Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2018.12.03City Council City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda - Final BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, December 3, 2018 STUDY SESSION - 6:15 p.m. - Conference Room A Discussion of Village at Burlingame Parking Garage (Lot N)a. Note: Public comment is permitted on all action items as noted on the agenda below and in the non-agenda public comment provided for in item 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 of 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 public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Council agenda may do so during this public comment period. The Ralph M . Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR Consent calendar items are usually approved in a single motion, unless pulled for separate discussion . Any member of the public wishing to comment on an item listed here may do so by submitting a speaker slip for that item in advance of the Council’s consideration of the consent calendar. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 11/29/2018 December 3, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Adoption of City Council Meeting Minutes November 14, 2018a. Meeting MinutesAttachments: Adoption of City Council Meeting Minutes November 19, 2018b. Meeting MinutesAttachments: Adoption of a Resolution Approving Labor Agreements with the Police Sergeants Association, Police Officers Association, and Association of Police Administrators and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Memoranda of Understanding on Behalf of the City c. Staff Report Resolution PSA Tentative Agreements POA Tentative Agreements APA Tentative Agreements PSA Memorandum of Understanding POA Memorandum of Understanding APA Memorandum of Understanding Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. to Perform Environmental Review Services Related to the Proposed Village at Burlingame and Public Parking Structure Development of Lots F and N d. Staff Report Resolution Executed Agreement Proposed Contract Amendment Contract Amendment Request Attachments: 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment) Approval of the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Plan for the New Community Center a. Staff Report Resolution Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) LSA Memo Attachments: Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 11/29/2018 December 3, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Adoption of a Resolution Approving and Levying 2019 San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District Assessments on Hotel Businesses within the District b. Staff Report Resolution Attachments: 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) Adoption of a Resolution Approving Changes to the Compensation and Benefit Plan for the City of Burlingame Department Head and Unrepresented Classifications, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Plan on Behalf of the City a. Staff Report Resolution DH UR Compensation and Benefit Plan Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Extending the City ’s Agreement with Lime and Authorization of the Issuance of a Request for Proposals to Identify a Long-term Bike Share Vendor b. Staff Report Resolution Second Amendment to Agreement Original Agreement May 2018 Staff Report Community Survey Results Attachments: Acceptance of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2018 c. Staff Report CAFR for the Fiscal Year Ended 6-30-18 Attachments: 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements. Mayor Brownrigg's Committee Reporta. Committee ReportAttachments: Vice Mayor Colson's Committee Reportb. Committee ReportAttachments: Councilmember Beach's Committee Reportc. Committee ReportAttachments: Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 11/29/2018 December 3, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 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 www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next regular City Council Meeting Monday, December 17, 2018 VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT www.burlingame.org/video Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office counter at City Hall at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 11/29/2018 Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Residential Impact Fee Study Session on November 14, 2018 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. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. 5. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. DISCUSSION OF RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEES Mayor Brownrigg noted that the Council’s discussion on residential impact fees was an important part of the General Plan. He asked that the Council come to a decision so that the residential impact fees would be in place prior to the adoption of the updated General Plan. He added that it is important that affordable housing be an outcome of the General Plan. CDD Gardiner stated that in 2017, the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing commercial linkage fees for new commercial development in Burlingame. These fees were established to account for the impact that new commercial development has on housing for the workforce. CDD Gardiner stated that in February 2018, the City Council considered establishing residential impact fees. The Council asked staff to look at the economics of an onsite in-lieu option as an alternative to impact fees. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 2 The City’s consultant, Libby Seifel, stated that the purpose of the study her firm conducted was to determine how best to encourage developers to build affordable housing in lieu of paying fees. She noted that the cost of construction and land has made it more difficult to deliver housing in the Bay Area. Ms. Seifel stated that predevelopment is the most difficult part of the process. This is because at this stage in the project, capital is most expensive and requires significant returns to attract investment. For development to move forward, the cost has to be lower than the value of the development in order to provide a developer margin of return. Councilmember Keighran stated that the margin could be affected by the construction timeline. She noted that the construction timeline can often extend past its original date, which causes an increase in construction costs. Ms. Seifel replied in the affirmative. Ms. Seifel reviewed development costs. She stated that soft costs like environmental review, land issues, and parking are unpredictable. She explained that what a developer pays for the construction depends on the type of project. Two to five story developments are the least expensive, with eight stories and above being the most expensive because of the need for below-grade parking and reinforced structures. Ms. Seifel explained that generally the cost of parking increases dramatically the further below grade a project goes. She noted that it is much more cost effective to build parking on a podium above grade. Ms. Seifel discussed land acquisition costs. She explained that land value is determined by either the sales price, negotiated purchase based on appraised value, or residual land value analysis based on new development potential. She stated that from a property owner’s perspective, the value of the land is based on revenues generated. She added that the value of land in Burlingame ranges from $6.8 million to $16 million per acre. She stated that for this analysis, her team chose a conservative range of $200-260 per square foot (approximately $9 million per acre). Ms. Seifel explained that her team studied three typical development types: 1. Multifamily apartments on a 3-acre site (density range of 50-120 du/acre) Ms. Seifel explained that they looked at a 3-acre site with 150 units and at alternative densities of 210 and 360 units. She stated that in order to obtain institutional capital, the project usually needs to be more than 200 units. She explained that her team studied requiring 10% to 15% affordable housing as the in-lieu of fees option. Her team also looked at the effects of a project being done at 100% market rate. She noted that in Burlingame, the average unit size is 850 net square feet, and the market rate is approximately $3,750/month. She added that the parking ratio is 1.45 spaces per unit. Therefore, a project with 150 units would have 220 parking spaces. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 3 2. Condominiums on a .5 acre site (50 du/acre) Ms. Seifel explained that for condominiums, her team studied a .5 acre site with 25 units, with the onsite option requiring 10% to 15% affordable. She noted that the average unit size was 1,000 net square feet, with an average sales price of $940,000, and a parking ratio of 2 spaces per unit. 3. Single family attached homes on a 1.7 acre site (18 du/acre) Ms. Seifel explained that for single family attached developments, her team studied a 1.7 acre site with 31 units. The average unit size was 1,500 net square feet, average sales price is approximately $1.63 million, and the parking ratio is 2 spaces per unit. Ms. Seifel reviewed the housing fees in other San Mateo County jurisdictions. She stated that the middle range of fees is $15 to $25 per square foot for housing fees. She noted that the higher end of fees for apartments is $35 per square foot, and the lower end is $10 per square foot. She explained that her team reviewed the feasibility of the City adopting $10, $15, and $20 per square foot fees for apartments. Mayor Brownrigg stated that many of the cities in San Mateo County have inclusionary housing. He asked if other cities were giving developers the option of fees or onsite affordable housing. Ms. Seifel explained that because of the decision in Palmer/Sixth Street Properties L.P. v. City of Los Angeles, many jurisdictions were no longer able to have inclusionary housing over both rental and for sale. Therefore, many jurisdictions went through a nexus process and adopted a fee for their residential rental program. The impact fee could apply for rental and for sale, or just for rental. She noted that some jurisdictions had inclusionary housing requirements that have been in place for a long time, with the option of paying a fee in lieu of providing housing. CDD Gardiner added that jurisdictions that have both fees and inclusionary housing requirements often have tiered fees. For example, in Redwood City, the developer pays a fee for projects up to 20 units; if the project is more than 20 units, the developer must provide inclusionary housing. Councilmember Keighran asked if there are any cities that have a tiered fee system. Ms. Seifel responded that every city is unique. She explained that usually there is a threshold below which inclusionary housing does not apply. Councilmember Keighran asked about property values in Burlingame compared to other Peninsula cities. Ms. Seifel explained that her team didn’t obtain the best sample size of land transactions. She added that many of the commercial land owners have owned their property for a long time, thereby invoking Prop 13. She noted that for these land owners, there needs to be an incentive to sell. Ms. Seifel discussed apartment development feasibility at alternative housing fee levels. She stated that if there is a feasibility gap at the $15 impact fee level, it will get exacerbated if the fee is increased. She explained that the reason the 120 unit per acre project is penciling is because the developer is able to amortize the $10 million cost across more units. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 4 Ms. Seifel stated that in order to get to the density that is needed in Burlingame, the City will need to look at decreasing parking requirements. Ms. Seifel showed a slide that depicted developers’ return on costs for an apartment building. She explained that return on cost is how the developers are measuring their supportable project costs. She noted that the slide shows that the 50 dwelling units per acre or 70 units per acre aren’t penciling. However, if the density is increased to 120 dwelling units per acre, developers are able to obtain a return on costs and pay housing impact fees. Mayor Brownrigg stated that 120 dwelling units per acre is a seven story building. Ms. Seifel stated that with a tighter parking configuration, it could be six stories. Mayor Brownrigg stated that seven stories is approximately 75 feet and asked if the City would run into FAA limits in any areas of the city. CDD Gardiner replied in the negative and stated that the FAA height limit at the Bayfront is 160 feet, and at El Camino Real it is 130 feet. Ms. Seifel reviewed condominium development feasibility and single family attached developments at alternative housing fee levels. She stated that the fee is a relatively small piece of the total price, and there is little to no feasibility gap. Councilmember Beach asked Ms. Seifel to discuss how the State Density Bonus program impacted her findings. Ms. Seifel explained that under the 35% Density Bonus, a site that had been zoned for 50 dwelling units per acre could be increased to approximately 70 dwelling units per acre. She explained that when her team did this analysis, they assumed that every unit would be paying the fee regardless of whether or not it was density bonus. She added that if the developer chose the inclusionary housing in lieu of the fee, it would be on the base number of units, not the density bonus. Ms. Seifel reviewed a chart of the 2018 household income levels in San Mateo County. She explained that a studio unit is assumed to have a one-person household, a one bedroom unit is assumed to have a two-person household, and a two bedroom is assumed to have a three-person household. She stated that this is a standard that a lot of communities adopted. She pointed out that what the chart is saying is that a typical family of four earns $118,000. She explained that low income is typically 80% of the median income. However, on the chart 80% of median income for a family of four is $117,000. The reason for this is that the cost of housing has increased, and HUD has set the low income threshold to correspond with the housing costs and incomes. Therefore, low income levels have increased. Ms. Seifel stated that her team reviewed what households at various levels of income can afford to pay for rent. She explained that a household at 80% AMI can afford $2400 per month. Someone at 60% AMI can afford approximately $1700 per month. However, she stated that the average market rent in Burlingame is $3,750 per month. Ms. Seifel explained that every time developers have to provide affordable housing, they have to figure out how to make up the gap between market rate and affordable. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 5 Ms. Seifel stated that in reviewing the market value of an apartment unit, for 50% AMI, the restricted value is $275,000 while the market rate is $700,000. Therefore, it creates a gap of $425,000. She noted that the higher the AMI percentage, the smaller the gap. Mayor Brownrigg stated that if a project with 100 units was asked to build 15% affordable, the cost would be spread out over the entire project. Therefore, the gap would be smaller. Ms. Seifel replied in the affirmative. Ms. Seifel reviewed a chart that showed the apartment affordability gap at alternative onsite requirements. She stated that if the requirement was 10% of the units affordable at 110% AMI, it would equate to a fee of $20 per square foot. If 10% of the units were affordable at 50% AMI, it equates to approximately $50 per square foot. She noted that this analysis was undertaken because Council asked how the City can incentivize developers to build onsite rather than pay a fee. She added that developers typically prefer to pay the fee. Ms. Seifel stated that condominiums and single family homes can afford impact fees but not necessarily onsite housing. Ms. Seifel stated that after reviewing different scenarios, the main takeaway is that with increased density, the fees are more feasible because the costs are spread across more units. Additionally, if the City wants to incentivize onsite housing, it should be no more than a 10% requirement. Ms. Seifel reviewed the key findings from the apartment analysis: 1. Apartment rents are not keeping pace with construction and land cost increases 2. Depending on project costs, apartment projects do not yield sufficient returns to attract capital (feasibility gap) 3. Burlingame has a significant apartment affordability gap (gap between market rents and affordable rents) 4. Higher density alternatives are more feasible as cost of land can be spread across more units 5. 10% onsite affordable housing requirements focused on moderate income households (80% to 120% AMI) are most feasible and best correlate to housing fee levels between $15 to $25 per square foot. Ms. Seifel next reviewed the key findings from the for-sale analysis: 1. Housing prices have been increasing rapidly, but most buyers need significant cash or “trade-up” value in homes to afford new units 2. For-sale developments are more financially feasible than apartments given high price points 3. Housing fees at $25 per square foot on for-sale units can likely be supported by new development 4. For-sale housing affordability gap is significant particularly for large single family attached units 5. 10% onsite affordable housing requirements focused on households between 100% and 135% AMI are most feasible and best correlate to housing fee levels of about $25 per square foot. Ms. Seifel stated that the potential strategies to encourage onsite affordable housing are: 1. Develop a more streamlined and predictable process for land use and design review 2. Allow more housing units to be built in a development to encourage onsite units a. Density bonus and height modifications Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 6 b. Incentives and concessions c. Allow smaller affordable unit sizes, especially for ownership d. Smaller parking space dimensions e. Significant parking reductions for residential and retail, especially near transit and public parking 3. Limit the total cost of City imposed permit, processing, and development impact fees to levels that are close to current levels 4. Provide developers with certainty regarding how much these fees will increase annually until building permits are pulled (e.g. link future increases to published inflationary indices). Councilmember Beach stated that one of the suggestions is to look at parking requirements near transit. She asked if the City was to loosen parking requirements in parts of the city would this be an added incentive for a developer to create affordable units onsite. Ms. Seifel explained that the parking ratio impacts how many units can be built under a city’s height limits. Therefore, by loosening the parking requirement, the developer would be able to build more units (potentially affordable housing) and also decrease construction costs and type. Councilmember Keighran asked if in Ms. Seifel’s experience, projects built close to transportation corridors require fewer parking spaces. Ms. Seifel responded in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg asked Ms. Seifel to talk about the State Density Bonus. Ms. Seifel explained that the California State Density Bonus allows developers to provide a certain amount of affordable housing in exchange for additional density. She added that the additional density must be onsite and includes special provisions for land dedication and senior housing. She explained that if a developer has 100 units, and 11 units are affordable to 50% AMI (very low income), the developer is eligible for a state density bonus of 35%. In this example, that would be an additional 35 units. Mayor Brownrigg asked if it was a by-right bonus entitlement. Ms. Seifel responded in the affirmative. Ms. Seifel stated that developers are mostly using the bonus for the very low income units. She explained that the requirement for low income is that 20% of the units must be affordable to 60% AMI for rental and 70% for owner. She added that for moderate income it is 40% of the units must be affordable to 110% AMI. Mayor Brownrigg asked if a city also created an incentive program for very low income units, can the developer use the same units for both State and local incentives. Ms. Seifel stated that if the developer provides units onsite that meet the requirements, they get the state density bonus. The city could do a density bonus that is above the state requirement. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Mario Muzzi discussed his concern about residential impact fees and how they might diminish a developer’s ability to build housing. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 7 Burlingame resident Vince Muzzi discussed his concern about residential impact fees and the updated General Plan. Housing for all Burlingame member Mike Denham stated that more housing needed to be created in Burlingame and asked that it be made a priority. Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment. Councilmember Keighran stated that there are good points made on all sides of this topic. She explained that part of the issue is that a developer may have something in mind that pencils out, but when it comes before the Planning Commission, it is remodeled and loses a few units. She suggested that because the General Plan is being updated, the City should focus on higher densities outside of the established communities. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he was thinking the City should have a tiered system for impact fees based on density, with different schedules for apartments, condominiums, and single attached homes. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the Council should go product by product for the conversation. He added that he was struggling with making decisions about condominiums versus apartments because it’s just a different ownership type. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the City has three projects (Bayswater, Summerhill, and Douglas) which all voluntarily included inclusionary housing. CDD Gardiner stated that typically the reason they’ve seen the projects come in with affordable units is not for the density bonus but for the concessions. He explained that the reason that projects are voluntarily including 10% at moderate income is because pursuant to State Density Bonus, this qualifies the project for a concession, such as additional height. Mayor Brownrigg stated that each of the projects had about 10% dedicated to moderate income. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative and added that it was done to obtain a concession. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the market is the best indicator of what the market can bear. She suggested that Council focus on the missing middle, 10% of units at 80% to 120% AMI. Ms. Seifel stated that if the Council is trying to stay in the $20-25 per square foot range, they would be looking at 10% at 80% to 110% AMI. Councilmember Ortiz stated that previously the Council had discussed creating a fee structure as to encourage building inclusionary housing. Mayor Brownrigg stated that if the City charges $30, it is a break-even point for the developer. If the City charges $40 per square foot, it begins to incentivize the creation of onsite units. Ms. Seifel replied in the affirmative, with the caveat that her team didn’t find that it was feasible to charge $40 per square foot. She explained that $40 per square foot was barely feasible at 70 dwelling units per acre and wasn’t feasible at 50 dwelling units per acre. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 8 Mayor Brownrigg stated that 50 dwelling units per acre doesn’t work in any of Ms. Seifel’s charts. Councilmember Keighran stated that this is making the assumption that the Mayor is focusing on an area of Burlingame that has higher density. Mayor Brownrigg stated that this is a good question, whether the City is focusing on certain areas of Burlingame or the city as a whole. Councilmember Ortiz stated that this report articulates the need to set up a tiered system based on density. He noted that he wasn’t in favor of charging no fee at the lower end of the density. Councilmember Beach stated that affordability isn’t happening on its own, and therefore this is one way the City can help. She noted that on page 27 of the staff report, the takeaway is that a fee of $20-$25 per square foot should be focused on higher density rental developments of 100 units per acre or more. She stated that this is a decent place to start. She added that the City should also consider the value of obtaining fees instead of inclusionary housing. She explained that the fees could be used to assist nonprofits to build housing for low to very low income. Councilmember Beach stated that she agreed that higher density makes sense near transit in the northern part of Burlingame. Vice Mayor Colson stated that in working with Home for All, she has learned that Measure K funds, federal funds, and state funds are being utilized for affordable housing projects. Therefore, the City’s fees would be gap fillers. She noted that the City fees could be used to leverage state or federal funding. However, the City fees won’t be the panacea that others might think they will be. She stated that Home for All has been focused on low income to very low income. She noted that when talking to HEART, it is clear that assistance for the middle is missing. Vice Mayor Colson discussed the possibility of creating a toggle around parking. She suggested reducing parking requirements if the developer includes affordable housing. City Attorney Kane stated that some of the parking incentives are built into the State Density Bonus. Therefore, the City could amplify the benefits. Councilmember Keighran suggested that Council start with where they know impact fees work, which is 90- 120 unit projects. She added that she liked giving developers the choice of either fees or onsite housing. She explained that the fees could be utilized to preserve the existing units, and in return owners would be required to keep rent at a certain level for a certain number of years. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he agreed with Councilmember Keighran. Mayor Brownrigg stated that what he has heard is that while it is unusual to have tiered residential impact fees, his colleagues believe this is the best option. He suggested that the fee for 50 dwelling units and below is $20 per square foot. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 9 Councilmember Beach stated that she didn’t believe a 50 unit or below project would pencil if the fee was $20 per square foot. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he thought the fee for 50 dwelling units or below should be $18 per square foot, and decreased to $15 for prevailing wage. He added that for 69 dwelling units to 51 dwelling units, it should be $20 per square foot, and decreased to $17 for prevailing wage. Mayor Brownrigg stated that at some point he wanted to see the fee become a little bit more of a bite so that developers were encouraged to create onsite affordable housing. Councilmember Ortiz explained that the balance to that is that the City wants to encourage people to build. Mayor Brownrigg suggested that for 70 dwelling units and more, the fee should be $30 per square foot. Mayor Brownrigg stated that what he was hearing from his colleagues is that the program should incentivize the middle, which is 80% to 120% AMI. He noted that HUD’s statement that an individual who makes median income or less in California is low income was a staggering acknowledgment of the problem. Councilmember Beach stated that from Ms. Seifel’s analysis, the highest the fees can go for the project to pencil out is $25. She suggested instead of higher fees, the City create a lower parking requirement within a certain radius of a fixed transit station. Mayor Brownrigg asked if State Density Bonus included a parking incentive. