended California Civil Code
section 1708.8, which now states in part:
"(a) A person is liable for physical invasion of privacy when the person knowingly enters onto the land or
into the airspace above the land of another person without permission or otherwise commits a trespass
in order to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the
plaintiff engaging in a private, personal, or familial activity and the invasion occurs in a manner that is
offensive to a reasonable person.
b) A person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy when the person attempts to capture, in a
manner that is offensive to a reasona ble person, a ny type of visual image, sound record ing, or other
physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a private, personal, or familial activity, through the use of
any device, regardless of whether there is a physicaltrespass, ifthis image, sound recording, or other
physical impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the device was used."
Under the law, a person may be liable for physical invasion of privacy if a drone or other device is used
to knowingly enter the airspace above the land without permission to capture certain images, sound
recordings, other physical impressions of an individual engaging in private, personal, or familial
activities.
Although other bills have passed both houses of the Legislature, Governor Brown has vetoed them.
Even though there is only one state law directly addressing drones, existing laws can deter some
problematic drone activity. For example, Catifornia Penal Code Section 402 makes it a misdemeanor for
any person to impede emergency personnel in the performance of their duties.
Pending State Regulation
Numerous drone-related measures are presently working their way through the California legislature. ln
Iight of the FAA's recent publication of Pa rt 107, many of these measures may be subject to further
amendment. The following is brief summary of the status of all California drone-related bills:
AB 1662 would require a drone operator to follow the same requirements as a vehicle operator
following an accident that results in the injury to another. AB 1662 would require that after an accident
involving a drone, a drone operator would have to immediately land the drone and provide certain
identifying information to the injured individual or the owner of damaged property. This bill passed the
Assembly and was referred to committee in the Senate.
AB 1680 would make it a misdemeanor for a person to use a drone to interfere with the duties of law
enforcement or other "first responders." AB 1680 simply adds drone operators to the existing
2
requirement that no person may stop at the scene of an emergency, unless as part of their job, and
interfere with emergency personnel in the performance of their duties. This bill passed the Assembly
and was referred to committee in the Senate.
AB 1724 would require anyone operating a drone to place identifying information or digitally store the
information on the drone and would impose a fine of up to $2,500 for failure to so identify the drone.
This bill is in committee. lts first hearing was cancelled at the autho/s request.
AB 1820 imposes restrictions on a law enforcement agency's use of drones. Before any use, the law
enforcement agency would need to develop and make available to the public a policy on the use of
drones, and train its staff on such a policy. Even with such a policy in place, AB 1820 would require that
a law enforcement agency could only use a drone if it obtains a search warrant, absent exigent
circumstances. Flnally, AB 1820 would require that all images or data obtained by use of a drone be
destroyed within one year, with certain exceptions. This bill passed the Assembly and was referred to
committee in the Senate.
AB 2148 would require the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Department of Parks and Recreation
to develop regulations for the use of drones over the lands managed by each department in order to
protect wildlife and sensitive species. This bill passed the Assembly and is currently in committee in the
Se nate.
AB 2320 was a twin to SB 808 before it was amended. lt applies to anyone subject to a stay-away order
(for example a restraining order arising out of domestic violence). AB 2320 would prohibit such a person
from using a drone to fly within the prohibited distance specified in the protective order or from
capturing images of the other person using a drone. The bill also permits a judge to prohibit a person
required to register as a sex offender from operating a drone if the judge finds it is in the public interest
to do so. Lastly, this bill contains non-binding language of legislative intent to prohibit a person from
flying a drone within 250 feet of any "critical infrastructure facility," which would include an airport, in
order to gather information or photographs of the facility. This bill passed the Assembly and is in
committee in the Senate.
As 2724 would amend the Civil Code to include the requirement that drones sold in California include a
copy of FAA safety regulations, as well as a notice of the requirement to register the drone with the FAA
AB 2724 would also require that any drone with GPS capability also be equipped with geofencing
software that would prohibit the drone from flying within 5 miles of an airport. Finally, AB 2724 would
require owners of drones to buy liability insurance. This bill passed the Assembly and was referred to
committee in the Senate.
SB 807 would limit the exposure to civil liability of any emergency responder for damaging a drone that
interfered with the provision of emergency services. The bill broadly applies to public and private
entities,andtopersonsregardlessofwhethertheyarepaidorvolunteer. Thisbill passed the Senate
and the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. The bill is currently in the Assembly
J udiciary Committee.
3
SB 808 was a twin to the original draft of AB 2320. lt applies to anyone subject to a stay-away order (for
example a restraining order arising out of domestic violence). SB 808 would prohibit such a person from
using a drone to fly within the prohibited distance specified in the protective order or from capturing
images of the other person using a drone. This bill was referred to committee in the Senate.
SB 809 would prohibit the operation of a drone in the airspace over a public school (K-12) without the
written permission of the school principal. This bill was referred to committee in the Senate.
SB 810 would make it a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 6 months in jail and/or 55,000, to operate a
drone in a manner that interferes with efforts of firefighters to control, contain, or extinguish a fire. This
bill was referred to committee in the Senate.
SB 811 would make it a misdemeanor to operate a drone on or above the grounds of a state prison or a
iail without prior permission from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation or the county
sheriff. This billwas referred to committee in the Senate.