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. He added that if the City’s fee structure is such that it tilts towards developers using the State Density Bonus, thereby obtaining decreased parking and other concessions, then the State Density Bonus might help the City get more onsite units. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the City should lower parking ratios throughout the city and not use them as incentives. Councilmember Beach stated that the important thing about using lower parking ratios as incentives is that the City can use it as a way to obtain affordable housing. Ms. Seifel stated that under State Density Bonus, a developer only gets the parking concession if they are at the 35% density bonus threshold, meaning that the developer has 11% of their units going to very low income AMI. However, she explained that this doesn’t mean that the City couldn’t have a local parking benefit. Additionally, she noted that non-profits have done a lot of research that shows that affordable units do not require as much parking. She explained that under State Density Bonus law, if a project is 100% affordable, the parking requirement is .5 spaces per unit. For mixed income, the requirement is .5 spaces per bedroom. Therefore, the City could create an incentive that for affordable housing units, the developer is only required to provide .5 spaces per unit. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 10 Councilmember Ortiz suggested that if the idea is to incentivize inclusionary housing, then the City could give developers the option of either paying the fee or building 10% affordable to middle income with a parking variance. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the Council has set a range of between 80% and 120% AMI to focus on, which means that everyone will build to 120%. Therefore, maybe the parking incentive is the incentive to build for 80% AMI. Mayor Brownrigg asked if it was feasible for staff to administer Vice Mayor Colson’s suggestion. CDD Gardiner explained that staff will be contracting a housing provider to administer the program. Vice Mayor Colson stated that if a developer chooses to build onsite, then the requirement should be that those units must stay affordable for at least 55 years. The Council agreed. Mayor Brownrigg stated that if a project has only 10 units, with 5 units being affordable to 80% AMI, then the savings in decreased parking requirement would only be 2 spaces. City Attorney Kane stated that this was one of the incentives that Ms. Seifel posed which is that the lower parking ratio could apply to the whole project. Mayor Brownrigg suggested that if the developer does 10% affordable, the City waives the fees, and if the developer does 15% to 20% affordable, then the parking ratio changes. Ms. Seifel noted that the 80% AMI is very close to the 100% AMI. Therefore, it is important to maintain a range as it actually limits who can qualify for those units. She stated that it is normal to set the affordability level at somewhere in the middle of the range. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she liked the Mayor’s suggestion of getting the parking concession if the developer goes above the 10%. Councilmember Beach asked if it would make more sense to offer the parking variance at a larger percentage of affordability or for deeper levels of affordability. Ms. Seifel replied that she hasn’t run the numbers on the difference. Councilmember Beach stated that parking requirements are changing, and the City needs to lean in to decreasing parking requirements. Mayor Brownrigg stated that this is the reason for not making the parking an incentive and instead changing the ratio citywide. Mayor Brownrigg reopened public comment. Burlingame resident Vince Muzzi suggested having Ms. Seifel come up with five scenarios that work, and then the Council can choose from that. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 11 Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment. Vice Mayor Colson suggested that the Council bifurcate this process and start with percentages and fees. Then take a second look with more data about the parking incentive. Councilmember Keighran stated that it depends on the timeframe, as she wanted to ensure that the parameters were in place prior to the General Plan being adopted. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he believed the Council has enough information to come up with the first layer, which is the fees, and then later add parking. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he wanted to stipulate that the Council was talking about the area within a half mile of rail (BART and Caltrain). He asked if the General Plan has parking ratios. CDD Gardiner replied in the negative but stated that staff is creating parking ratios to go with the interim zoning. Mayor Brownrigg asked what the timing is for the interim zoning. City Attorney Kane stated that interim zoning will go with the adoption of the General Plan. She added that cities don’t get in trouble for lessening requirements; they get in trouble for increasing requirements. She explained that the Council could come to a decision about fees and add the caveat that they plan on discussing decreasing parking ratios at a later date. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the reason to make a decision at the meeting is that if the General Plan is adopted prior to adoption of the impact fees, there could be projects moving forward without residential impact fees. City Attorney Kane stated that in looking at the calendar, the residential impact fees will lag a little behind adoption of the General Plan. Mayor Brownrigg stated that for apartments the suggested residential impact fees based on Council discussion were: Units per acre Fee Fee with Prevailing Wage Up to 50 units $18 per square foot $15 per square foot Up to 70 units $20 per square foot $17 per square foot Above 70 units $30 per square foot $25 per square foot The Council agreed that the requirement was either pay the fee or provide 10% affordable onsite. Councilmember Ortiz stated that the $30 fee is a big jump. He stated that he would be more comfortable with above 70 units being $28, and $25 with prevailing wage. Councilmember Keighran stated that she was more concerned with the up to 50 units. She believed it was too high. Vice Mayor Colson stated that other cities have a minimum project size for residential impact fees. She suggested exempting projects with under ten units. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 12 The Council agreed that rental projects with 10 units and below would be exempt from residential impact fees. Vice Mayor Colson asked if Councilmember Keighran would be comfortable with the 11-50 dwelling units at $18 per square foot, or $15 per square foot with prevailing wage. Councilmember Keighran stated that there wasn’t much of a difference in the fees between the first tier and second tier, so she wondered if the first tier should be lowered by a dollar or two. She suggested $16 per square foot, and $13 per square foot with prevailing wage. Councilmember Ortiz stated that it was too low. The Council agreed that the tiers should be as follows: Units per acre Fee Fee with Prevailing Wage 11 to 50 units $17 per square foot $14 per square foot Up to 70 units $20 per square foot $17 per square foot Above 70 units $30 per square foot $25 per square foot Ms. Seifel stated that their analysis was stating that $25 per square foot was feasible at 120 dwelling units per acre, not $30 per square foot at 70 dwelling units per acre. Mayor Brownrigg stated that Council is giving developers a way to waive the fee by doing the 10% onsite. Vice Mayor Colson noted that there are extraneous factors that make construction costs cheaper or more expensive and are beyond the control of the Council. Mayor Brownrigg next directed his colleagues to discuss impact fees for single family homes and condominiums. Councilmember Ortiz stated that his suggestion was that single family attached and condominiums should have a fee of $22 per square foot. Councilmember Beach stated that she believed that the developers for single family attached could afford $25 per square foot. She added that this is what they will probably choose because they can’t afford to offer 10% inclusionary housing. She stated that realistically, they will be getting fees from single family attached and condo developments. Mayor Brownrigg stated that fees ranging from $15 to $25 per square foot are doable for condominium developments. Ms. Seifel replied in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the City could charge $35 per square foot. Ms. Seifel stated that she didn’t look at this, and it would depend on the price of land. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 13 Vice Mayor Colson stated that a complaint that the City receives is that there are no entry level homes to purchase in Burlingame. Therefore, she would increase the fees because the margin of return is still pretty high. She explained that this is an area where the City should incentivize construction. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the economics are clear that the developer will just pay the fee. He added that he was worried that the fees for condos would incentivize developers to build condos over apartments. Vice Mayor Colson asked if incentivizing developers to build condos over apartments was bad or good. Councilmember Keighran stated that 52% of the City’s housing stock is apartments. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she had no problem incentivizing entry level condos. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he would want a percentage of the condos to be affordable. Vice Mayor Colson stated that then the City has to have a higher impact fee. Ms. Seifel stated that for condominiums, the policy choice the City has is to allow not just moderate income units but also 120% to 150% to provide more of an incentive. She stated that this is meeting another part of the missing middle. Mayor Brownrigg stated Ms. Seifel’s slide concerning the Condominium Affordability Gap stated that the fee could be set at $40 to $50 per square foot to encourage onsite housing. Vice Mayor Colson asked how her colleagues felt about not charging a fee for projects with 10 condos or less. Councilmember Beach asked if it is a lot more profitable to have the condos, or is it the same as the apartments. Vice Mayor Colson stated that you had to look at it not from the fee generation view point but from trying to add in needed housing stock. Ms. Seifel suggested that the Council might set a threshold by which the City states that if units are delivered to the market close to 120% AMI (approximately $700,000), there wouldn’t be a fee. However, once the developer decides to build to the market, then the fee is triggered. Therefore, it isn’t just based on the size but also on your price point. City Attorney Kane stated that she worried about staff’s ability to track Ms. Seifel’s suggestion. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 14 Councilmember Beach asked Ms. Seifel if it would be reasonable to set a $35 per square foot fee for condos but allow it to be in a range of 135% to 150% AMI. Ms. Seifel stated that the range should be 100% to 150% AMI. Vice Mayor Colson discussed condo projects that are rented. She stated that she didn’t want the developer to build them under the auspices of being condos to avoid the residential impact fees of apartments. Councilmember Beach asked how the City could control this. Vice Mayor Colson stated that you charge higher fees for condominiums. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he thought the fee should be $35 per square foot above a certain number of units. Councilmember Ortiz thought $35 was way too high. He added that he didn’t see any reason to exempt any number of condos from the fee. Mayor Brownrigg asked if a developer could tell staff that they are building apartments and then once built, sell them as condos. CDD Gardiner replied in the negative, stating that condos have a condo map associated with them. City Attorney Kane stated that her experience at the Planning Commission is that most of the condo projects are small: 5 to 10 units. CDD Gardiner agreed. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he thought the City should exempt projects with fewer than 10 condos from the fee. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he didn’t think that any number of condos should be exempted. Councilmember Beach agreed with Councilmember Ortiz. Councilmember Keighran and Vice Mayor Colson believed that fewer than 10 should be exempt. Mayor Brownrigg asked if he was correct that the City used to discourage condo conversions. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative and explained that it was done to preserve rental housing. Mayor Brownrigg asked if this ordinance was still on the books. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg stated that if this ordinance was still on the books, then it seems to him that the City Council should not exempt smaller condo projects from the residential impact fees. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 15 Vice Mayor Colson stated that she believed that the City might want to revisit this policy. She stated that the City is going to be adding 2,000 to 3,000 multi-family units and very few ownership opportunities. Therefore, allowing older housing stock to convert to ownership is a good thing. Councilmember Keighran stated she would be open to relooking at this ordinance. Mayor Brownrigg suggested a compromise where the first five condo units are exempt from fees. Vice Mayor Colson suggested going to six. Councilmember Beach stated that the market shows that they can bear the fee, and while she leans towards no, she would compromise. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the Council wanted to give condos an in lieu of fee option. City Attorney Kane stated her understanding was that there was an in-lieu option of 10% up to 150% AMI. Council agreed. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the fee should be higher if the AMI is higher. Ms. Seifel stated that the average should be lower than 150% AMI, but it has to be expressed as a range. City Attorney Kane stated that because one or two units will be made in a project, that becomes the range. Ms. Seifel stated that a household can qualify that earns 120-150% AMI, but the affordable price is set at 135% AMI. Councilmember Beach stated that she agreed that 135% AMI would be the target. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was curious how much money the City would be leaving on the table. He asked what the square footage is that Ms. Seifel assumed for the condos. Ms. Seifel replied 1,000 square feet. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the impact fee at $35 per square foot would be $35,000 a unit. Therefore, the City would be giving up $120,000 to $150,000 for one affordable unit. He wondered if it was worth it or if the City should not allow developers to avoid the fee. Councilmember Keighran stated that currently there isn’t an option for entry level buying, and therefore it would be good to create affordable housing. Councilmember Ortiz stated that the more affordable units that get built, the better, and therefore he would prefer the units over the money. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 16 Mayor Brownrigg stated that what he was hearing is that the City would set the fee at $35 per square foot, and if the developer builds 10% of their units targeting 135% AMI, the fee is waived. Vice Mayor Colson stated that if a developer builds apartments and within ten years converts them to condos, they have to pay the condominium fee. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he liked the Vice Mayor’s suggestion. CDD Gardiner suggested that the fee be tied to the map. He explained that if it was a condominium map, whether or not they rented them, the condo fee would be charged. Therefore, the only projects that would have the apartment fees would be the ones that don’t have condominium maps. City Attorney Kane stated that for administration purposes, CDD Gardiner’s suggestion was sound. Mayor Brownrigg suggested that staff use Council’s discussion on condos to propose a similar scheme for townhouses. CDD Gardiner asked if the Council had a prevailing wage discount for condos. Mayor Brownrigg stated that it should be $30 per square foot. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the residential impact fees would help with the middle. However, she noted that low and very low income would be addressed in other ways such as ADUs and the Lots F and N project. Mayor Brownrigg added that the State Density Bonus would assist low and very low income. Councilmember Beach discussed public versus private land and if there is a difference in how they should be treated. She stated for example what happens if the school district decided to build units. She also asked about the timing of the fees. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the Council had to address institutional land now. CDD Gardiner stated that he would look into it. Vice Mayor Colson stated that with the Peninsula Healthcare District project, the City should talk about how to treat their land. Additionally, she stated if the City is doing a project where they are contributing the land, would the City be able to waive the fee. City Attorney Kane stated that the City’s default is that the impact fees are a universal policy. She noted that there are certain procedural steps that need to occur prior to applying fees to a project. Mayor Brownrigg thanked staff and colleagues for their time. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 14, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 17 5. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Brownrigg adjourned meeting at 10:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting on November 19, 2018 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. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by several veterans. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Ortiz, MEMBERS ABSENT: Keighran 4. STUDY SESSION a. UPDATE ON BURLINGAME AQUATIC CENTER CONSTRUCTION PROJECT 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Brownrigg reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. VETERANS RECOGNITION PRESENTATION Councilmember Beach stated that Veterans Day is a day to thank those that are currently serving or have served in the past. Mayor Brownrigg presented certificates to: • Albert James Hart: served in the US Navy from 2002 to 2007 • Daniel Devoy: served in the US Army from 1998 to 2006 • Ben Nielsen: served in the US Army from 1971 to 1972 Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 2 • Robert L. Waterson: served in the US Navy for 30 years b. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN UPDATE Burlingame’s Environmental Regulatory Compliance Coordinator Jennifer Lee gave an update on the City’s Green Infrastructure Plan. She explained that prior to urban development, nature would handle stormwater by absorbing it into the ground. However, as a result of development, there are a lot more impervious surfaces, which don’t allow for storm water runoff to infiltrate the ground. Ms. Lee explained that storm water runoff picks up pollutants like pet waste, oil, and pesticides. She stated that in 1990, the US EPA established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) stormwater program. She explained that the NDPES program is overseen by the State Water Resources Control Board and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Ms. Lee explained that every five years, the City gets issued a new Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit. The most recent permit was issued in 2015. The City of Burlingame is one of 22 San Mateo County permittees. She explained that the permit includes requirements for municipal operations, new development and redevelopment, construction sites, and public outreach. Ms. Lee explained that there are a lot of ways the City can deal with stormwater runoff. She stated that it is becoming more common to incorporate green infrastructure into projects. She discussed green streets, rainwater capture systems, and green roofs. Ms. Lee stated that the pollutant of concern is PCBs, which were predominantly used in the 1920s until being banned in 1979. She stated that PCBs were commonly used for electrical equipment, sealants, and coolants. She added that mercury and trash are other pollutants of concern. Ms. Lee discussed the benefits of green infrastructure: • Reduces pollutants from entering the Bay • Increases natural habitat • Increases infiltration into the ground • Filters air pollutants and particulates • Mitigates the risk of localized flooding • Promotes traffic calming and increases pedestrian safety Ms. Lee reviewed the requirements for the City’s Green Infrastructure Plan: • Map green infrastructure projects • Establish targets for the amount of impervious surface to be retrofitted over time • Prepare design guidelines and standard specifications • Integrate Green Infrastructure Plan with other planning documents • Evaluate funding options • Conduct public outreach to let residents know about the Green Infrastructure Plan Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 3 She added that one concern the State has when cities develop these plans is that they don’t want the plans to just sit on the shelf. Accordingly, one way to address that concern is to integrate the plan with planning documents. Mayor Brownrigg asked about the second bullet point, which stated: “establish targets for the amount of impervious surface to be retrofitted over time.” He asked whose target and how. Ms. Lee explained that the State Water Resources Control board has a total maximum daily load of how many pollutants can go into the Bay. She stated that the Green Infrastructure Plan is assumed to treat some of that runoff. She added that the City is using a consultant to measure how much PCBs and mercury are entering the Bay. Therefore, the City has to set goals by 2020, 2030, and 2040 of how much impervious surface has to be removed. Mayor Brownrigg stated that it seems to him to be a large unfunded mandate to remove impervious cement and replace with pervious cement. He asked if this responsibility falls on the City. DPW Murtuza responded in the affirmative. He added that the PCBs are located in mostly industrial areas of the county. He explained that there is an effort underway to have all cities band together and look for a cost-effective option to meet these mandates. Ms. Lee reviewed the progress that the City has made since last year. She explained that staff is collaborating with the County to develop the required documents. Additionally, staff is working with the Community Development Department to incorporate the Green Infrastructure Plan into the General Plan. She explained that the Green Infrastructure Plan is due September 2019. Ms. Lee reviewed examples of green infrastructure. She noted that at 1600 Trousdale Drive, there are flow- through planters that collect all the rainwater from the roof. At 1800 Trousdale Drive, there is permeable pavement. She also noted that the Carolan Avenue Complete Streets Project includes green infrastructure. Ms. Lee reviewed the next steps: • City staff participates in countywide Green Infrastructure Technical Advisory Committee meetings. • Staff is working with the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program to explore alternatives for complying with the mercury and PCBs load reduction requirements. • Staff will keep City Council apprised as these alternatives evolve and provide recommendations. • County Pollution Prevention Program is developing design guidelines and resources for member agencies to use in their Green Infrastructure Plan. Vice Mayor Colson asked how the City incorporates residents into the program and if the City can regulate businesses. Ms. Lee stated that she reviews all the plans that are submitted to the Planning Department. She noted that if a project is over 10,000 square feet, it has to include a stormwater runoff treatment device. She added that projects are regulated at a minimum of 2,500 square feet. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the City used to require that all rain that hit a roof had to be diverted to the streets. He asked if this has changed. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. He stated that the City is trying to encourage property developments to use the water for their gardens. Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 4 DPW Murtuza stated that in the coming months, staff would be bringing a proposed ordinance to Council to prevent PCBs from getting into the water from the demolition of old buildings. He explained that this will be a huge impact on developers, and therefore the City will need to hold workshops. He noted that this ordinance will not affect residential homes. Councilmember Keighran asked if the proposed ordinance would affect multi-dwelling buildings. DPW Murtuza stated that single family residences have a minimum requirement to submit a checklist, but multi- dwelling units would need to be further reviewed. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff asked if it was necessary to clean the basins that are collecting the PCBs. Ms. Lee explained that when developers create rain gardens, they use bio treatment soil mix, which is a combination of different types of soil specifically designed to capture the pollutants. The soil mix doesn’t need a lot of treatment. Mayor Brownrigg asked if a bunch of PCBs run into the grass, wouldn’t they just stay there or go into the water table. DPW Murtuza stated that they get intercepted by the soil, and that the soil acts like a filter. He added that the question becomes how long the soil will be effective. Mayor Brownrigg thanked Ms. Lee for her presentation. c. UPDATE ON THE ALL-MAILED BALLOT/VOTING CENTER ELECTION City Clerk Hassel-Shearer began by giving a brief overview of the City Clerk’s role in elections. She explained that the City Clerk handles candidate filing, measures, and citizen initiatives for the City, and then contracts with the County to administer the election. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer reviewed the November 6th election, which was an all-mailed ballot/voting center election. She explained that at the 2014 midterm election, the voter turnout rate for the State was approximately 32%. As a result, the Legislature drafted SB 450, which gave counties the option of holding their election as all-mailed ballot elections. The Legislature believed that all-mailed ballot elections would help increase voter turnout. She noted that because of San Mateo County’s high permanent vote by mail percentage, the County chose to conduct its elections as all-mailed ballot. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer noted that two important requirements of SB 450 elections is that there must be two ballot drop-off locations per jurisdiction, and there must be at least one voting center per 10,000 voters on Election Day. She noted that the voting center requirement applies to the County as a whole, and therefore the County needed 39 voting centers on Election Day. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer explained that the County chose City Hall as the voting center in Burlingame because of their need for secure internet and ADA accessibility. They have also previously used City Hall as a polling place. The voting center was open for four days beginning the Saturday before the election. Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 5 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer stated that beginning at 6:00 a.m. on Election Day, there was a line of voters, and the average wait time was an hour. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer reviewed the election night results and explained that the election night results only accounted for approximately one-third of the ballots submitted. She noted that this was the result of vote by mail ballots being dropped off at voting centers, and the postmark +3 law, which allows ballots to be postmarked by Election Day and received within three days, to count. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer stated that the delay of results was not the result of the all-mailed ballot election but rather was the trend in California. She referenced the number of uncounted ballots in other Bay Area counties and in Los Angeles. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer reviewed early lessons for the County. She discussed the need to have another voting center in Burlingame, public education/outreach concerning election night results, and redefining “re- register” as a way to change anything on your registration form. Lastly, she encouraged the County to begin sending “I voted” stickers with vote by mail ballots. Councilmember Beach asked when the final results would be coming in. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer stated that the County is estimating that the results won’t be completed until later in November. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he understood why City Hall was chosen, but he agreed that the City needed at least two polling places. Councilmember Keighran asked if the City Clerk would be delivering these suggestions to the County. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer replied in the affirmative. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT Burlingame resident Sandra Lang discussed the recent fires and asked that the City think of the distribution of masks for future issues. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Brownrigg asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Beach pulled 8d. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to approve 8a, 8b, 8c, 8e, and 8f; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0 with Councilmember Keighran abstaining from the minutes vote as she was not present at the last meeting. a. ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 5, 2018 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes of November 5, 2018. Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 6 b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO KITCHELL CEM FOR THE FIRE STATIONS EMERGENCY GENERATORS REPLACEMENT PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 84950, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 145-2018. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE FIRE STATION 35 IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 84340 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 146-2018. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN FOR TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND PLANNING SERVICES FOR THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN UPDATE Councilmember Beach stated that this item concerned creating a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. She explained that there was a question that came from a member of the public about the cost of the project. DPW Murtuza stated that staff issued RFPs for a variety of transportation engineering services including preparation of the bicycle and pedestrian master plan update. He noted that staff received seven proposals, and after reviewing the proposals, staff chose Alta because of their extensive experience. He discussed the need to conduct several rounds of public outreach and the additional options that Alta made available in their proposal. Accordingly, he stated that the cost was in line with the City’s budget. Councilmember Beach stated that she appreciated the amount of meetings that Alta would be holding with the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee. She stated that she believed it would be a thorough project. She noted that she hoped there would be an opportunity for Alta to educate the public on the different infrastructure designs that are available and what the tradeoffs of the different options are in regards to safety and parking concerns. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident and Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee member Adrienne Leigh thanked the City for funding the plan and asked that the Council look at the intersections that bicyclists and pedestrians have to use to access public transportation. Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment. Mayor Brownrigg asked for Alta to ensure outreach with the schools. He stated that he met with Facebook, and one of their top four priorities is safe bike routes. He asked that when the City conducts public outreach that they engage the public with specific suggestions. Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 7 Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 147-2018; seconded by Mayor Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. e. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT, PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2018 Finance Director Augustine requested Council accept the Quarterly Investment Report for the period ending September 30, 2018. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE REGARDING SOLID WASTE RATE INCREASES FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2019, 2020, AND 2021 Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 148-2018. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. CONSIDERATION OF EDITIS TO THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR); DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED INTERIM ZONING REGULATIONS CDD Gardiner stated that the General Plan is part of a multi-year process that includes both an update to the General Plan and a new zoning ordinance. He explained that staff and MIG consultants presented Council with an overview of the draft General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) at the last meeting. MIG representative Dan Amsden reviewed the Envision Burlingame process. He explained that Envision Burlingame asks the question “How do we want Burlingame to look, function, and feel 25 years from now?” He noted that there has been extensive community engagement throughout the process. He reviewed the timeline of Envision Burlingame: • Public Draft General Plan – August 2017 • Draft Environmental Impact Report – June 28, 2018 • Draft EIR Formal Comment Period – July 3 through August 20, 2018 • Final Environmental Impact Report – October 11, 2018 • Planning Commission Study Session – October 22, 2018 • City Council Study Session – November 5, 2018 • City Council Public hearing – November 19, 2018 Mr. Amsden stated that the Housing Element is not included in the current draft of the General Plan. He explained that the Housing Element is part of the General Plan but functions differently as it has to be certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. He noted that in 2015, the City adopted the Housing Element, which will apply until 2023. Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 8 Mr. Amsden discussed the Environmental Impact Report. He explained that general plans are subject to program-level analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). He noted that “program- level” analysis differs from “project-level” analysis in the sense that the EIR evaluates the impacts the proposed policies may have on environmental conditions. As a result, proposed mitigation measures in the EIR are typically designed as changes to policy language. Mr. Amsden stated that of all the different topics addressed in the EIR, there were two areas of significant and unavoidable impacts. The first was greenhouse gas emissions. He explained that there will be increases in greenhouse gas emissions until the City’s updated Climate Action Plan is adopted. The second was ABAG’s consistency with Plan Bay Area. He explained that the last version of Plan Bay Area included more housing and employment growth along the El Camino Real corridor. He noted that through the City’s process, the community identified different areas in different parts of the city where increased housing should occur. He stated that this is technically inconsistent with Plan Bay Area, but the next time that ABAG’s consistency plan is updated, it will take Burlingame’s plan into account. Mr. Amsden stated that through the City’s EIR process, MIG looked at three different alternatives. The first alternative was to not update the General Plan. The second alternative looked at increased density in North Burlingame, and the third alternative looked at having no live/work designation in the northerly one-third of the Rollins Road corridor. He explained that the results of the EIR process found that alternatives two and three had the same impact levels as the General Plan, and none would reduce significant unavoidable impacts. Additionally, the proposed General Plan is the superior alternative as it meets all project objectives. Mr. Amsden reviewed additional policies discussed by the City Council at the November 5 meeting that might be included in the General Plan. The first was better coordination through policy with the school districts. He explained that MIG proposes to add two additional policies to the General Plan to continue the City’s on-going commitment to supporting local schools: • City and District Collaboration – assist local school districts in identifying potential school locations to serve growth in enrollment • School Partnerships – support creative public-private partnerships to facilitate the funding and development of public school facilities. Mayor Brownrigg asked about the second bullet point concerning school partnerships and what it meant. Vice Mayor Colson asked in reference to the second bullet point what types of facilities would the City be assisting in funding. CDD Gardiner explained that neighboring cities have assisted school districts in finding unconventional sites for new schools. Mayor Brownrigg stated that this assistance is covered in the first bullet point and that the second bullet point made it sound like the City would be asked to undertake funding mechanisms like parcel taxes for the schools. Councilmember Beach stated that she interpreted the second bullet point as referencing community benefits. Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 9 Mayor Brownrigg asked if what Councilmember Beach was stating was that if the school district wanted to work with a private developer, the City should lean in, not that the City should be the public entity of the public-private partnership. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Keighran stated that if the Council was confused about the second bullet point that it should be further clarified. Mr. Amsden stated that another discussion that arose from the November 5 City Council meeting was variable massing in the Downtown. This policy would allow portions of a building to be taller than 55 feet provided that other portions of the building are less than 55 feet, so that the average height of the building is no more than 55 feet. The intent is to provide a more varied roofline. Vice Mayor Colson asked if there was a cap on variable massing so that a building didn’t have heights of 90 feet and 20 feet. CDD Gardiner stated that the suggestion was to reference the highest building in the Downtown as the maximum height for any point of a building. Therefore, the maximum height in a project would be 75 feet. Councilmember Keighran asked what is currently allowed Downtown. CDD Gardiner stated that currently, the maximum height in the Downtown Specific Plan is 55 feet. Councilmember Keighran asked if variable massing could be covered by design guidelines. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative but explained that staff was trying to create an objective standard that could be used to review a project. Councilmember Ortiz asked if this applies to the whole Downtown Specific Area. CDD Gardiner stated that it is focused on the Howard Mixed Use Zone. He added that he didn’t know if he would suggest it for the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Zone. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was in favor of this policy. Councilmember Beach stated that the City shouldn’t lose the pedestrian scale of buildings on the Avenue. She stated that she thought the policy could add design value by ensuring that everything wasn’t built to maximum height. She suggested that the maximum height should be 65 feet. Councilmember Keighran raised concern about how variable massing would be implemented. CDD Gardiner stated that this policy doesn’t need to be in the General Plan and instead could be further explored in the zoning ordinance. City Attorney Kane stated that given the nature of the General Plan versus the zoning documents, one option would be to either omit this policy entirely or include a policy stating that the City will investigate the possibility of having zoning that accommodates variable heights in the Downtown. Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 10 Mr. Amsden stated that the City might have different standards or requirements for different parts of Downtown. Councilmember Keighran stated that the Council should consider this option. Vice Mayor Colson agreed. She also suggested a minimum lot size for applying variable height. The City C ouncil agreed that there should be a policy in the General Plan that states the City will investigate utilizing variable heights. Mr. Amsden stated that included in the agenda packet were various written comments that staff received from City Councilmembers following the November 5 meeting. He explained that because these comments had not been discussed by the full City Council, staff and the consultants compiled all the comments for Council’s review. Mr. Amsden stated that the consultants and staff were looking for feedback from Council in six specific areas. The first area was the Historic Resources Preservation chapter that was reviewed in depth by the Council at the November 5 meeting. He stated that staff is proposing that this section be revised as follows: CC-3.2: Historic Evaluation Approaches. Evaluate options for identifying potential historic resources, both to allow property owners to utilize historic preservation incentives, and as a consideration in development review. The second area is the current policy on the City Hall site which states: “Explore options for relocation of City Hall to another location within Downtown convenient for residents and the business community, and consider reuse of the City Hall site for other beneficial uses, including housing and open space.” The third area for further discussion is the California Drive Mixed Use District height limits. Mr. Amsden explained that for the Auto Row area, the height limit is 35 feet, or up to 55 feet with a conditional use permit. One of the major property owners within that district has expressed an interest in increasing the height limit to facilitate mixed-use development. The fourth area for further discussion is the height limits for Broadway. Mr. Amsden explained that Broadway has two policies that describe height limits alternatively as either two or three stories. He noted that the concept is to allow additional density at California Drive and El Camino Real. However, in written comments Councilmembers have asked to clarify whether the remainder of the Broadway corridor would be limited to two or three stories. Mr. Amsden stated that the fifth area for Council discussion is the lots at the intersection of Adeline Drive and El Camino Real. He explained that these two lots are zoned C-1 (commercial). He noted that this is the only commercially zoned property on El Camino Real between Downtown and Dufferin Avenue. He added that at the November 5 meeting, there was some discussion to change this area to a mixed use designation. Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 11 Mayor Brownrigg asked what the height limits would be if this area was rezoned mixed use. CDD Gardiner stated if it is zoned like Broadway, then height limits would be two or three stories (depending on Council’s determination for Broadway). He explained that another suggestion for the lots was to allow for higher density while maintaining the height limits of their current R-3 zone. He noted that R-3 has a height limit of 35 feet, or 55 feet with a conditional use permit. Councilmember Ortiz asked about the height of 1509 El Camino Real. CDD Gardiner replied that he believed it was around 45 feet. Lastly, Mr. Amsden stated that the sixth area for further discussion concerned what the right density is for the North Rollins Road live/work area. He showed examples of different live/work buildings throughout the Bay Area and described their densities and sizes. Councilmember Beach stated that she believed the City should encourage higher density near public transit. She discussed building smaller units and decreasing parking ratios. She stated that transit oriented units usually don’t attract families and therefore the increased density wouldn’t impact the schools. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame residents Assad Stefan and Michael Stefan discussed their property, Adeline Market, and stated their concern about setbacks and height restrictions if the property was rezoned mixed use. Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff voiced concern about variable heights in the Downtown and increasing height limits on Auto Row. Burlingame business owner Kent Putnam talked about the importance of increasing height on Auto Row in order to allow for workforce housing. Vice Mayor Colson asked if there was a specific height that Mr. Putnam was looking for and whether he had done a feasibility study on building workforce housing. Mr. Putnam stated that he has met with some developers and believed he needed to build to 65-75 feet. Burlingame resident Kamran Ehsanipour discussed the vacant lot he owns on the corner of El Camino Real and Adeline Drive. Burlingame resident Joe Baylock voiced his concern about the City’s water supply and the need to incorporate its protection in the General Plan. Mayo r Brownrigg closed public comment. Mayor Brownrigg directed the Council’s attention to the Historic Preservation Policy. He asked if his colleagues were in favor of creating a working group to determine what the policy should be for the City. Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 12 Councilmember Keighran asked if at a later date the Council would discuss making neighborhoods historical and attaching fees to remodels of buildings over fifty years old. Councilmember Ortiz asked if the language in the General Plan would be “CC-3.2: Historic Evaluation Approaches. Evaluate options for identifying potential historic resources, both to allow property owners to utilize historic preservation incentives, and as a consideration in development review” or would the working group be creating the language for the General Plan. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. The Council agreed with the proposed policy and the creation of a working group. Mayor Brownrigg next directed Council’s attention to the City’s current policy regarding the City Hall site: “Explore options for relocation of City Hall to another location within Downtown convenient for residents and the business community, and consider reuse of the City Hall site for other beneficial uses, including housing and open space.” He proposed that the General Plan state that City Hall is becoming outgrown and outdated and therefore alternatives need to be developed. He noted that the General Plan didn’t need to state that it would be off site. The Council agreed. Mayor Brownrigg next directed Council’s attention to the question of whether the height limit for Auto Row should be increased. He proposed increasing the height limit to 65 feet with a conditional use permit. He added that the conditional use permit should be limited in scope to the creation of workforce housing. Councilmember Ortiz asked Mayor Brownrigg what his suggestion was for the by right height on Auto Row. Mayor Brownrigg suggested leaving it at 35 feet. Councilmember Ortiz stated that this sounded reasonable. Councilmember Beach stated that she was reluctant to change the Downtown Specific Plan because a lot of thought and effort went into creating the document. She added that with stackers becoming more popular and potential changes in parking requirements, there would be more space with a 55 foot conditional use permit to build housing. Accordingly, she stated that she was in favor of maintaining the current height limits. Councilmember Keighran stated that because the City is proposing increasing the density in North Burlingame and on Rollins Road she wanted to maintain the current height limits on Auto Row. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she was leaning towards maintaining the current height limits. She explained that there were options to go below grade to create parking and thereby free up height for workforce housing. She noted that until she had a more firm understanding that the 55 feet is not feasible, she wanted the height limits to remain. She added that she would be willing to increase the density of this area. Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 13 Mayor Brownrigg stated that a majority of the Council felt that the height limits should remain at 35 feet and 55 feet with a conditional use permit. Mayor Brownrigg asked the Council to review the proposed Broadway height limits. He stated that the question is whether the City meant to zone Broadway for two stories or three stories. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he would be comfortable with going to three stories on Broadway. Councilmember Beach discussed the importance of Broadway’s Specific Plan and stated that any change could dramatically alter Broadway. Therefore, she stated that she was in favor of maintaining the current limits until the City held a public process. She asked what the current use and height limits are for Broadway. CDD Gardiner stated that it is zoned C-1, and there are no fixed height limits in this zone. Instead, height limits are based on a floor area ratio of 2.0. Councilmember Keighran agreed with Councilmember Beach. She asked about zoning of the side streets of Broadway. CDD Gardiner stated that in the draft General Plan, there is a policy that discusses allowing office space on side streets that are zoned commercial. Councilmember Ortiz discussed the need to revitalize Broadway and that allowing developers to build three stories could help. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he agreed with Councilmember Ortiz. He added that he didn’t believe three stories would be that dramatic. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she could agree to three stories. She explained that she believed this would add residential on top. She noted that residential units will assist in revitalizing Broadway. Councilmember Beach stated that she appreciated her colleagues’ comments and agreed with what the Council was stating. However, she stated that without a specific plan she wasn’t sure there was enough public input on increasing height on Broadway. CDD Gardiner stated that the Community Advisory Committee created the two to three stories reference as a way to describe the scale of buildings they saw appropriate for Broadway. Councilmember Keighran stated that it is odd that the recommendation was two to three stories. CDD Gardiner stated that the Community Advisory Committee was trying to depict their desire for a combination of both heights. Councilmember Keighran asked if a developer would be able to build a three story building on Broadway while complying with the current parking ratio. CDD Gardiner stated that the Community Advisory Committee didn’t get into the mechanics of this policy suggestion. Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 14 Mayor Brownrigg stated that what he was hearing from his colleagues is that three stories is okay but that there is doubt that it will lead to project applications. Council agreed. Councilmember Beach asked if the change to three stories was reviewed in the EIR. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative and explained that it was within the scope of the EIR. Mayor Brownrigg discussed the question of rezoning the C-1 lots at Adeline and El Camino Real. He asked CDD Gardiner to summarize the Council’s choices on this matter. CDD Gardiner stated that the Council could: 1. leave the lots as they are currently zoned; 2. zone the lots like Broadway Commercial Mixed Use, which allows three stories and 40 units per acre 3. zone the lots utilizing the density of the North Burlingame Mixed Use Zone but with maximum height being 45 feet so that a future development is no taller than 1509 El Camino Real Mayor Brownrigg asked if the City’s building code require setbacks. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. CDD Gardiner explained that C-1 Zones allow zero setbacks in places but that the City has found that mixed use zoning doesn’t work well with zero setbacks. He added that a 20 foot El Camino Real setback is required for any type of zoning. Councilmember Beach asked if the owners of the lots could choose to develop their lots 100% residential. CDD Gardiner stated that this could be a fourth option. Mayor Brownrigg discussed the need to slope any potential projects on these lots to meet their surrounding neighborhoods. CDD Gardiner stated that this would be where the concept of the R-3 height limit would work. Mayor Brownrigg stated that one simple proposal is to zone the lots as R-3, which has a height limit of 35 feet, or 55 feet with a conditional use permit. Councilmember Ortiz asked if Mayor Brownrigg’s suggestion would be for mixed use. Mayor Brownrigg replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach asked if she had to recuse herself from discussing this matter because of the proximity of her house to the lots. City Attorney Kane reviewed the location of Councilmember Beach’s house to the lots on Adeline and El Camino Real and determined that she was not recused from this matter. Vice Mayor Colson stated her preference would be to zone these lots like Broadway with three stories and 40 dwelling units per acre. Councilmember Keighran asked what the approximate height is for three stories. CDD Gardiner stated no more than 45 feet. Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 15 Councilmember Ortiz and Councilmember Keighran agreed with the Vice Mayor’s suggestion to zone the lots like Broadway. Councilmember Beach stated that she concurred and thought the lots had to be sensitive to their neighbors. She added that she would open to the option of allowing the lots to be commercial or residential. Mayor Brownrigg stated that Council’s decision was to zone the two lots like Broadway. Additionally, the lots would be able to choose whether to include commercial space or be 100% residential. The Council agreed. Mayor Brownrigg asked the Council to discuss the Rollins Road live/work change area. He asked CDD Gardiner to review the questions Council needed to discuss. CDD Gardiner stated that at the last meeting some of the Council asked for visuals of the types of live/work developments. He added that the only discussion related to the interim zoning. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Mario Muzzi discussed parking requirements for the neighborhoods near public transit. He suggested reducing the parking ratio for studios to .5 spaces. Summerhill Apartment Communities representative Elaine Breeze discussed her experience with the need for smaller units and less parking. She discussed the City’s role in creating new neighborhoods by ensuring that areas have open spaces, sidewalks, and street trees. She added that the Summerhill Apartment Communities is pleased with the Planning Commission’s work on creating a neighborhood. Mayor Brownrigg asked for Ms. Breeze’s opinion on what the height and density should be for Rollins Road. Ms. Breeze discussed the opportunity for increased density on Rollins Road because of its proximity to public transit. She added that it would be good to decrease the parking ratio near transit. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the parking ratio should be less than one space per unit. Ms. Breeze stated that only if the unit size drops below 525 square feet. Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff stated that the Rollins Road live/work change area should look like it belongs to Burlingame. She thought the setbacks should be increased so as to plant larger trees to create a neighborhood. Burlingame resident Adrienne Leigh discussed the need for trees to separate the cars from the pedestrian walk ways. She discussed the isolation of the new neighborhood and suggested creating pedestrian/bicycle paths. Mayor Brownrigg closed public comments. Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 16 Mayor Brownrigg asked if the street design of Rollins Road was something that needed to be decided now or is that something that would occur later. CDD Gardiner stated that the interim zoning would discuss setbacks and frontage requirements. He explained that these requirements would define the space between the curb and the building in order to incorporate a feature of a specific plan. He added that these requirements were incorporated in order to anticipate the streetscape plan by ensuring there is enough room for trees and sidewalks. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the City is committed to maintaining Rollins Road as six lanes. CDD Gardiner stated that the frontage standards for Rollins Road are stating how far back from the street a project must be and what should be designed between the curb and the building. He stated that on Rollins Road there would be a 15 foot sidewalk between the curb and the building, of which five feet would be for street trees. He noted that this is an urban standard. Councilmember Ortiz asked CDD Gardiner to comment on Ms. Pfaff’s statement that 25 feet is needed for large trees to grow. CDD Gardiner stated that 15 feet is an urban standard and would create a sidewalk like Burlingame Avenue. However, the trees on Burlingame Avenue are medium sized. Therefore, if the decision is to have larger trees, there would need to be more space. Mayor Brownrigg stated that they could also push the setbacks back. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. City Attorney Kane stated that the concern is the order of operations. She stated that once the General Plan is adopted, the City will process applications under those standards. She noted that the purpose of interim zoning is to have something in place for the first few projects. She stated that Council didn’t need to make determinations at this meeting about the width of Rollins Road and the pedestrian experience. She stated that these would be topics discussed a later date. She added that the interim zoning was trying to look ahead a bit at how to process the first few applications. City Attorney Kane noted that if the City requires larger setbacks to accommodate larger trees, then the buildings are even further apart and would give the perception of an eight lane road. She added that this could be fixed by utilizing traffic lanes for the pedestrian experience. Next, Mayor Brownrigg asked the Council if they had a point of view on the interim zoning. Councilmember Beach stated that she appreciated the discussion and stated that Rollins Road is ripe for a road diet and green infrastructure. She explained that because the City envisioned creating a transit oriented neighborhood in the Rollins Road change area, she was reluctant to take away additional space for larger setbacks. Councilmember Beach asked what the upside is for the City to decrease the parking requirements to something that is more aligned with modern transit oriented development. CDD Gardiner stated that the interim zoning suggests utilizing the Downtown Specific Plan parking ratios for Rollins Road and North Burlingame: 1 space for studios and one bedroom units, and 1.5 spaces for two bedroom units. He explained Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 17 that this was chosen because it is an understood standard. However, he noted that staff has heard from developers that a 1 to 1 ratio would be more suitable in some circumstances if the parking was unbundled. He explained that unbundling the parking means that instead of automatically including a certain number of spaces, the parking is sold or rented separately. Councilmember Beach asked what the community benefit of decreasing the parking ratio in these areas is. CDD Gardiner stated that parking is an expensive component of housing. Therefore, if the parking ratio was decreased, it would make these areas more attractive to build in. Councilmember Beach stated that an additional benefit is that it frees up some more resources for community investment in green or other fees the City has to create neighborhoods. She added that she would be in favor of decreasing the parking ratio to one per unit unbundled. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the interim zoning was developed by a Planning Commission working group. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he wasn’t interested in second guessing the interim zoning because a lot of work went into it by people who had the same goals as the Council. Councilmember Ortiz agreed. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she was comfortable as well but agreed that Ms. Pfaff’s question about tree- scaping on Rollins Road had to be addressed. Councilmember Keighran stated that she was okay with the interim zoning. She added that she envisioned decreasing the number of lanes on Rollins Road to make it friendlier to pedestrians. Mayor Brownrigg stated that there are a series of comments on the draft General Plan. CDD Gardiner explained that the staff and consulting team had not yet prepared responses to the comments that are redlined in the draft General Plan. He suggested allowing staff and the consulting team a chance to respond to the comments and have this compiled and brought back to Council. The Council agreed. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the one comment he would make is that the City has to do a better job of laying out the regional context against which the City is operating. He stated that the draft General Plan has been built against the background of a housing crisis and it has informed many of the City’s decisions. Vice Mayor Colson asked for a timeline of the adoption of the General Plan. City Attorney Kane stated that staff and the consulting team will have to review necessary steps and then would present a timeline to Council. Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 18 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. APPROVAL OF THE INITIAL STUDY/MITGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PLAN FOR THE NEW COMMUNITY CENTER CDD Gardiner explained that at the last City Council meeting, Group 4 provided a progress update on the Community Center. He noted that the project is subject to CEQA and that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. He added that because the Community Center is a municipal facility, rather than a development project, staff is requesting that the City Council take action to adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigated Monitoring Report Program. City Attorney Kane noted that there was a noticing issue for this staff report as it should have been on the public hearing portion of the agenda. Therefore, in order to avoid any issues, she suggested having any of the substantive discussion at this meeting and that the item be noticed for a public hearing at the December 3 meeting. Group 4 Architect Dawn Merkes stated that she received three questions from Council. The first question asked how many trees would be removed. She explained that the project called for the removal of 41 trees. She stated that she would need to come back to Council with more information about the trees that are protected and their status. She added that her preliminary analysis shows that there are 21 trees that are protected, and 14 of those trees are in poor health. Ms. Merkes stated that the second question asked whether a TDM strategy would be applied to the project. She explained that this is a management plan and would be something that could be added as a goal. Ms. Merkes stated that the third question concerned curb management and utilizing the driveway for drop- offs. She explained that she has been working on creating two drop-off zones. Vice Mayor Colson asked if there is a tree replanting diagram. Ms. Merkes responded in the affirmative. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. b. PROVIDE DIRECTION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO PROCEED WITH A REVIEW AND POTENTIAL MODIFICATION OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL (BAC) ZONING REGULATIONS TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL RECREATION USES CDD Gardiner stated that at the Economic Development Subcommittee’s October meeting, the members discussed the retail environment in the city’s two commercial districts. He explained that commercial recreation was discussed as a potential use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District. Currently, commercial recreation is allowed as a conditional use in the Howard Mixed Use Zone and on Broadway. He Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 19 stated that staff is requesting that City Council authorize the Planning Commission to review the proposal to allow commercial recreation as a conditional use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial zone. Councilmember Keighran stated that while she agreed that the Planning Commission should look into this, she wasn’t sure if she agreed with allowing commercial recreation businesses on Burlingame Avenue. Councilmember Ortiz stated that this request makes him think of the Pilates studio and how it has increased foot traffic on Broadway. Therefore, he saw how it could be beneficial for a street but was concerned that it might not be appropriate on Burlingame Avenue. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Commercial broker Christina DeRockere discussed the interest she has received from fitness companies to take over the space at Sole Desire. Mayor Brownrigg closed the public comment. City Manager Goldman stated that this discussion occurred at two different Economic Development Subcommittee meetings. At the first meeting, the commercial broker who represents the J Crew space discussed the difficulty of leasing the space because of its size. She stated that at the second meeting, in October, six property owners and others joined the conversation. She explained that they told a compelling story about how it was important to open Burlingame Avenue up to different uses provided there is a retail front. Vice Mayor Colson stated that the property owners, real estate agents, and small business owners told the Subcommittee members that the City needed to rethink programing in the major commercial downtown areas. She discussed the interest of several fitness studios, like SoulCycle, to open on Burlingame Avenue. She stated that her concern is that if the City doesn’t get ahead of this, Burlingame Avenue could end up having several empty storefronts. She added that the State is considering taxing services. Therefore, the City would be able to capture these taxes by incorporating commercial recreation into the downtown commercial areas. Councilmember Beach agreed. Mayor Brownrigg stated that he gets the pressure to try to fill up the spot. He added that while he could get comfortable with allowing fitness studios on Burlingame Avenue, he wouldn’t be okay with fast food or banks. Councilmember Keighran asked if the commercial recreation would include entertainment uses like music venues. City Manager Goldman stated that it wasn’t something that came up at the Subcommittee but the Council can ask the Planning Commission to include entertainment in the study. Agenda Item 8b Meeting Date: 12/03/18 Burlingame City Council November 19, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 20 Vice Mayor Colson stated that the Planning Commission should first look into the commercial recreation uses like fitness as there is immediate need, but could later look into entertainment. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS a. VICE MAYOR COLSON’S COMMITTEE REPORT b. COUNCILMEMBER BEACH’S COMMITTEE REPORT 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no future agenda items. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Parking & Safety Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Brownrigg adjourned meeting at 11:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8c MEETING DATE: December 3, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: December 3, 2018 From: Sonya M. Morrison, Human Resources Director – (650) 558-7209 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving Labor Agreements with the Police Sergeants Association, Police Officers Association, and Association of Police Administrators and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Memoranda of Understanding on Behalf of the City RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to approve the Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Burlingame and the Burlingame Police Sergeants Association, the Burlingame Police Officers Association, and the Burlingame Association of Police Administrators, and authorize the City Manager to execute the MOUs on behalf of the City effective January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2021. BACKGROUND The Burlingame Police Sergeants Association (PSA), the Burlingame Police Officers Association (POA), and the Burlingame Association of Police Administrators (APA) labor agreements expire on December 31, 2018. The City and labor groups have met and conferred in good faith on the terms and conditions of employment as provided by State law. The City and the bargaining units have been meeting since August 8, 2018 to negotiate the terms of successor agreements. The City and the labor group negotiators reached tentative agreements on November 8, 2018. The PSA and POA members ratified the tentative agreement on November 12, 2012, and the APA members ratified the tentative agreement on November 9, 2018. Each labor group should be commended and recognized for working diligently with the City to reach an agreement so swiftly. DISCUSSION The major terms of the tentative agreements are as follows: Term: • Three years, January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2021 2 Adoption of a Resolution Approving Memoranda of Understanding December 3, 2018 Salary: • 3.0 % increase effective the first pay period in January 2019, plus 2.0% equity adjustment • 4.0% increase effective the first pay period in January 2020 • 2.0% increase effective the first pay period in January 2021 Health Reimbursement Arrangement: • The City shall contribute 1.0% of base pay to a Retiree Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) account for POA and PSA bargaining units. • The City shall contribute 1.0% of base pay to a Retiree Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) account for APA bargaining unit members. Employees in the unit shall contribute 1.0% of base pay to the retiree HRA account. Retiree Medical: • For employees hired on or after November 1, 2010, the City shall make contributions, based on base pay, to a retiree HRA account based on years of service. From date of hire (for the POA this is the date of becoming a sworn officer) to the 5th year, the contribution will be 2.0%; starting the 5th year through the 19th year of service, the contribution will be 3.0%; for 20 or more years of service the contribution is 5.5%. • The City shall make one-time retroactive payments to retiree HRA accounts for Police Officers hired and sworn in between November 1, 2010 and December 31, 2018, based on the formula above. Medical: • The City will contribute up to the third highest cost Bay Area premium rate for employee only, up to the third highest cost Bay Area premium rate for employee plus one, and up to the Bay Area premium Kaiser Family rate for employee plus two or more. • Cash in lieu of medical insurance ($350) shall be taken as taxable income. Pension Contribution: • All employees will continue to contribute 4.0% towards the employer CalPERS pension rate. 1% of this contribution will end at the expiration of the MOU (December 31, 2021). Premium Pays: • The City shall increase certification pay for Peace Officer Standards Training (POST) certificates by $50 a month for PSA and APA bargaining units. • Officers assigned and issued a new canine will no longer receive a differential premium pay; they will instead receive three hours of leave per week in recognition of the time spent in care and grooming of the canine. Hours are subject to a maximum accumulation. Administrative Leave: • Effective January 1, 2020, Sergeants will no longer receive Administrative Leave; they will receive 36 hours of Personal Time Off (PTO) that must be used within the calendar year. PTO may not be taken as cash. • Administrative Leave for the APA bargaining unit will accrue on a bi-weekly basis effective January 1, 2019. 3 Adoption of a Resolution Approving Memoranda of Understanding December 3, 2018 Language Changes: • Language updates to MOUs are based on the attached tentative agreements. FISCAL IMPACT Over the life of the three year contracts, the estimated increased cost of these agreements is $1.67 million. Exhibits: • Resolution • PSA Tentative Agreements • POA Tentative Agreements • APA Tentative Agreements • PSA Memorandum of Understanding • POA Memorandum of Understanding • APA Memorandum of Understanding RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING CHANGES TO THE MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND THE POLICE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION, THE POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, AND THE ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ADMINISTRATORS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame and the Police Sergeants Association, the Police Officers Association, and the Association of Police Administrators have met and conferred in good faith on the terms and conditions of employment as provided by State law; and WHEREAS, the parties have reached agreement on changes to be made to the existing terms and conditions of employment and Memoranda of Understanding between the City and the bargaining units; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes are fair and in the best interests of the public and the employees represented by the Police Sergeants Association, the Police Officers Association, and the Association of Police Administrators. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The changes in terms and conditions of employment for the employees represented by the Police Sergeants Association, the Police Officers Association, and the Association of Police Administrators as contained in the Tentative Agreements between the City and the bargaining units are approved. 2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the attached Memoranda of Understanding as modified between the Police Sergeants Association, the Police Officers Association, and the Association of Police Administrators and the City of Burlingame. Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3rd day of December 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE BURLINGAME POLICE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME OCTOBER 2, 2017January 1, 2019 – DECEMBER 31, 202118 - 2 - TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. RECOGNITION ...............................................4 2. ASSOCIATION DUES AND RIGHTS ...............................4 3. NO DISCRIMINATION ..........................................6 4. ADVANCE NOTICE ............................................7 5. SALARY PLAN AND PREMIUM PAYS ..............................7 6. DAYS AND HOURS OF WORK ...................................9 7. COURT PAY ................................................10 8. HOLIDAYS .................................................10 9. VACATION .................................................10 10. ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE ......................................11 11. TUITION REIMBURSEMENT ....................................12 12. SICK LEAVE ................................................12 13. LEAVES OF ABSENCE ........................................13 14. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE .....................................15 15. HEALTH AND WELFARE ......................................18 16. UNIFORM ALLOWANCE .......................................22 - 3 - 17. PROBATIONARY PERIOD .....................................22 18. LAYOFF AND RECALL ........................................22 19. DEMOTION, SUSPENSION AND DISMISSAL OF PERMANENT EMPLOYEES ...............................................23 20. EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT FOR CITY BUSINESS .................24 21. LIVING DISTANCE ...........................................25 22. SENIORITY .................................................25 23. RESIGNATION ..............................................25 24. RETIREMENT ...............................................25 25. CONCERTED ACTIVITIES .....................................27 26. NO LOCKOUT ..............................................27 27. RIGHTS ...................................................27 28. EFFECT OF AGREEMENT .....................................27 30. TOTAL AGREEMENT .........................................28 31. SEPARABILITY OF PROVISIONS ................................28 32. TERM .....................................................28 APPENDIX A.....................................................30 Salary Schedule ....................................................... 30 Grievance Form ........................................................ 31 - 4 - The Burlingame Police Sergeants Officers Association and representatives of the City of Burlingame have met and conferred in good faith regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment of employees in the representation unit listed in Section 1, have freely exchanged information, opinions and proposals and have endeavored to reach agreement on all matters relating to the employment conditions and employer- employee relations of such employees. This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into pursuant to the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act and has been jointly prepared by the parties. 1. RECOGNITION The Burlingame Police Sergeants Officers Association, hereinafter referred to as the “Association”, is recognized as the majority representative, as provided in the City's Employer-Employee Relations Ordinance, for all employees assigned to the following classifications: Police Sergeant 2. ASSOCIATION DUES AND RIGHTS 2.1 The City shall deduct Association membership dues and any other agreed- upon payroll deductions, to the extent permitted by law, from the monthly pay of each member. shall be entitled to have their regular dues of its members deducted from their paychecks. 2.2 Dues paying bBargaining unit members who have affirmatively consented to or authorized dues deductions shall be entitled to have dues deducted by filling out, signing and filing with the City Association an authorization form provided by the Association. The Association will notify the City of the employee name and amount of dues to be withheld. Any employee who signs such an authorization shall not revoke such authorization during the term of this Memorandum, except during the following time periods: 2.2.1 His/her first thirty (30) calendar days of employment; 2.2.2 The first thirty (30) calendar days following approval of this Memorandum by City Council; 2.2.3 The thirty (30) calendar day period between ninety (90) calendar days and sixty (60) calendar days preceding the expiration of this Memorandum of Understanding. Revocation during said period shall be by a written signed statement furnished by the Association. 2.3. The City agrees to direct each member employee to the Association with regard to any questions or concerns related to membership dues or any other mutually agreed payroll deduction, to the extent permitted by law. - 5 - 2.4 The Association is responsible for providing the City with timely information regarding changes to member employees’ dues and any other lawful union- related payroll deduction. 2.5 The Association’s Certification The City shall make payroll deductions in reliance on the Association’s certification certifying that Association has and will maintain an authorization, signed by each member employee who affirmatively consents to pay Association membership dues. Similarly, the City shall only cancel or modify any membership dues or any other mutually agreed payroll deduction, to the extent permitted by law, for any member employees in reliance on the information provided by the Association. 2.6 The City shall not request the Association to provide a copy of any member employees’ authorization unless a dispute arises about the existence or terms of the authorization. 2.7 The Association shall indemnify, defend, protect and hold harmless the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, officers and agents (collectively hereafter the “Indemnitees”) from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, damages, fines, penalties, claims, demands, suits, actions, causes of action, judgments, costs and expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs) arising from the application of any provisions under Section 2, including, but not limited to, any claims made by any member employees for the membership dues deductions the City made in reliance on the Association’s certification, and any claims made by any member employees for any deduction cancellation or modification the City made in reliance on the information provided by the Association. In the event any such action or proceeding is brought against the City by reason of any such claim, the Association upon notice from the City, covenants to defend such action or proceeding by counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City. Further, the Association agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City for any loss or damage arising from Association’s actions or inactions under Section 2. 2.84 The employee's earnings must be regularly sufficient after other legal and required deductions are made to cover the amount of the dues check-off authorized. When a member is in good standing of the Association and is in a non-pay status for the pay period when his/her dues would normally be withheld, no dues withholding will attach to future earnings nor will the member be required to deposit the amount with the City which would have been withheld if the member had been in a pay status during that period. In - 6 - the case of an employee who is in a non-pay status during only a part of the pay period and the salary is not sufficient to cover the full withholding, no deduction shall be made. In this connection, all other legal and required deduction(s) shall be made. In this connection, all other legal and required deductions have priority over Association dues. Dues withheld by the City shall be transmitted monthly to the officer designated in writing by the Association as the person authorized to receive the funds, at the address specified. 