SB 868 would prohibit the operation of a drone within 500 feet of "critical infrastructure" designated by
the Office of Emergency Services. lt would also prohibit operation of a drone within the airspace above
most state offices in Sacramento, above a state park, or above any airspace over land or water managed
by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, with limited exceptions. This bill passed the Senate and was
referred to committee in the Assembly.
SB 1246 would require pest control businesses and government agencies conducting pest control
activities, to notify the public at least 7 days before administering pesticides by drone over a residential
area. This bill is in committee in the Senate.
4
FAA News
Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC 20591
)une 27, 20L6
SUMMARY OF SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT RULE (PART 107)
Operational Limitations
. Unmanned aircraft must weigh less than 55 lbs. (25 kg).
. Visual line-of-sight (VLOS) only; the unmanned aircraft must remain within VLOS of the remote pilot in
command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small UAS. Alternatively, the unmanned
aircraft must remain within VLOS of the visual observer.
. At all times the small unmanned aircraft must remain close enough to the remote pilot in command
and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small UAS for those people to be capable of
seeing the aircraft with vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses.
. Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any persons not directly participating in the operation,
not under a covered structure, and not inside a covered stationary vehicle.
. Daylight-only operations, or civiltwilight (30 minutes before official sunrise to 30 minutes after official
sunset, local time) with appropriate anti-collision lighting.
. Must yield right of way to other aircraft.
. May use visual observer (Vo) but not required.
. First-person view camera cannot satisfy "see-and-avoid" requirement but can be used as long as
requirement is satisfied in other ways.
. Maximum groundspeed of 100 mph (87 knots).
. Maximum altitude of 400 feet above ground level (AGt) or, if higher than 400 feet AGL, remain within
400 feet of a structure.
. Minimum weather visibility of 3 miles from control station.
. Operations in Class B, C, D and E airspace are allowed with the required ATc permission.
. Operations in Class G airspace are allowed without ATC permission.
. No person may act as a remote pilot in command or VO for more than one unmanned aircraft
operation at one time.
5
. No operations from a moving aircraft.
. No operations from a moving vehicle untess the operation is over a sparsely populated area.
. No careless or reckless operations.
. No carriage of hazardous materials.
. Requires preflight inspection by the remote pilot in command.
. A person may not operate a small unmanned aircraft if he or she knows or has reason to know of any
physical or mental condition that would interfere with the safe operation of a small UAS.
. Foreign-registered small unmanned aircraft are allowed to operate under part 107 if they satisfy the
requirements of pa rt 375.
. External load operations are allowed if the object being carried by the unmanned aircraft is securely
attached and does not adversely affect the fliBht characteristics or controllability of the aircraft.
. Transportation of property for compensation or hire allowed provided that-
o The aircraft, including its attached systems, payload and cargo weigh less than 55 pounds totali
o The flight is conducted within visual line of sight and not from a moving vehicle or aircraft; and
o The flight occurs wholly within the bounds of a State and does not involve transport between (1)
Hawaii and another place in Hawaii through airspace outside Hawaii; (2) the District of Columbia and
another place in the District of colum bia; or (3) a territory or possession of the United States and
another place in the same territory or possession.
. Most of the restrictions discussed above are waivable if the applicant demonstrates that his or her
operation can safely be conducted under the terms of a certificate of waiver.
Remote Pilot in Command Certification and Responsibilities
. Establishes a remote pilot in command position.
. A person operating a small UAS must either hold a remote pilot airman certificate with a small UAS
rating or be under the direct supervision of a person who does hold a remote pilot certificate (remote
pilot in command).
. To qualify for a remote pilot certificate, a person must:
o Demonstrate aeronautical knowledge by either:
E Passing an initial aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center; or
6
/
E Hold a part 61 pilot certificate other than student pilot, complete a fliBht review within the previous 24
months, and complete a small UAS online training course provided by the FAA.
o Be vetted by the Transportation Security Administration.
o Be at least 16 years old.
. Part 61 pilot certificate holders may obtain a temporary remote pilot certificate immediately upon
submission of their application for a permanent certificate. Other applicants will obtain a temporary
remote pilot certificate upon successful completion of TSA security vetting. The FAA anticipates that it
will be able to issue a temporary remote pilot certificate within 10 business days after receiving a
completed remote pilot certificate application.
. Until internationalstandards are developed, foreign-
certificated UAS pilots will be required to obtain an FAA-issued remote pilot certificate with a small UAS
rating.
A remote pilot in command must:
. Make available to the FAA, upon request, the small UAS for inspection or testing, and any associated
documents/records required to be kept under the rule.
. Report to the FAA within 10 days of any operation that results in at least serious injury, loss of
consciousness, or property damage of at least S500.
. Conduct a preflight inspection, to include specific aircraft and control station systems checks, to
ensure the small UAS is in a condition for safe operation.
. Ensure that the small unmanned aircraft complles with the existing registration requirements specified
in 5 91.203(a)(2).
A remote pilot in command may devlate from the requirements of this rule in response to an in-flight
emerBency.
Aircraft Requirements
. FAA airworthiness certification is not required. However, the remote pilot in command must conduct a
preflight check ofthe small UAS to ensure that it is in a condition for safe operation.
Model Aircraft
. Part 107 does not apply to model aircraft that satisfy all ofthe criteria specified in section 336 of Public
Law 112-95.
. The rule codifies the FAA's enforcement authority in part 101 by prohibiting model aircraft operators
from endangering the safety of the NAS.
7