2.95 The Association shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City harmless against any claims made and against any suit instituted against the City on account of check-off of employee organization dues. In addition, the Association shall refund to the City any amounts paid to it in error upon presentation of supporting evidence. In the event the City fails to collect an employee’s Association dues, the City shall transmit delinquent dues to the Association collected from future employee payroll deductions. 2.106 The Association may use portions of City bulletin boards to post Association materials under the following conditions: 2.106.1 All materials must receive the approval of the Police Chief or his/her designee in charge of the department bulletin board for conformance with this section. 2.106.2 All materials must be dated and must identify the organization that published them; 2.106.3 The City reserves the right to determine where bulletin boards shall be placed. 2.117 The Association shall designate in writing to the City Manager or his/her designee the names of the Association officers and representatives within thirty (30) days of any change in officers or representatives. 3. NO DISCRIMINATION The City agrees not to discriminate against any employee because of membership in the Association or because of any activities on behalf of the Association. Association activities shall not interfere with the normal operation of the City. Neither the City nor the Association shall discriminate for or against any employee or applicant for employment on account of a protected category, as defined by Federal and State law, which does not prevent an employee from meeting the minimum job standards established. - 7 - 4. ADVANCE NOTICE Except in cases of emergency, the Association shall be given reasonable advance written notice of any ordinance, resolution, rule or regulation directly relating to matters within the scope of representation proposed to be adopted by the City and shall be given the opportunity to meet and confer with management representatives prior to adoption. 5. SALARY PLAN AND PREMIUM PAYS Effective the first pay period of January 2014, the following classification shall receive an increase in base salary: Police Sergeant - 2.5% Effective the first pay period of January 2015, there shall be an increase in base salary for all classes of 2.0%; however, 0.5% of the 2.0% salary increase shall offset the City’s cost of medical premiums, such that the actual increase to base salary shall be 1.5%. Effective the first pay period of January 2016, there shall be an increase in base salary for all classes of 2.0%. Effective the first pay period of January 2017, there shall be an increase in base salary for all classes of 1.0%. Effective the first pay period of January 2018, there shall be an increase in base salary for all classes of 2.5%; however, 0.5% of the 2.5% salary increase shall offset the City’s cost of medical premiums, such that the actual increase to base salary shall be 2.0%. Effective the first pay period of January 2019, there will be an increase in base salary for all classes of three percent (3%). Effective the first pay period of January 2019, there will be a two percent (2%) equity adjustment. Effective the first pay period of January 2020, there will be an increase in base salary for all classes of four percent (4%). Effective the first pay period of January 2021, there will be an increase in base salary for all classes of two percent (2%). 5.1 Premium Pays will be provided as follows: 5.1.1 A sergeant assigned to a shift from 18:00 – 06:00 shall receive a 6% shift differential. Shift differential is compensation to employees who - 8 - are routinely and consistently scheduled to work other than a standard “daytime’ shift. 5.1.2 A sergeant that is not assigned to the shift defined above will qualify for a 6% shift differential if more than one-half (½) of the sergeant’s shift is from 18:00 – 06:00. The differential will apply to the entire shift. If less than one-half (1/2) the shift is between 18:00 - 06:00, the differential will only apply to the hours worked within 18:00 - 06:00. 5.1.3 The City will provide a 5% premium pay differential to employees designated as bi-lingual service providers, requiring communication skills in languages other than English. Such designation will be pursuant to the City’s Administrative Procedure #4.28.1. 5.1.4 Sergeants assigned to Detective, Traffic, Administrative Services and Crime Prevention shall receive a 7.0% differential. In exchange for this differential, Sergeants assigned to Traffic, Administrative Services and Crime Prevention will forego 16 hours of Paid Administrative Leave. Effective January 1, 2020, Sergeants will no longer receive Administrative Leave. Detective Premium is compensation paid to Police Sergeants who are routinely and consistently assigned to a detective or investigative division. Traffic Premium is compensation paid to Police Sergeants who are routinely and consistently assigned to the Traffic Unit. 5.1.5 The education increment for POST certifications shall be considered as wages for the purposes of computing overtime and holiday pay. 5.1.5.1 An employee with a POST certificate shall receive a premium pay differential (Peace Officer Standard Training (POST) Certificate Pay) in the following amounts: POST Advance Certificate = $430/month POST Supervisory Certificate = $700/month POST Management Certificate = $885/month Effective June 26, 2017 the POST certificate pay will be: POST Intermediate Certificate = $395.00 POST Advance Certificate = $518468.70 POST Supervisory Certificate=$81763.00 POST Management Certificate=$924.82 - 9 - 5.2 Hourly Rate of Pay The hourly rate of pay for unit members shall be calculated bi-weekly. The rates of pay set forth herein represent, for each classification, the standard rate of pay for full-time employment, except for overtime compensation, any applicable premium pay and other benefits specifically provided for by the City, unless specifically indicated otherwise in the schedule. 5.3 Acting Pay Any regular full-time unit member who is assigned to work in an upgraded position/classification within the unit for a limited duration shall receive a fifteen percent (15%) increase, on base pay, for the duration of the (acting) assignment. 6. DAYS AND HOURS OF WORK 6.1 Work Schedule: Work schedule is subject to Department policies and practices. 6.2 Overtime Definition: Overtime is authorized time worked in excess of an employee’s normal daily work schedule. 6.2.1 Effective April 15, 2002 the Department will implement an Alternative Work Schedule Program. Once implemented, Sergeants who are assigned to 12-hour shifts will be authorized overtime for time worked in excess of 12 hours in a day. Overtime shall be compensated at one and one-half (1-1/2) times the employee's regular rate of pay for every hour of overtime worked. Payment for overtime shall not be made unless such overtime has been authorized by the City prior to such overtime being worked. 6.2.2 Overtime details are assigned in accordance with Section 1037 of the Burlingame Police Manual, Department Standard Operating Procedures. 6.3 Compensatory Time Off: Compensatory Time Off shall be allowed to accrue to a maximum of 160 hours. 6.4 Shooting Range Time: Any represented employee who is required to attend the shooting range on off-duty time shall be entitled to pay at the rate of time and one-half (1½) for shooting at the range with a minimum of two (2) hours. 6.5 Call Back: - 10 - Employees shall be eligible for call back time if they are called back to work with less than 48 hours notice. Call back time shall be paid at time and one- half (1½) with a four-hour minimum. 6.6 Paid Work Details: Employees who volunteer for Paid Work Details outside their scheduled hours shall receive payment in accordance with Section 6.2 Overtime Definition for a minimum of three (3) hours or actual time worked whichever is greater. If an employee is mandatory assigned to Paid Work Detail, then the employee shall be compensated in accordance with Section 6.5 Call Back. 7. COURT PAY Any represented employee who is required to be in court on off-duty time as part of his/her job duties shall be entitled to pay at the rate of time and one-half (1½) for all court time with a minimum entitlement of three (3.0) hours at time and one-half (1½). In addition, such employee shall be entitled to a maximum of one (1) hour of total travel time at time and one-half (1½) for such court appearance, unless the employee utilizes a City vehicle to travel to court. It is understood that a represented employee who is required to appear in court during his/her shift and who is required to stay beyond the end of his/her shift, shall be entitled to pay at the rate of time and one- half (1½), but shall not be entitled to any minimum number of hours or to any travel time. 8. HOLIDAYS 8.1 Holiday Pay: Employees will receive 112 hours of holiday pay per year. Effective 1/1/03, the City agrees to pay out holiday pay over 26 pay periods. Holiday pay will be calculated by converting the number of observed and floating holidays in a calendar year to hours and multiplying that number by the employee’s hourly rate. The figure derived will be divided by 26 pay periods. 8.2 Mandatory Overtime on Holidays: Double time will be paid to any personnel who are ordered to work (mandatory) overtime on the following four holidays: New Year’s Day, July 4th, Thanksgiving and Christmas. 9. VACATION 9.1 Vacation Eligibility: - 11 - Employees shall be entitled to annual vacation leave with pay as it is accrued. 9.2 Vacation Schedule: Years of Service Bi-Weekly Accrual Rate Annual Hours of Vacation 4 & fewer 4.00 104 5 4.93 128 10 6.46 168 15 7.45 194 On an employee’s 20th anniversary date of employment with the City of Burlingame, the employee will receive a one-time allotment of 16 hours of vacation in his/her vacation accrual bank. This allotment will be provided to current active Association members that have 20 or more years of service. 9.3 Vacation Accumulation: Earned vacation time may be accumulated to a maximum of two (2) times the employee’s annual accrual. Once in a calendar year (January – December), an employee who has reached the maximum vacation accrual may request to be paid-out Forty (40) hours of accrued vacation time. Such payout is subject to the Police Chief’s approval. 9.4 Vacation During Leave of Absence: An employee who is on leave of absence without pay shall not accrue vacation leave benefits. 9.5 Vacation Scheduling: Vacations shall be scheduled bi-yearly by employees with the approval of the Police Chief or his/her designee. Scheduling shall be done in accordance with Sections 1015 of the Burlingame Police Manual, Department Standard Operating Procedures. Unit members shall be allowed to change scheduled vacation days if an opening exists on the vacation schedule, provided that the Chief or his/her designee is given notice forty-eight (48) hours in advance of such proposed change. 10. ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE In lieu of overtime, Police Sergeants receive 64 hours of administrative leave per fiscal year and are entitled to overtime. Administrative leave is prorated based on the date of promotion. Effective January 1, 2020, Sergeants will no longer receive Administrative Leave. 10.1 Administrative Leave Payout - 12 - Employees eligible for administrative leave may have a maximum of one year of administrative leave on the books and may request administrative leave payout at any time by submitting the payout request on the timesheet. When administrative leave balances exceed the one-year maximum of 64 hours for Police Sergeants, hours that exceed the one-year maximum will automatically be paid out. Effective January 1, 2020, employees with an administrative leave balance may request administrative leave payout at any time by submitting the payout request on the timesheet. PERSONAL TIME OFF Effective January 1, 2020 and then each subsequent January 1, Sergeants shall receive thirty six (36) hours of personal leave time. This must be used during the calendar year in accordance with Department staffing policy or be forfeited on December 31. Personal Time Off (PTO) will be accounted for in a separate account. 11. TUITION REIMBURSEMENT The City will reimburse employees up to $3000 a year for the cost of tuition, and up to $500 a year for the cost of books and/or computer equipment and programs. Credit/No credit courses will be reimbursed when verification of course credit is submitted. 12. SICK LEAVE 12.1 Sick Leave Defined: Sick Leave is absence from duty with pay because of an employee's illness or injury; or to attend medical, dental, or optical examinations or treatments for the employee; or to care for an immediate family member who is ill and requires the employee’s care. Sick leave shall not be considered as a right that an employee may use at his/her discretion, but shall be allowed in case of necessity and actual personal or immediate family illness. 12.2 Sick Leave Accrual: All full time regular and probationary members shall accrue sick leave at the rate of 3.69 hours per bi-weekly pay period to a maximum of 2080 hours. An employee who is on paid leave shall continue to earn sick leave credit. An employee who is on leave without pay shall not accrue sick leave credit. Sick leave shall accrue during an absence that is a result of occupational disability resulting from employer service. 12.3 Maximum Sick Leave Accrual: Sick Leave with pay shall be granted to all full-time regular and probationary employees to a maximum of 2080 hours. - 13 - 12.4 Notification of Sickness: Sick leave usage will be in conformance with the Police Manual Standard operating Procedure Section 1014 12.5 Sick Leave Monitoring Program: The record keeping to determine sick days used will be from January 1 to December 31 of each year. Sick leave monitoring will be in accordance with the Department’s standard operating procedures. 12.6 Sick Leave for Care of Family: Sick leave to care for family members will be in conformance with the City’s Administrative Procedure, Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and other federal and state leave requirements. Generally, these laws grant up to twelve (12) weeks of leave in a twelve (12) month period, to care for members of the employee’s immediate family. Employees who feel they may need to exercise their rights for extended family medical leaves should talk to their supervisors and/or the Human Resources Department. The immediate family shall consist of the spouse, children, parents, brothers, sisters, grandparents, grandchildren, domestic partners, and stepchildren. The employer shall grant such sick leave only for the purposes of sickness or disability as provided above when the relationship of the sick or disabled person to the employee warrants such use of accumulated sick leave. 12.7 Sick Leave Upon Retirement: Upon retirement, the employee shall be entitled to and be compensated for up to 600 hours of the employee’s accumulated sick leave. 12.8 Sick Leave Conversion: Employees can elect to have all sick leave hours converted to CalPERS credible service per GC Section 20965. If an employee elects to have sick leave hours paid out per Section 12.7, the remaining sick leave balance not paid out is eligible for conversion to credible service per GC Section 20965. The maximum available for conversion after payout is 2080 hours. Any sick leave hours paid out at retirement are not eligible for conversion. 13. LEAVES OF ABSENCE 13.1 Industrial Accident Leave: Industrial accident leave means the absence from duty of an employee because of work-incurred illness or bodily injury when such absence has been accepted for coverage under the provisions of the Worker's Compensation laws of the State of California, and such leave shall not be deducted from the employee's sick leave balance. Police unit members shall be provided - 14 - benefits pursuant to Section 4850 of the Labor Code of the State of California and other applicable State law. All temporary disability benefits shall be assigned to the City. 13.1.1 Benefits During Disability: No represented employee shall be denied the normal accrual of vacation or sick leave benefits during a period of disability covered by Section 4850 of the Labor Code. While covered by Section 4850, all benefits, which include medical, dental, vision, and life insurance are continued. 13.2 Military Leaves of Absence: In addition to the leaves of absence herein provided for members of the classified service, those Sergeants/Commanders or employees in such service who are members of the National Guard or Reserve Corps in the federal Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine or Coast Guard Service shall be entitled to leaves of absence authorized and provided by the military and veterans’ code of the State of California, and in addition thereto shall be entitled to the rights and privileges authorized by said military and veterans’ code with respect to status and re-employment. 13.3 Other Leaves of Absence With or Without Pay: The City Manager may, for good cause, grant other leaves of absence with or without pay for up to one (1) year. 13.4 Jury Duty Leave: Every full-time employee of the City who is called and required to serve as a trial juror shall be entitled to jury duty leave during the period of such service or while necessarily being present in court as a result of such call. Under such circumstances, the employee shall be paid his/her full salary and shall reimburse the City any payments received, except for travel pay. 13.5 Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL): Failure on the part of any employee, to report to duty at his/her regularly scheduled starting time shall be considered absence without official leave and may be cause for disciplinary action. 13.6 Bereavement Leave: In the event of a death in the immediate family or a member of the household of an employee, absence from duty shall not exceed three (3) work days. In the event of the death of a relative not a member of the immediate family, absence from duty shall not exceed one (1) day. Such absences shall not be charged to sick leave. In the event of the death of a non-family member, an employee shall be allowed to use vacation or CTO. For the purposes of this section, "immediate family" means parent, spouse, - 15 - domestic partner, child, sibling, grandparents, mother-in-law, or father-in-law. 14. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 14.1 Definitions: 14.1.1 "Days" as used herein shall be days when the City Hall of the City of Burlingame is open for business. 14.1.2 "Grievance" is a written allegation by a unit employee, submitted as herein specified, claiming violation(s) of the specific express terms of this Agreement for which there is no Civil Service or other specific method of review provided by City law. 14.1.3 "Grievant" is an individual employee or employee organization adversely affected by any dispute over the interpretation or application of any provision of this Memorandum of Understanding. 14.2 Steps: 14.2.1 Step 1: The grievant shall discuss the grievance with his/her immediate supervisor within fifteen (15) days of actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of the grievance. If the issue is not resolved, the grievant shall be entitled to proceed to Step 2. 14.2.2 Step 2: Within ten (10) days of the conclusion of the Step 1 meeting, the grievant shall file with the Police Chief a written grievance on the agreed upon form, which is attached as “Appendix A,” setting forth the following: Name Classification Section or sections of the MOU allegedly violated Remedy sought Within ten (10) days of receipt of the written grievance, the Police Chief will meet with the grievant and his/her representative to attempt to reach a satisfactory resolution. 14.2.3 Step 3: If the grievance remains unresolved at Steps 1 and 2, it may be appealed to the Human Resources Director within ten (10) days of the conclusion for the meeting described in Step 3. Said appeal shall be in the form of a written request to proceed to Step 3, along with the written grievance. The Human Resources Director shall respond to the grievance within ten (10) days of receipt of the written appeal. The determination of the Human Resources Director shall be final, except - 16 - as provided in Step 4. 14.2.4 Step 4: (a) If not satisfied with the decision at Step 3, the grievant, within five (5) days after receipt of the Step 3 response, may request in writing that the Association submit the grievance to advisory arbitration. Within ten (10) days of the grievant's receipt of the decision at Step 3, the Association shall inform the City of its intent as to whether or not the grievance will be arbitrated. Should the Association deem that the grievance not be continued as an Association grievance, it shall so inform the City within ten (10) days. This shall not preclude an individual grievant from pursuing the arbitration procedure, as provided below. (b) The Association or individual grievant, by written notice to the City Manager within fifteen (15) days of the Step 3 response, may submit a grievance to an arbitrator who shall be selected by mutual agreement. If no agreement can be reached within five (5) days of the notice, the parties shall request of the State Mediation Conciliation Service (SMCS) a list of five (5) names of persons experienced in hearing grievances. Each party shall alternately strike a name until only one name remains. The order of strike shall be determined by lot. (c) In each dispute, the arbitrator shall, as soon as possible, hear evidence and render a decision on the issue(s) submitted. If the parties cannot agree upon a submission agreement, the arbitrator shall determine the issue(s) by referring to the written grievance and the answers thereto at each step. After the hearing, and after both parties have been given the opportunity to make written arguments, the arbitrator shall submit, in writing, his/her findings and award to the Association and the City. (d) The award of the arbitrator shall be advisory to the City Manager. (e) The arbitrator will have no power to add to, subtract from, or modify the terms of the Agreement or the written policies, rules, regulations and procedures of the City; nor shall the arbitrator be empowered to render a decision on issues not before the arbitrator or on facts not supported by the evidence. (f) The fees and expenses of the arbitrator and each hearing shall be borne equally by the City and the Association; or if an individual pursues arbitration without the Association’s consent, said individual shall share equally in the cost with the City. All other expenses shall be borne by the party incurring them. - 17 - (g) If any question arises regarding the arbitrability of a grievance, the party raising the question of arbitrability may, upon request, have such question first ruled upon and decided by an arbitrator prior to any other hearing on the merits of the grievance that would thereafter be conducted by a second and different arbitrator. The selection of the arbitrator will be as described in Section 14.2.5 (b) above. The fees and expenses of the separate arbitrator deciding the issue or arbitrability shall be borne by the party that raised the question of arbitrability. 14.3 Failure to Pursue: 14.3.1 Any failure by a grievant to pursue his/her grievance to the next step within the time limits shall be a voluntary abandonment of the grievance and the grievant shall not thereafter be entitled to pursue said grievance. The grievance will be deemed settled. 14.3.2 Any failure by the City to respond within the time limits set forth shall entitle the grievant to pursue his/her grievance to the next step. 14.3.3 By mutual written consent by both the City and grievant, an extension can be granted for any step in the grievance process. 14.4 Representation: 14.4.1 A grievant shall be entitled to be represented by his/her Association and/or his/her attorney at any grievance meeting or discussion described in any one (1) of the steps of the grievance procedure; provided, however, in no event shall more than one (1) City employee, in addition to the grievant, attend such grievance meetings as representative. The limitations of this Section shall apply to employees on paid release time and not to Association staff or witnesses who may be necessary to the grievance. 14.4.2 Neither the grievant nor his/her representative shall suffer loss or pay for attending the meetings described in the steps of the grievance procedure. 14.4.3 Except for grievance meetings described in the steps of the grievance procedure, neither grievant nor any representative of the grievant shall be entitled to use regular work time to process the grievance. 14.5 Other Procedures: The grievance procedure set forth herein shall supersede and replace any other grievance or appeal procedures otherwise available to represented employees and are deemed sufficient to satisfy procedural due process requirements for such hearings and/or appeals. Nothing contained herein to the grievance procedure shall apply to employee disciplinary matters. - 18 - 15. HEALTH AND WELFARE 15.1 Flexible Benefits Plan: Under the Flexible Benefit Plan the City’s monthly contribution for the individual employee and the employee’s eligible dependents shall be oOne hHundred and nineteen thirty six dollars ($13619.00) per month effective January 1, 20194 and shall adjust in accordance with the Minimum Employer Contribution (MEC) established by the Public Employees Medical and Hospital Care Act. In addition, the City shall offer an Internal Revenue Code Section 125 Plan that contains the components of benefit allowance, premium conversion, health care reimbursement account, and dependent care reimbursement account. The City shall contribute the below-listed amount per month toward each employee’s Section 125 Plan benefit allowance components. All amounts listed below include the Minimum Employer Contribution (MEC): • Employee only: third highest plan CalPERS Bay Area Region premium rate for Employee only • Employee plus one: third highest plan CalPERS Bay Area Region premium rate for Employee plus one • Employee plus two or more: CalPERS Bay Area Region premium Kaiser family rate An employee may use any benefit allowance stated above toward the cost of employer-provided PERS Health insurance for the employee and eligible dependents. An employee may not use the benefit allowance for other reasons. Any employee that enrolls in a Medical Plan that has a higher premium than the City’s contribution, as stated above, will pay the difference via pre-tax payroll deductions. NO PLAN – Any employee that demonstrates they have medical insurance from another service will receive three hundred and fifty dollars ($35200) per month in lieu of medical benefits. The two hundred dollars ($200) per month may be put into a deferred compensation plan, Section 125 Plan, or taken in cash. Any cash payment is subject to normal taxation. Effective January 1, 2015, the City’s contribution in lieu of medical benefits will increase to three hundred and fifty dollars ($350.00) per month. 15.2 Retiree Medical Benefits 15.2.1 Retiree Medical for Employees Hired Prior to June 26, 2006 Who - 19 - Retire Prior to January 1, 2014 (Tier 1): Employees hired prior to June 26, 2006 who retire prior to January 1, 2014 with a minimum of five (5) years of service with the City, will receive a retiree medical benefit equivalent to the amount necessary for actual enrollment in single, two-party, or family coverage, up to a maximum dollar amount of the Kaiser family premium rate. 15.2.2 Retiree Medical for Employees Hired Prior to June 26, 2006 Who Retire On or After January 1, 2014 (Tier 1a): Effective January 1, 2014, employees hired prior to June 26, 2006, who retire from the City with five (5) years of City service, will receive a retiree medical benefit in accordance with the following: • For eligible retirees, the City contribution will be equivalent to the Bay Area Region premiums for Blue Shield Access HMO Single, Blue Shield Two-Party, or Kaiser Family coverage as applicable. • For eligible retirees who are 65 years of age or older and enrolled in Medicare, or a Medicare Combination plan, the City contribution will be equivalent to the Medicare, or Medicare Combination supplement plan premium for the Bay Area Region for Blue Shield Access HMO Single, Blue Shield Two-Party, or Kaiser Family coverage as applicable. If the Blue Shield Access HMO or Kaiser is no longer offered by CalPERS medical, the employee will receive the contribution equal to the third highest cost plan offered by CalPERS medical. 15.2.3 Retiree Medical for Employees Hired After June 26, 2006 and Before November 1, 2010 (Tier 2): Employees hired on or after June 26, 2006 (the date of implementation of the 3.0% @50 Retirement Benefit) and before November 1, 2010, will receive retiree medical contributions based on years of service with the Police Department. The retiree medical contribution for employees who have a service retirement will be as follows: Years of Service Monthly Contribution 0-end of 9th year of service Minimum monthly amount as governed by the CalPERS Health System. 10 years to the end of the 14th year of service 50% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee +1 dependent. - 20 - Years of Service Monthly Contribution 15 years to the end of the 19th year of service 75% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee +1 dependent. 20 years of service or more 100% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee +1 dependent. 15.2.4 Industrial Disability Retiree Medical Benefits for Employees Hired On or After June 26, 2006 and Before November 1, 2010 (Tier 2): This section does not affect employees hired before June 26, 2006. For employees hired before June 26, 2006, the City’s contribution for health insurance premiums shall equal the amount received by active employees. Employees hired after the implementation of 3% @50 (June 26, 2006) and before November 1, 2010 that have an industrial disability retirement will have a retiree medical contribution as follows: Years of Service Monthly Contribution 0-end of 19th year of service 75% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee +1 dependent. 0-end of 19th year of service 100% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee +1 dependent if the disability is the direct result of performing a specific job task unique to that of a Police Officer (examples include, but are not limited to, operation of an emergency vehicle, involvement in a shooting, apprehension of a suspect, rescue of a citizen, assault by a suspect or other individual or direct involvement in a vehicle accident). 20 years of service or more 100% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee +1 dependent. 15.2.5 Retiree Medical for Employees Hired On or After November 1, 2010 (Tier 3): Employees hired on or after November 1, 2010 shall receive the following contributions to a Retireemeent Health Savings AccountReimbursement Arrangement (HRA) (RHSA), based on years of service with the Police Department, in lieu of the Retiree - 21 - Medical Benefits in Section 15.2.1, 15.2.2 and 15.2.3. Years of Service Monthly Contribution 0- to the end of the 45th year of service 20.0% 56 years of service to the end of the 19th year of service 32.0% 20 years of service or more 52.5% 15.3 Dental: The City will continue to provide dental coverage provided through Delta Dental. 15.4 Vision: The Association will continue vision coverage under the City’s self-insured vision pool. 15.5 Life Insurance: During the term hereof, the City agrees to provide life insurance to the extent of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) coverage for members of the bargaining unit. The City also agrees to offer supplemental life insurance. The cost for supplemental life insurance will be paid for by the employee through payroll deduction. 15.6 Deferred Compensation: Full time regular employees are eligible, subject to IRS regulations and the terms and conditions thereof, to participate in the deferred compensation plans made available to all city employees. Effective January 1, 2006, the City shall provide a matching contribution of up to forty-five dollars ($45.00) per pay period to an employee’s deferred compensation account. 15.7 Section 125 Flexible Benefit Plans: The City will provide dependent daycare reimbursement and healthcare reimbursement plans per the provisions of IRS Section 125. 15.8 Retiree Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) The City shall contribute one percent (1%) of base salary per pay period into the retiree HRA plan. Fees will be paid in accordance with the Plan Document. During the term of this MOU, the Association may elect to contribute a set - 22 - amount of salary to the retiree HRA for each employee in the bargaining unit, and/or contribute separation pay to the retiree HRA. The City shall be notified of any such election sixty (60) days prior to the effective date. 16. UNIFORM ALLOWANCE Effective January 1, 2008 the City agrees to pay one thousand and sixty dollars ($1,060) annually per employee. Effective June 26, 2017, uniform allowance will be paid bi-weekly with the regular payroll check. 16.1 It is understood that the City shall provide and maintain all employees with required safety equipment. Any failure or refusal by any employee to care for and maintain a proper uniform or equipment shall be deemed cause for discipline. 17. PROBATIONARY PERIOD 17.1 All original appointments shall be tentative and subject to a probationary period of twelve (12) months of actual service from the date of appointment. Upon satisfactory completion of such probationary period, employees shall be appointed as regular employees. 17.2 The City may extend the probationary period for an equal period of time in case of an absence of thirty (30) days or more for extended sick or accident leave. 17.3 Employees may be suspended or separated from the City at any time during the probationary period, except as otherwise provided by law. 17.4 All promotional appointments shall be tentative and subject to a probationary period of one (1) year from date of appointment. Upon satisfactory completion of such probationary period, employees shall be appointed as regular employees. 17.5 Any regular employee rejected during the probationary period following a promotional appointment, or prior to the conclusion of the probationary period, shall be reinstated to the position from which they were promoted unless conditions warrant their dismissal. 18. LAYOFF AND RECALL 18.1 Permanent employees may be laid off, without prejudice, due to lack of funds - 23 - or curtailment of work. No permanent employee, however, may be separated while there are temporary employees serving in the same class or position in the City service, unless that employee has been offered the temporary work. 18.2 When the Police Chief is instructed by the City Manager to reduce the number of employees, layoff shall be made in accordance with the following rules: 18.2.1 Layoffs shall be according to reverse order of seniority as defined by total City service. 18.2.2 An employee may demote or transfer to a vacant position for which he/she possesses the necessary skills as determined by the minimum qualifications and job specifications for the position. 18.2.3 The name of each employee laid off shall be entered on a Reemployment List in order of seniority for two (2) years 18.2.4 Former employees appointed from a reemployment eligibility list shall be restored all rights accrued prior to being laid off, such as sick leave, vacation credits, and credit for years of service. However, such reemployed employees shall not be eligible for benefits for which they received compensation at the time of or subsequent to the date they were laid off. 18.2.5 The City further agrees to meet and confer with the Association and reach mutual agreement prior to said layoff concerning all ramifications of the proposed layoff. 19. DEMOTION, SUSPENSION AND DISMISSAL OF PERMANENT EMPLOYEES 19.1 Demotion: No permanent employee shall be demoted in grade or pay step for disciplinary reasons without just cause, and no employee shall be demoted to a position for which he does not possess the minimum qualifications. Written notice of demotion shall be given by the Police Chief to the employee before the effective date of the demotion. The employee shall be entitled to appeal the action in accordance with Section 19.5 of this Agreement. 19.2 Suspension Without Pay: The Police Chief may suspend without pay an employee from his position at any time for disciplinary purposes. Suspension without pay shall not exceed thirty (30) calendar days without confirmation by the City Manager. Such suspension shall be in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws. The employee shall be entitled to appeal the action in accordance with Section 19.5 of this agreement. - 24 - 19.3 Discharge: A permanent employee may be discharged for just cause. Such discharge shall be in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws. The employee shall be entitled to appeal the action in accordance with Section 19.5 of this agreement. 19.4 The Police Chief will issue a notice of Intended Discipline before suspending without pay, demoting or discharging a Police OfficerSergeant. Such notice will advise the employee of his/her due process rights to a "Skelly" hearing. At the employee’s request, the Police Chief will conduct such a "Skelly" hearing to consider any exonerating or mitigating evidence. 19.5 Within five (5) business days upon receipt of the Notice of Imposition of Discipline, the employee, by written notice to the Human Resources Director, may request an appeal hearing be submitted to an ad hoc review board. Business days are defined as days that City Hall is open to the public. The ad hoc review board shall be selected as follows: The City shall select one member, the employee shall select one member and the two members thus chosen will select a third impartial member from a list supplied by the State Mediation Conciliation Service (SMCS) who will serve as Chair of the board. SMCS will supply a list of five names of persons experienced in disciplinary hearings. Each party shall alternately strike a name until one remains. The remaining panel member shall be the third member of the ad hoc review board. The order of the striking shall be determined by lot. The City will pay the fees of the panel Chair selected from SMCS. The board shall, as soon as possible, hear and receive evidence and render a decision on the disciplinary action. Such a hearing will not be open to the public and will be recorded by a Court Reporter paid for by the City. The disciplinary action can be upheld, modified, or rejected by the panel. The board's decision will be explained in writing and any changes or modifications to the disciplinary action clearly explained. The decision by the board is advisory to the Human Resources Director. The Human Resources Director can adopt the proposed decision in its entirety; reject the proposed decision; refer the case back to the panel to take additional evidence and then render a decision; or modify the decision. 20. EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT FOR CITY BUSINESS If prior approval has been obtained from the City, personal expenses incurred shall be reimbursed. These reimbursements shall be based on the most economical means of travel but if use of a personal auto is authorized, payment shall be at the same rate established by the IRS. Upon prior department head authorization, the - 25 - cost of food at meetings shall be reimbursed. If required to stay overnight or nights, the City shall reimburse the employee for all lodging and necessary expenses. Use of Personal Cell Phone For City Business A Sergeant who uses their personal cell phone for City business will receive $40 per month, paid twice a year. 21. LIVING DISTANCE SEPARATION PAYS Accumulated Leave Allowance For Separated Employees Employees who separate shall be paid the straight-time, base pay, salary equivalent in a lump sum for all eligible accrued leave earned (vacation, administrative leave, holiday, eligible sick leave). The living area requirement is within the ten bay area counties (San Mateo, San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and San Joaquin), except as may be agreed to by the City Manager. 22. SENIORITY Seniority begins on the first day of permanent employment with the City of Burlingame. If an employee is rehired after separating service for more than six (6) months, the prior employment shall not be attributed for seniority purposes. The City shall keep an up-to-date seniority list of all employees covered by this Agreement. 23. RESIGNATION In order to leave the Department in good standing, an employee shall file with the Police Chief a written resignation. The written resignation must be submitted within two (2) weeks of separation and shall state the effective date and reasons for leaving. Once the resignation has been accepted in writing by the Police Chief, it shall be irrevocable. 24. RETIREMENT The City agrees to continue to maintain a contract with the Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) to provide: 24.1 Classic Employees A classic employee is 1) any full-time employee hired prior to January 1, 2013 or 2) a full-time employee hired after January 1, 2013, who was already a member of a public employee retirement system at the time of hire by the City with a break in service of no more than six months between - 26 - the employee’s prior public employee retirement system participating agency and the City. Classic employees shall be members of PERS, as provided by the terms of the contract in effect between the City and PERS which includes: • Government Code Section 21362.2 - 3.0% @ 50 Benefit formula • Government Code Section 20042 – One Year Final Compensation • Government Code Section 21574 – 4th level 1959 Survivor Benefits • Government Code Section 21624 – Post Retirement Survivor Allowance • Government Code Section 2102 – Military Service Credit as Public Service • Effective the first pay period of January 2015, employees shall contribute an additional 1.0% towards retirement for a total contribution of 10.0% • Effective the first pay period of January 2016, employees shall contribute an additional 1.0% towards retirement for a total contribution of 11.0% • Effective the first pay period of January 2017, employees shall contribute an additional 1.0% towards retirement for a total contribution of 12.0% • Effective the first pay period of January 2018, employees shall contribute an additional 1.0% towards retirement for a total contribution of 13.0%. The additional 1.0% effective the first pay period of January 2018 shall sunset on December 31, 202118. 24.2 For New Members Hired On or After January 1, 2013 New members of PERS, who are hired after January 1, 2013, shall have the PERS 2.7% @ 57 formula, as provided by the terms of the contract in effect between the City and PERS. The employee contribution rate shall be 50 percent of the “normal cost” (as defined by Government Code Section 7522.04(g)) for the 2.7% @ 57 formula rounded to the nearest quarter of 1 percent. Other terms shall include: • Government Code Section 7522.32 – Three Year Final Compensation • Government Code Section 7533.3 – No employer payment for employee contribution. • Government Code Section 21574 – 4th level 1959 Survivor Benefits - 27 - • Government Code Section 21624 – Post Retirement Survivor Allowance • Government Code Section 2102 – Military Service Credit as Public Service • Employees shall make retirement contributions in accordance with PEPRA. The City shall provide the deferral of retirement deductions by IRS 414 H(2). 25. CONCERTED ACTIVITIES It is agreed and understood that there will be no strike, work stoppage, slow down or refusal to perform job functions during the term of this Agreement. 26. NO LOCKOUT The City agrees not to engage in any lockout during the term of this Agreement. 27. RIGHTS 27.1 City Rights: The City hereby retains and reserves unto itself, without limitation, all powers, rights, authority, duties and responsibilities conferred upon and vested in it by the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of California, the laws of the United States, the laws of California, and the ordinances and resolutions of the City of Burlingame and shall be limited only by the express and specific terms of the Memorandum. 27.2 Employee Rights: Nothing contained in this Memorandum of Understanding shall prohibit the Association from meeting and conferring on matters within the scope of representation as provided by law. The City acknowledges the employees and the Association retain all rights under Section 3500 et. seq. of the California Labor Code. 28. EFFECT OF AGREEMENT This Memorandum of Understanding shall supersede any prior Memoranda of Understanding, rules, regulations or ordinances in direct conflict with the provisions hereof. 29. MODIFICATION There will be no alteration or modification of any provision contained in this Memorandum without the written consent of all parties hereto. - 28 - 30. TOTAL AGREEMENT This Memorandum of Understanding constitutes a full and complete agreement by the parties and contains all of the matters upon which the parties reached agreement. Any matter not contained in this Memorandum has not been agreed upon and, if raised in negotiations, was dropped by the party raising it as part of a good faith attempt to reach agreement. 31. SEPARABILITY OF PROVISIONS Should any section, clauses or provision of this Memorandum of Understanding be declared illegal by final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidation of such section, clause or provision shall not invalidate the remaining portions hereof, and such remaining portions shall remain in full force and effect for the duration of this Memorandum of Understanding. In the event of such invalidation, the parties agree to meet and confer concerning substitute provisions for provisions rendered or declared illegal. 32. TERM The term of this agreement shall begin on October 2, 2017January 1, 2019 and expire on December 31, 202118. - 29 - BURLINGAME POLICE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION CITY OF BURLINGAME Date:_____________________ Date:______________________ ______________________ _______________________ Kevin KashiwaharaDavid Perna Sonya M. Morrison, Human Resources Director ___________________________ _______________________ Laura Terada Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager - 30 - APPENDIX A Salary Schedule City of Burlingame Classifications and Salaries for the Burlingame Police Sergeants Association Effective January 20197 A B C D E Police Monthly $9,080.848,478 .38 $9,509.848,879 .87 $9,983.479,321 .50 $10,489.349,79 3.83 $11,024.9710,2 94.51 Sergeant Biweekly $4,191.163,913 .10 $4,389.164,098 .40 $4,607.764,302 .23 $4,841.245,520 .23 $5,088.454,751 .31 Hourly $52.3848.91 $54.8651.23 $57.5953.78 $60.5156.50 $63.6159.39 - 31 - Appendix B Grievance Form CITY OF BURLINGAME POLICE DEPARTMENT GRIEVANCE FORM DEFINITION: A grievance is defined section 16.1.2 in the current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Please check this definition before filing a grievance. A “working day” is defined as days when the City Hall of the City of Burlingame is open for business. 1. Employee Name:_____________________________________ 2. Date filed with Supervisor:_____________________________ 3. Date filed with Union:_________________________________ 4. Department:_________________________________________ 5. Specific clause(s) of the agreement allegedly violated: Specific clauses: __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 6. Statement of Grievance: __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ - 32 - 7. Remedy requested under this agreement: __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 8. Are you being represented by another person or the Union on this matter? _________ Yes ____________ No If applicable, name of representative: __________________________________________________________________ 9. Grievant ’s signature:_________________________________________ Date:_____________________________________ cc: Human Resources Director - 33 - INDEX A Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL ....................... 13 Acting Pay .......................................................................... 8 ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE ........................................... 10 ADVANCE NOTICE ......................................................... 6 ASSOCIATION DUES AND RIGHTS ........................... 4 B Bereavement Leave ........................................................ 13 bi-lingual ............................................................................. 7 C Call Back ............................................................................ 8 City Rights ....................................................................... 26 Compensatory Time Off ................................................... 8 CONCERTED ACTIVITIES .......................................... 26 COURT PAY ..................................................................... 9 D DAYS AND HOURS OF WORK .................................... 8 Deferred Compensation ................................................. 20 DEMOTION, SUSPENSION AND DISMISSAL ......... 22 Dental ............................................................................... 20 Detective ............................................................................ 7 E EFFECT OF AGREEMENT .......................................... 26 Employee Rights ............................................................ 26 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT.................................... 23 F Flexible Benefits Plan ..................................................... 17 G Grievance Form .............................................................. 30 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ........................................ 14 H HEALTH AND WELFARE ............................................. 17 Holiday Pay ........................................................................ 9 HOLIDAYS ........................................................................ 9 Hourly Rate of Pay ............................................................ 8 I Industrial Accident Leave ............................................... 12 J Jury Duty Leave .............................................................. 13 L LAYOFF AND RECALL ................................................ 21 LEAVES OF ABSENCE................................................ 12 Life Insurance.................................................................. 20 M Mandatory Overtime on Holidays .................................... 9 Military Leaves of Absence: ........................................... 13 MODIFICATION ............................................................ 26 N NO DISCRIMINATION .................................................... 5 NO LOCKOUT ............................................................... 26 O Other Leaves of Absence With or Without ................... 13 Overtime Definition ........................................................... 8 P Paid Work Details ............................................................ 9 Premium Pays................................................................... 6 PROBATIONARY PERIOD .......................................... 21 R RECOGNITION ................................................................ 4 RESIGNATION .............................................................. 24 Retiree Medical Benefits ............................................... 17 RETIREMENT ................................................................ 24 RIGHTS........................................................................... 26 S SALARY PLAN AND PREMIUM PAYS ........................ 6 Salary Schedule ........................................................... 29 Section 125 Flexible Benefit Plans: ............................... 20 SENIORITY .................................................................... 24 SEPARABILITY OF PROVISIONS ............................. 27 SEPARATION PAYS .................................................... 24 shift differential .................................................................. 6 Shooting Range Time ..................................................... 8 SICK LEAVE .................................................................. 11 Sick Leave Conversion .................................................. 12 Sick Leave Upon Retirement ......................................... 12 - 34 - T TERM ............................................................................... 27 TOTAL AGREEMENT ................................................... 27 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT ...................................... 11 U UNIFORM ALLOWANCE .............................................. 21 V VACATION ........................................................................ 9 Vacation Accumulation ................................................. 10 Vacation During Leave of Absence ............................. 10 Vacation Eligibility ............................................................. 9 Vacation Schedule .......................................................... 10 Vacation Scheduling: ...................................................... 10 Vision ............................................................................... 20 W Work Schedule.................................................................. 8 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN BURLINGAME POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME JANUARY 1, 20194 – DECEMBER 31, 202118 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. RECOGNITION ..................................................................................................... 1 2. ASSOCIATION DUES AND RIGHTS .................................................................... 1 3. ACCESS RIGHTS.................................................................................................. 4 4. NO DISCRIMINATION ........................................................................................... 4 5. ADVANCE NOTICE ............................................................................................... 4 6. SALARY PLAN AND PREMIUM PAYS ................................................................. 5 7. DAYS AND HOURS OF WORK ............................................................................ 8 8. COURT PAY .......................................................................................................... 9 9. ACTING PAY ......................................................................................................... 9 10. HOLIDAYS ............................................................................................................. 9 11. VACATION .......................................................................................................... 11 12. PERSONAL TIME OFF ........................................................................................ 12 13. TUITION REIMBURSEMENT .............................................................................. 12 14. SICK LEAVE ........................................................................................................ 12 15. LEAVES OF ABSENCE ....................................................................................... 13 16. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ................................................................................ 15 17. HEALTH AND WELFARE .................................................................................... 18 18. UNIFORM ALLOWANCE ..................................................................................... 23 19. PROBATIONARY PERIOD .................................................................................. 23 20. LAYOFF AND RECALL ....................................................................................... 24 21. DISCIPLINE ......................................................................................................... 24 22. PROMOTION ....................................................................................................... 26 23. PERSONNEL FILES ............................................................................................ 27 24. EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT FOR CITY BUSINESS ....................................... 28 25. SAFETY COMMITTEE ........................................................................................ 28 26. LIVING DISTANCE .............................................................................................. 28 27. SENIORITY ......................................................................................................... 28 28. SHIFT BID ........................................................................................................... 29 29. RESIGNATION .................................................................................................... 29 30. REHIRE PROCEDURE ....................................................................................... 29 31. RETIREMENT ..................................................................................................... 30 32. SPECIAL PROVISIONS ...................................................................................... 32 33. CONCERTED ACTIVITIES .................................................................................. 32 34. NO LOCKOUT ..................................................................................................... 32 35. RIGHTS ............................................................................................................... 33 36. EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ................................................................................. 33 37. MODIFICATION ................................................................................................... 33 38. TOTAL AGREEMENT .......................................................................................... 33 39. SEPARABILITY OF PROVISIONS ...................................................................... 33 40. TERM ................................................................................................................... 34 APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................. 35 Salary Schedule ...................................................................................................... 35 APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................. 36 Grievance Form ...................................................................................................... 36 APPENDIX C ................................................................................................................ 38 Administrative Procedures ....................................................................................... 38 SIDE LETTER OF AGREEMENT ................................................................................... 39 PERS Compounding And Shared Services ............................................................. 39 SIDE LETTER OF AGREEMENT ................................................................................... 40 Overtime Scheduling – Section 1-766.04 ................................................................. 40 - 1 - The Burlingame Police Officers Association and representatives of the City of Burlingame have met and conferred in good faith regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment of employees in the representation unit listed in Section 1, have freely exchanged information, opinions and proposals and have endeavored to reach agreement on all matters relating to the employment conditions and employer-employee relations of such employees. This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into pursuant to the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act and has been jointly prepared by the parties. 1. RECOGNITION Burlingame Police Officers Association, hereinafter referred to as the “Association”, is recognized as the majority representative, as provided in the City's Employer- Employee Relations Ordinance, for all employees assigned to the following classifications: Police Officer Police Officer Trainee 2. ASSOCIATION DUES AND RIGHTS 2.1 The Association City shall deduct Association membership dues and any other agreed-upon payroll deductions, to the extent permitted by law, from the monthly pay of each member employee shall be entitled to have their regular dues of its members deducted from their paychecks, in accordance with the procedures set forth herein. 2.2 Dues paying bBargaining unit members who have affirmatively consented to or authorized dues deductions shall be entitled to have dues deducted by filling out, signing and filing with the City Association an authorization form provided by the Association. The Association will notify the City of the employee name and amount of dues to be withheld. Any employee who signs such an authorization shall not revoke such authorization during the term of this Memorandum, except during the following time periods: 2.2.1 His/her first thirty (30) calendar days of employment; 2.2.2 The first thirty (30) calendar days following approval of this Memorandum by City Council; 2.2.3 The thirty (30) calendar day period between ninety (90) calendar days and sixty (60) calendar days preceding the expiration of this Memorandum of Understanding. Revocation during said period shall be by a written signed statement furnished by the Association. - 2 - The City agrees to direct each member employee to the Association with regard to any questions or concerns related to membership dues or any other mutually agreed payroll deduction, to the extent permitted by law. 2.4 The Association is responsible for providing the City with timely information regarding changes to member employees’ dues and any other lawful union- related payroll deduction. 2.5 The Association’s Certification The City shall make payroll deductions in reliance on the Association’s certification certifying that Association has and will maintain an authorization, signed by each member employee who affirmatively consents to pay Association membership dues. Similarly, the City shall only cancel or modify any membership dues or any other mutually agreed payroll deduction, to the extent permitted by law, for any member employees in reliance on the information provided by the Association. 2.6 The City shall not request the Association to provide a copy of any member employees’ authorization unless a dispute arises about the existence or terms of the authorization. 2.7 The Association shall indemnify, defend, protect and hold harmless the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, officers and agents (collectively hereafter the “Indemnitees”) from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, damages, fines, penalties, claims, demands, suits, actions, causes of action, judgments, costs and expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs) arising from the application of any provisions under Section 2, including, but not limited to, any claims made by any member employees for the membership dues deductions the City made in reliance on the Association’s certification, and any claims made by any member employees for any deduction cancellation or modification the City made in reliance on the information provided by the Association. In the event any such action or proceeding is brought against the City by reason of any such claim, the Association upon notice from the City, covenants to defend such action or proceeding by counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City. Further, the Association agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City for any loss or damage arising from Association’s actions or inactions under Section 2. 2.38 The employee's earnings must be regularly sufficient after other legal and required deductions are made to cover the amount of the dues check-off authorized. When a member is in good standing of the Association and is in a non-pay status for the pay period when his/her dues would normally be - 3 - withheld, no dues withholding will attach to future earnings nor will the member be required to deposit the amount with the City which would have been withheld if the member had been in a pay status during that period. In the case of an employee who is in a non-pay status during only a part of the pay period and the salary is not sufficient to cover the full withholding, no deduction shall be made. In this connection, all other legal and required deduction(s) shall be made. In this connection, all other legal and required deductions have priority over Association dues. 2.94 Dues withheld by the City shall be transmitted monthly to the officer designated in writing by the Association as the person authorized to receive the funds, at the address specified. 2.105 The Association shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City harmless against any claims made and against any suit instituted against the City on account of check-off of employee organization dues. In addition, the Association shall refund to the City any amounts paid to it in error upon presentation of supporting evidence. In the event the City fails to collect an employee’s Association dues, the City shall transmit delinquent dues to the Association collected from future employee payroll deductions. 2.116 The Association may, with the prior approval of the City Manager or his/her designee, use City facilities for meetings of City employees represented by the Association provided space is available, and provided further such meetings are not used for organizational activities or membership drives of City employees. 2.127 The use of City equipment other than items normally used in the conduct of business meetings, such as desks, chairs, chalk and blackboards, is strictly prohibited, the presence of such equipment in approved City facilities notwithstanding. 2.138 The Association may use portions of City bulletin boards to post Association materials under the following conditions: 2.138.1 All materials must receive the approval of the Police Chief or his/her designee in charge of the department bulletin board for conformance with this section. 2.138.2 All materials must be dated and must identify the organization that published them. 2.138.3 The City reserves the right to determine where bulletin boards shall be placed. 2.149 Any bargaining unit member who is directed to attend a meeting at which one - 4 - of the issues is the proposed discipline of said employee shall be entitled to Association representation at such meeting; provided, such representation shall include no more than one City employee in addition to the employee being disciplined. The limitations of this Section shall apply to employees on paid release time and not to Association staff for witnesses who may be necessary to the meeting. 2.150 The Association shall be allowed to continue the present practice of Association provided bulletin boards in each station. Posting and control of materials shall be the responsibility of the Association. The Association agrees to post nothing to discredit the City or its employees. 3. ACCESS RIGHTS 3.1 Reasonable access to employee work locations shall be granted officers of the Association and their officially designated representatives, for the purpose of contacting members of the bargaining unit concerning business within the scope of representation. Such officers or representatives shall not enter any work location without the consent of the Police Chief or his/her designee. Access shall be restricted so as not to interfere with the normal operations of the department or with established security requirements. 3.2 Solicitation of membership and activities concerned with the internal management of an employee organization such as collecting dues, campaigning for office, conducting elections and distributing literature shall not be conducted during work hours. 3.3 The Association shall designate in writing to the City Manager or his/her designee the names of the Association officers and representatives within thirty (30) days of any change in officers or representatives. 4. NO DISCRIMINATION The City agrees not to discriminate against any employee because of membership in the Association or because of any activities on behalf of the Association. Association activities shall not interfere with the normal operation of the City. Neither the City nor the Association shall discriminate for or against any employee or applicant for employment on account of a protected category, as defined by Federal and State law, race, color, creed, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability which does not prevent an employee from meeting the minimum job standards established. 5. ADVANCE NOTICE Except in cases of emergency, the Association shall be given reasonable advance written notice of any ordinance, resolution, rule or regulation directly relating to - 5 - matters within the scope of representation proposed to be adopted by the City and shall be given the opportunity to meet and confer with management representatives prior to adoption. 6. SALARY PLAN AND PREMIUM PAYS Effective the first pay period of January 2019, there will be an increase in base salary for all classes of three percent (3%). Effective the first pay period of January 2019, there will be a two percent (2%) equity adjustment. Effective the first pay period of January 2020, there will be an increase in base salary for all classes of four percent (4%). Effective the first pay period of January 2021, there will be an increase in base salary for all classes of two percent (2%). Effective the first pay period of January 2014, there will be an increase in base salary for all classes of 2.5%. (Appendix A) Effective the first pay period of January 2015, there will be an increase in base salary for all classes of 2.0%; however, 0.5% of the 2.0% salary increase shall offset the City’s cost of medical premiums, such that the actual increase to base salary shall be 1.5%. Effective the first pay period of January 2016, there will be an increase in base salary for all classes of 2.0%. Effective the first pay period of January 2017, there will be an increase in base salary for all classes of 1.0%. Effective the first pay period of January 2018, there will be an increase in base salary for all classes of 2.5%; however, 0.5% of the 2.5% salary increase shall offset the City’s cost of medical premiums, such that the actual increase to base salary shall be 2.0%. 6.1 Premium Pays will be provided as follows: 6.1.1 Effective April 15, 2002, the department will implement a 12-hour shift program. Shift differential for the 12-hour program will be as follows: Shifts from 18:00 – 06:00 shall receive a 6% shift differential. Shift differential is compensation to employees who are routinely and consistently scheduled to work other than a standard “daytime’ shift. 6.1.2 An Officer that is not assigned to one of the shifts defined above will - 6 - qualify for a 6% shift differential if more than one-half (½) of the Officer’s shift is from 18:00 – 06:00. The differential will apply to the entire shift. If less than one-half (1/2) the shift is between 18:00 - 06:00, the differential will only apply to the hours worked within 18:00 - 06:00. 6.1.3 Effective December 30, 2001, the City will provide a 7% premium pay differential (Police Investigator Premium) to Association members assigned as Inspectors. This is compensation to officers who are routinely and consistently assigned to analyze crimes or investigate accidents. 6.1.4 Effective December 30, 2001, the City will provide a 5% premium pay differential to employees designated as bi-lingual service providers, requiring communication skills in languages other than English. Such designation will be pursuant to the City’s Administrative Procedure #4.28.1. 6.1.5 Effective December 30, 2001, while assigned to active training of a new officer, Field Training Officers shall receive an 18.75% differential (Training Premium). This is compensation to employees who are routinely and consistently assigned to train employees. 6.1.6 The education increment for POST certifications shall be considered as wages for the purposes of computing overtime and holiday pay. 6.1.6.1 Effective January 1, 2002 an employee with an Intermediate POST certificate shall receive a 5% premium pay differential and an employee with an Advanced POST certificate shall receive a 7% premium pay differential (Peace Officer Standard Training (POST) Certificate Pay. 6.1.7 The City will provide a 5.0% premium pay differential (Motorcycle Patrol Premium) to Association members assigned to motorcycle duty (to operate and/or patrol on motorcycle. 6.1.8 The City will provide a 5.0% premium pay differential to Association members assigned to canine officer duty. Effective January 1, 2019, any officer assigned and issued a new canine will not receive a differential premium pay. Effective January 1, 2019, Association members assigned and issued a new canine will receive 2 hours CTO, which will accrue at the level of 3 hours leave per work week, in recognition of the time spent in care, grooming etc. Hours count towards the maximum accumulation for CTO. - 7 - 6.1.9 The City will provide a 5.0% premium pay differential (Police Liaison Premium) to Association members assigned to school resource officer duty. This is compensation paid to officers who are routinely and consistently assigned to function as a liaison between special groups (a school) and the police department. 6.1.10 Effective September 23, 2010, the City will provide a 7.5% premium pay differential (Lead Worker/Supervisor Premium) to Association members assigned as Corporal. This is compensation to officers who are routinely and consistently assigned to a lead position. 6.1.11 The City will provide a seven percent (7%) premium pay differential to Association members assigned to the Community Response Team (C.R.T.). This differential is Special Compensation (shift differential) paid to employees who, in addition to C.R.T. special duties, are routinely and consistently scheduled to work other than a standard “daytime” shift. 6.2 The hourly rate of pay for unit members shall be calculated bi-weekly. The rates of pay set forth herein represent, for each classification, the standard rate of pay for full-time employment, except for overtime compensation, any applicable premium pay and other benefits specifically provided for by the City, unless specifically indicated otherwise in the schedule. 6.3 The salary for a new employee entering City employment shall be the minimum salary step for the classification to which the employee is appointed unless the City determines that appointment to another step is in the best interests of the service. Permanent employees serving in regular established positions shall be advanced to the next higher salary step for their respective classifications, upon satisfactory evaluation, after completion of one (1) year of full time service in each of the salary steps for the classification upon the anniversary of the employee's appointment date or revised salary anniversary date. The Police Chief may grant an early step increase after completion of six (6) months in a classification subject to City Manager approval. Granting an early step increase may result in a revised salary anniversary date for future step increases. 6.3.1 Salary range adjustments for a classification will not set a new salary anniversary date for employees serving in that classification. 6.3.2 Whenever the schedule of compensation for a classification is revised, each incumbent in a position to which the revised schedule applies shall be paid at the same step in the revised range as the step at which - 8 - the employee was paid in the previous range. 6.4 When employees are promoted, they shall normally receive the first step in the salary range for their new positions. However, if such step results in a salary increase of less than five percent (5%), they shall receive the first step in the range which results in a minimum 5% increase. 6.5 Paydays shall be every other Friday. It is understood by both parties that the Finance Department has begun the process of implementing direct deposit of paychecks and this will be available to Association members as soon as possible. The current salary schedule and accrual vacation and sick leave amounts reflect the bi-weekly payroll process. 7. DAYS AND HOURS OF WORK 7. 1 Work Schedule: Work schedule is subject to Department policies and practices. 7.1.1 Effective April 15, 2002, the Department will implement an Alternative Work Schedule program. Such program will include 12-hour shifts. 7.2 Overtime Definition: Overtime is authorized time worked in excess of an employee’s normal daily work schedule. 7.2.1 Effective April 15, 2002 the Department will implement an Alternative Work Schedule Program. Once implemented, Officers who are assigned to 12-hour shifts will be authorized overtime for time worked in excess of 12 hours in a day. Overtime shall be compensated at one and one-half (1-1/2) times the employee's regular rate of pay for every hour of overtime worked. Payment for overtime shall not be made unless such overtime has been authorized by the City prior to such overtime being worked. 7.2.2 Overtime details are assigned in accordance with Section 10371- 766.04 of the Burlingame Police Manual, Department Standard Operating Procedures. 7.3 Compensatory Time Off: Compensatory Time Off shall be allowed to accrue to a maximum of 160 hours. 7.4 Mandatory Overtime: Should an employee be mandated to work in an overtime situation, the employee shall be compensated at one and one half (1½) times the - 9 - employee's regular rate of pay. 7.5 Shooting Range Time: Any represented employee who is required to attend the shooting range on off-duty time shall be entitled to pay at the rate of time and one-half (1½) for shooting at the range with a minimum of two (2) hours. 7.6 Call Back: Call back time shall be paid at time and one-half (1½) with a four-hour minimum. 7.7 Paid Work Details: Employees who volunteer for Paid Work Details outside their scheduled hours shall receive payment in accordance with Section 7.2 Overtime Definition for a minimum of three (3) hours or actual time worked which ever is greater. If an employee is mandatory assigned to Paid Work Detail, then the employee shall be compensated in accordance with Section 7.67 Call Back. 8. COURT PAY Any represented employee who is required to be in court on off-duty time as part of his/her job duties shall be entitled to pay at the rate of time and one-half (1½) for all court time with a minimum entitlement of three (3.0) hours at time and one-half (1½). In addition, such employee shall be entitled to a maximum of one (1) hour of total travel time at time and one-half (1½) for such court appearance, unless the employee utilizes a City vehicle to travel to court. It is understood that a represented employee who is required to appear in court during his/her shift and who is required to stay beyond the end of his/her shift, shall be entitled to pay at the rate of time and one- half (1½), but shall not be entitled to any minimum number of hours or to any travel time. 9. ACTING PAY Any regular full-time unit member who is assigned to work in a higher classification within the unit shall receive the rate of pay of the higher classification for the duration of the assignment. The employee serving in an acting capacity shall be moved to the salary step of the higher classification that represents a minimum 15% increase, on base pay. 10. HOLIDAYS The holidays to be observed are as follows: - 10 - New Year's Day January 1 Lincoln's Birthday February 12 Washington’s Birthday Third Monday in February Memorial Day Last Monday in May Independence Day July 4 Labor Day First Monday in September Admission Day September 9 Columbus Day Second Monday in October Veteran's Day November 11 Thanksgiving Day Fourth Thursday and Day After Thanksgiving Friday in November Christmas Eve December 24 Christmas Day December 25 New Year's Eve Day December 31 When approved by the City Council, holidays shall also include every day proclaimed by the President of the United States or the Governor of California, as a public holiday and every day declared as a national day of mourning or special day. When a holiday falls on Sunday, the following Monday shall be observed. If the holiday falls on Saturday, the previous Friday shall be observed. If the holiday falls on an employee's regularly scheduled time off, overtime or compensatory time off shall be granted. 10.1 Holiday Pay: Employees will receive 112 hours of holiday pay per year. Effective the first pay period of January 2011, the City agrees to pay out holiday pay over 26 pay periods. Holiday pay will be calculated by converting the number of designated holidays in a calendar year to hours and multiplying that number by the employee’s hourly rate. The figure derived will be divided by 26 pay periods. - 11 - 10.2 Mandatory Overtime on Holidays: Double time will be paid to any personnel who are ordered to work (mandatory) overtime on the following four holidays: New Year’s Day, July 4th, Thanksgiving and Christmas. 11. VACATION 11.1 Vacation Eligibility: Employees shall be entitled to annual vacation leave with pay as it is accrued. 11.2 Vacation Schedule: Years of Service Bi-Weekly Accrual Rate Annual Hours of Vacation 4 & less 4.00 104 5 4.93 128 10 6.46 168 15 7.45 194 On an employee’s 20th anniversary date of employment with the City of Burlingame, the employee will receive a one-time allotment of 16 hours of vacation in his/her vacation accrual bank. This will be provided to current active Association members that have 20 or more years of service effective 01/01/02. 11.3 Vacation Accumulation: Earned vacation time may be accumulated to a maximum of two (2) times the employee’s annual accrual. Once in a calendar year (January – December), an employee who has reached the maximum vacation accrual may request to be paid-out 40 hours of accrued vacation time. Such payout is subject to the Police Chief’s approval. 11.4 Vacation During Leave of Absence: An employee who is on leave of absence without pay shall not accrue vacation leave benefits. 11.5 Vacation Scheduling: Vacations shall be scheduled bi-yearly by employees with the approval of the Police Chief or his/her designee. Scheduling shall be done in accordance with Sections 1-766.48 and 1-766.501015 of the Burlingame Police Manual, Department Standard Operating Procedures. Unit members shall be allowed to change scheduled vacation days if an opening exists on the vacation schedule, provided that the Chief or his/her designee is given notice forty-eight (48) hours in advance of such proposed change. - 12 - 12. PERSONAL TIME OFF Effective January 1, 2002 and then each subsequent January 1, Police Officers shall receive twenty-four (24) hours of personal leave time. This must be used during the calendar year in accordance with Department staffing policy or be forfeited on December 31. Personal Time Off (PTO) will be accounted for in a separate account. 13. TUITION REIMBURSEMENT The City will reimburse employees up to $2000 a year for the cost of tuition, and up to $500 a year for the cost of books and/or computer equipment required for courses taken in pursuit of an Associate, Bachelor’s or accredited advanced degree. Employees to be reimbursed upon completion of said courses with a grade of “C” or better. 14. SICK LEAVE 14.1 Sick Leave Defined: Sick Leave is absence from duty with pay because of an employee's illness or injury; or to attend medical, dental, or optical examinations or treatments for the employee; or to care for an immediate family member who is ill and requires the employee’s care. Sick leave shall not be considered as a right that an employee may use at his/her discretion, but shall be allowed in case of necessity and actual personal or immediate family illness. 14.2 Sick Leave Accrual: All full time regular and probationary members shall accrue sick leave at the rate of 3.69 hours per bi-weekly pay period to a maximum of 2080 hours. An employee who is on paid leave shall continue to earn sick leave credit. An employee who is on leave without pay shall not accrue sick leave credit. Sick leave shall accrue during an absence that is a result of occupational disability resulting from employer service. 14.3 Maximum Sick Leave Accrual: Sick Leave with pay shall be granted to all full-time regular and probationary employees to a maximum of 2080 hours. 14.4 Notification of Sickness Sick leave usage will be in conformance with the Police Manual Standard operating Procedure (Currently section 1014SOP 508.00-16). 14.5 Sick Leave Monitoring Program The record keeping to determine sick days used will be from January 1 to December 31 of each year. Sick leave monitoring will be in accordance with the Department’s standard operating procedures. - 13 - 14.6 Sick Leave for Care of Family: Sick leave to care for family members will be in conformance with the City’s Administrative Procedure, Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and other federal and state leave requirements. Generally, these laws grant up to twelve (12) weeks of leave in a twelve (12) month period, to care for members of the employee’s immediate family. Employees who feel they may need to exercise their rights for extended family medical leaves should talk to their supervisors and/or the Human Resources Department. The immediate family shall consist of the spouse, children, parents, brothers, sisters, grandparents, grandchildren, domestic partners, and stepchildren. The employer shall grant such sick leave only for the purposes of sickness or disability as provided above when the relationship of the sick or disabled person to the employee warrants such use of accumulated sick leave. 14.7 Sick Leave Upon Retirement: Upon retirement, the employee shall be entitled to and be compensated for up to 600 hours of the employee’s accumulated sick leave. 14.8 Sick Leave Conversion: Employees can elect to have all sick leave hours converted to CalPERS credible service per GC Section 20965. If an employee elects to have sick leave hours paid out per Section 14.9, the remaining sick leave balance not paid out is eligible for conversion to credible service per GC Section 20965. The maximum available for conversion after payout is 2080 hours. Any sick leave hours paid out at retirement are not eligible for conversion. 14.9 Modified Duty: Employee on sick leave may request to be assigned to modified duty per the terms of the City’s Administrative Procedure 4.29 – Modified Duty. This policy is contained in Appendix C of this document. 14.10 Catastrophic Illness or Injury Leave/Provisions: Employees may donate sick leave per the terms of the City’s Administrative Procedure. 4.27 - Catastrophic Illness. This policy is contained in Appendix C of this document. 15. LEAVES OF ABSENCE 15.1 Industrial Accident Leave: Industrial accident leave means the absence from duty of an employee because of work-incurred illness or bodily injury when such absence has been accepted for coverage under the provisions of the Worker's Compensation laws of the State of California, and such leave shall not be deducted from the - 14 - employee's sick leave balance. Police unit members shall be provided benefits pursuant to Section 4850 of the Labor Code of the State of California and other applicable State law. All temporary disability benefits shall be assigned to the City. 15.1.1 Benefits During Disability: No represented employee shall be denied the normal accrual of vacation or sick leave benefits during a period of disability covered by Section 4850 of the Labor Code. While covered by Section 4850, all benefits, which include medical, dental, vision, and life insurance are continued. 15.1.2 Modified Duty while on Accident Leave: Employees who are on accident leave may be assigned by the City to modified duty per the terms of the City’s Administrative Procedure 4.29.1 – Modified Duty. This policy is contained in Appendix C of this document. 15.2 Military Leaves of Absence: In addition to the leaves of absence herein provided for members of the classified service, those officers or employees in such service who are members of the National Guard or Reserve Corps in the federal Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine or Coast Guard Service shall be entitled to leaves of absence authorized and provided by the military and veterans’ code of the State of California, and in addition thereto shall be entitled to the rights and privileges authorized by said military and veterans’ code with respect to status and re-employment. 15.3 Other Leaves of Absence With or Without Pay: The City Manager may, for good cause, grant other leaves of absence with or without pay for up to one (1) year. 15.4 Jury Duty Leave: Every full-time employee of the City who is called and required to serve as a trial juror shall be entitled to jury duty leave during the period of such service or while necessarily being present in court as a result of such call. Under such circumstances, the employee shall be paid his/her full salary and shall reimburse the City any payments received, except for travel pay. 15.5 Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL): Failure on the part of any employee to report to duty at his/her regularly scheduled starting time shall be considered absence without official leave and may be cause for disciplinary action. 15.6 Bereavement Leave: In the event of a death in the immediate family or a member of the household - 15 - of an employee, absence from duty shall not exceed three (3) work days. In the event of the death of a relative not a member of the immediate family, absence from duty shall not exceed one (1) day. Such absences shall not be charged to sick leave. In the event of the death of a non-family member, an employee shall be allowed to use vacation or CTO. For the purposes of this section, "immediate family" means parent, spouse, domestic partner, child, sibling, grandparents, mother-in-law, or father-in-law. 16. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 16.1 Definitions: 16.1.1 "Days" as used herein shall be days when the City Hall of the City of Burlingame is open for business. 16.1.2 "Grievance" is a written allegation by a unit employee, submitted as herein specified, claiming violation(s) of the specific express terms of this Agreement for which there is no Civil Service or other specific method of review provided by City law. 16.1.3 "Grievant" is an individual employee or employee organization adversely affected by any dispute over the interpretation or application of any provision of this Memorandum of Understanding. 16.2 Steps: 16.2.1 Step 1: The grievant shall discuss the grievance with his/her immediate supervisor within fifteen (15) days of actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of the grievance. If the issue is not resolved, the grievant shall be entitled to proceed to Step 2. 16.2.2 Step 2: Within ten (10) days of the conclusion of the Step 1 meeting, the grievant shall request a meeting with the lieutenantdivision commander. If the issue is not resolved, the grievant shall be entitled to proceed to Step 3. 16.2.3 Step 3: Within ten (10) days of the conclusion of the Step 2 meeting, the grievant shall file with the Police Chief a written grievance on the agreed upon form, which is attached as “Appendix B,” setting forth the following: Name Classification Section or sections of the MOU allegedly violated Remedy sought - 16 - Within ten (10) days of receipt of the written grievance, the Police Chief will meet with the grievant and his/her representative to attempt to reach a satisfactory resolution. 16.2.4 Step 4: If the grievance remains unresolved at Steps 1, 2, and 3, it may be appealed to the Human Resources Director within ten (10) days of the conclusion for the meeting described in Step 4. Said appeal shall be in the form of a written request to proceed to Step 4, along with the written grievance. The Human Resources Director shall respond to the grievance within ten (10) days of receipt of the written appeal. The determination of the Human Resources Director shall be final, except as provided in Step 5. 16.2.5 Step 5: (a) If not satisfied with the decision at Step 4, the Association, within ten (10) days after the receipt of the written decision at Step 4, shall inform the Human Resources Director, in writing, of its intent as to whether or not the grievance will be submitted to arbitration. (b) An arbitrator shall be selected by mutual agreement. If no agreement can be reached within ten (10) days of the notice, the parties shall request of the American Arbitration Association or the State Mediation and Conciliation Service a list of seven (7) names of persons experienced in hearing grievances. Each party shall alternately strike a name until only one name remains. The order of strike shall be determined by lot. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon all parties. (c) The arbitrator will have no power to add to, subtract from, or modify the terms of the Agreement or the written policies, rules, regulations and procedures of the City; nor shall the arbitrator be empowered to render a decision on issues not before the arbitrator or on facts not supported by the evidence. (d) The fees and expenses of the arbitrator and each hearing shall be borne equally by the City and the Association. All other expenses shall be borne by the party incurring them. (e) If any question arises regarding the arbitrability of a grievance, the party raising the question of arbitrability may, upon request, have such question first ruled upon and decided by an arbitrator prior to any other hearing on the merits of the grievance that would thereafter be conducted by a second and different arbitrator. The selection of the arbitrator will be as described in section 16.2.5 - 17 - above. The fees and expenses of the separate arbitrator deciding the issue or arbitrability shall be borne by the party that raised the question of arbitrability. (f) Waiver of Other Remedies – Except for grievances alleging a violation of Section 4 No Discrimination , by submitting the grievance to arbitration, the grievant expressly waives any right to statutory remedies or to the exercise of any legal process other than as provided by this grievance/arbitration procedure. The processing of a grievance beyond Step 4 shall constitute an express election on the part of the grievant that the grievance/arbitration procedure is the chosen forum for resolving the issues contained in the grievance, and that the grievant will not resort to any other forum or procedure for resolution or review of the issues. The parties do not intend by the provisions of this paragraph to preclude the enforcement of any arbitration award in any court of competent jurisdiction. 16.3 Failure to Pursue: 16.3.1 Any failure by a grievant to pursue his/her grievance to the next step within the time limits shall be a voluntary abandonment of the grievance and the grievant shall not thereafter be entitled to pursue said grievance. The grievance will be deemed settled. 16.3.2 Any failure by the City to respond within the time limits set forth shall entitle the grievant to pursue his/her grievance to the next step. 16.3.3 By mutual written consent by both the City and grievant, an extension can be granted for any step in the grievance process. 16.4 Representation: 16.4.1 A grievant shall be entitled to be represented by his/her Association and/or his/her attorney at any grievance meeting or discussion described in any one (1) of the steps of the grievance procedure; provided, however, in no event shall more than one (1) City employee, in addition to the grievant, attend such grievance meetings as representative. The limitations of this Section shall apply to employees on paid release time and not to Association staff or witnesses who may be necessary to the grievance. 16.4.2 Neither the grievant nor his/her representative shall suffer loss or pay for attending the meetings described in the steps of the grievance procedure. 16.4.3 Except for grievance meetings described in the steps of the grievance procedure, neither grievant nor any representative of the grievant shall - 18 - be entitled to use regular work time to process the grievance. 16.5 Other Procedures: The grievance procedure set forth herein shall supersede and replace any other grievance or appeal procedures otherwise available to represented employees and are deemed sufficient to satisfy procedural due process requirements for such hearings and/or appeals. Nothing contained herein to the grievance procedure shall apply to employee disciplinary matters. 17. HEALTH AND WELFARE 17.1 Flexible Benefits Plan: Under the Flexible Benefit Plan the City’s monthly contribution for the individual employee and the employee’s eligible dependents shall be one hundred and nineteen thirty six dollars ($13619.00) per month effective January 1, 20194 and shall adjust in accordance with the Minimum Employer Contribution (MEC) established by the Public Employees Medical and Hospital Care Act. In addition, the City shall offer an Internal Revenue Code Section 125 Plan that contains the components of benefit allowance, premium conversion, health care reimbursement account, and dependent care reimbursement account. The City shall contribute the below-listed amount per month toward each employee’s Section 125 Plan benefit allowance components. All amounts listed below include the Minimum Employer Contribution (MEC): • Employee only: up to the third highest plan CalPERS Bay Area Region premium Blue Shield HMO rate for Employee only • Employee plus one: up to the third highest plan CalPERS Bay Area Region premium Blue Shield HMO rate for Employee plus one • Employee plus two or more: up to the CalPERS Bay Area Region Kaiser family rate An employee may use any benefit allowance stated above toward the cost of employer provided PERS Health insurance for the employee and eligible dependents. An employee may not use the benefit allowance for other reasons. Any employee that enrolls in a Medical Plan that has a higher premium than the City’s contribution, as stated above, will pay the difference via pre-tax payroll deductions. NO PLAN – Any employee that demonstrates they have medical insurance from another service will receive two three hundred and fifty dollars ($35200) per month in lieu of medical benefits. The two hundred dollars ($200) per month may be put into a deferred compensation plan, Section - 19 - 125 Plan, or taken in cash. Any cash payment is subject to normal taxation. Effective January 1, 2015, the City’s contribution in lieu of medical benefits will increase to three hundred and fifty dollars ($350.00) per month. 17.2 Retiree Medical: 17.2.1 Retiree Medical for Employees Hired Prior to June 26, 2006 Who Retired Prior to January 1, 2017 (Tier 1): Employees hired prior to June 26, 2006 who retire prior to January 1, 2017 with a minimum of five (5) years of service with the City will receive a retiree medical benefit equivalent to the amount necessary for actual enrollment in single, two-party, or family coverage, up to a maximum dollar amount of the Kaiser family premium rate. 17.2.2 Retiree Medical for Employees Hired Prior to June 26, 2006 Who Retire On or After January 1, 2017 (Tier 1a): Effective January 1, 2017, employees hired prior to June 26, 2006, who retire from the City with five (5) years of City service, will receive a retiree medical benefit in accordance with the following: • For eligible retirees, the City contribution will be equivalent to the Bay Area Region premiums for Blue Shield Access HMO Single, Blue Shield Two-Party, or Kaiser Family coverage as applicable. • For eligible retirees who are 65 years of age or older and enrolled in Medicare or a Medicare Combination plan, the City contribution will be equivalent to the Medicare or Medicare Combination supplement plan premium for the Bay Area Region for Blue Shield Access HMO Single, Blue Shield Two-Party, or Kaiser Family coverage as applicable. If the Blue Shield Access HMO or Kaiser is no longer offered by CalPERS medical, the employee will receive the contribution equal to the third highest cost plan offered by CalPERS medical. 17.2.3 Retiree Medical for Employees Hired After June 26, 2006 and Before November 1, 2010 (Tier 2): Employees hired on or after June 26, 2006 (the date of implementation of the 3.0% @50 Retirement Benefit) and before November 1, 2010, will receive retiree medical contributions based on years of service with the Police Department. The retiree medical contribution for employees who have a service - 20 - retirement will be as follows: Years of Service Monthly Contribution 0-end of 9th year of service Minimum monthly amount as governed by the CalPERS Health System. 10 years to the end of the 14th year of service 50% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee +1 dependent. 15 years to the end of the 19th year of service 75% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee +1 dependent. 20 years of service or more 100% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee +1 dependent. 17.2.4 Industrial Disability Retiree Medical Benefits for Employees Hired On or After June 26, 2006 and before November 1, 2010 (Tier 2): This section does not affect employees hired before June 26, 2006. For employees hired before June 26, 2006, the City’s contribution for health insurance premiums shall equal the amount received by active employees. Employees hired after the implementation of 3% @50 (June 26, 2006) and before November 1, 2010 that have an industrial disability retirement will have a retiree medical contribution as follows: Years of Service Monthly Contribution 0-end of 19th year of service 75% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee +1 dependent. 0-end of 19th year of service 100% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee +1 dependent if the disability is the direct result of performing a specific job task unique to that of a Police Officer (examples include, but are not limited to, operation of an emergency vehicle, involvement in a shooting, apprehension of a suspect, rescue of a citizen, assault by a suspect or other individual or direct involvement in a vehicle accident). 20 years of service or more 100% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee +1 dependent. 17.2.5 Retiree Medical for Employees Hired On or After November 1, 2010 - 21 - (Tier 3): Employees hired on or after November 1, 2010 shall receive the following contributions to a Retireemeent Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA)Saving Account, based on years of service with the police department, in lieu of the Retiree Medical Benefits in Section 17.1.1 and 17.1.2 Retiree Medical. Contributions will begin upon appointment as a sworn police officer. Years of Service Monthly Contribution 0- to the end of the 45th year of service 20.0% 56 years of service to the end of the 19th year of service 32.0% 20 years of service or more 52.5% 17.2.6 Industrial Disability Retiree Medical Benefits for Employees Hired On or After June 26, 2006 and before November 1, 2010: This section does not affect employees hired before June 26, 2006, the City’. For employees hired before June 26, 2006, the City’s contribution for health insurance premiums shall equal the amount received by active employees. Employees hired after the implementation of 3% @50 (June 26, 2006) and before November 1, 2010 that have an industrial disability retirement will have a retiree medical contribution as follows: Years of Service Monthly Contribution 0-end of 19th year of service 75% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee +1 dependent. 0-end of 19th year of service 100% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee +1 dependent if the disability is the direct result of performing a specific job task unique to that of a Police Officer (examples include, but are not limited to, operation of an emergency vehicle, involvement in a shooting, apprehension of a suspect, rescue of a citizen, assault by a suspect or other individual or direct involvement in a vehicle accident). 20 years of service or more 100% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee +1 dependent. - 22 - 17.3 Dental: The City will continue to provide dental coverage provided through Delta Dental. Effective January 1, 2000, the City agrees to pay an orthodontics matching payment of $2000 lifetime maximum per family member. 17.4 Vision: The Association will continue vision coverage under the City’s self-insured vision pool. 17.5 Life Insurance: During the term hereof, the City agrees to provide life insurance to the extent of Seventy-five Thousand Dollars ($75,000) coverage for members of the bargaining unit. 17.6 Deferred Compensation: Full time regular employees are eligible, subject to IRS regulations and the terms and conditions thereof, to participate in the deferred compensation plans made available to all city employees. Effective December 30, 2001 the City shall provide a matching contribution of up to Thirty Dollars ($30.00) per pay period to an employee’s deferred compensation account. This contribution is being made in lieu of the City providing Long-term disability coverage to Association members. 17.7 Section 125 Flexible Benefit Plans: Effective January 1, 2002 the City will provide dependent daycare reimbursement and healthcare reimbursement plans per the provisions of IRS Section 125. These plans allow for pre-tax deductions for eligible health care and dependent day-care expenses. Dependents under the Section 125 plan include children and elderly parents that are economically dependent on the employee. Contact the Human Resources Department for complete plan information. 17.8 Retiree Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) The City shall contribute one percent (1%) of base salary per pay period into the retiree HRA plan. Fees will be paid in accordance with the Plan Document. During the term of this MOU, the Association may elect to contribute a set amount of salary to the retiree HRA for each employee in the bargaining unit, and/or contribute separation pay to the retiree HRA. The City shall be notified of any such election sixty (60) days prior to the effective date. - 23 - 18. UNIFORM ALLOWANCE Effective January 1, 2011, the City agrees to pay One Thousand Eighty Five Dollars ($1,085) annually per employee. Effective January 1, 2012 the City agrees to pay One Thousand One Hundred Ten Dollars ($1,110) annually per employee. Effective January 1, 2017, uniform allowance will be paid bi-weekly with the regular pay check.Uniform allowance will be paid on a separate paycheck. 18.1 For any employee who leaves prior to the end of the fiscal year in which he/she has received such payment, the amount shall be prorated based on the percentage of the year worked, and the final paycheck adjusted accordingly. 18.12 It is understood that the City shall provide and maintain all employees with required safety equipment. Any failure or refusal by any employee to care for and maintain a proper uniform or equipment shall be deemed cause for discipline. 19. PROBATIONARY PERIOD 19.1 All original appointments shall be tentative and subject to a probationary period of eighteen (18) months of actual service from the date of appointment as a sworn Police Officer. Upon satisfactory completion of such probationary period employees shall be appointed as regular employees. 19.2 The City may extend the probationary period for an equal period of time in case of an absence of thirty (30) days or more for extended sick or accident leave. 19.3 Employees may be suspended or separated from the City at any time during the probationary period, except as otherwise provided by law. 19.4 All promotional appointments shall be tentative and subject to a probationary period of one (1) year from date of appointment. Upon satisfactory completion of such probationary period employees shall be appointed as regular employees. 19.5 Any regular employee rejected during the probationary period following a promotional appointment, or prior to the conclusion of the probationary period shall be reinstated to the position from which they were promoted unless conditions warrant their dismissal. - 24 - 20. LAYOFF AND RECALL 20.1 Permanent employees may be laid off, without prejudice, due to lack of funds or curtailment of work. No permanent employee, however, may be separated while there are temporary employees serving in the same class or position in the City service, unless that employee has been offered the temporary work. 20.2 When the Police Chief is instructed by the City Manager to reduce the number of employees, layoff shall be made in accordance with the following rules: 20.2.1 Layoffs shall be according to reverse order of seniority as defined by total City service. 20.2.2 An employee may demote or transfer to a vacant position for which he/she possesses the necessary skills as determined by the minimum qualifications and job specifications for the position. 20.2.3 The name of each employee laid off shall be entered on a Reemployment List in order of seniority for two (2) years 20.3 Former employees appointed from a reemployment eligibility list shall be restored all rights accrued prior to being laid off, such as sick leave, vacation credits, and credit for years of service; however, such reemployed employees shall not be eligible for benefits for which they received compensation at the time of or subsequent to the date they were laid off. 20.4 The City further agrees to meet and confer with the Association and reach mutual agreement prior to said layoff concerning all ramifications of the proposed layoff. 21. DISCIPLINE 21.1 Written Reprimands, Warnings, Documented Oral Counseling and Performance Evaluations: Written reprimands, warnings, documented oral counseling and performance evaluations cannot be appealed in accordance with Section 16 Grievance/Arbitration Procedure, Section 21.09 or Section 21.10 of this Agreement 21.2 Demotion: No permanent employee shall be demoted in grade or pay step for disciplinary reasons without just cause, and no employee shall be demoted to a position for which he does not possess the minimum qualifications. Written notice of demotion shall be given by the Police Chief to the employee before the effective date of the demotion. The employee shall be entitled to appeal the action in accordance with Section 16.2.5 of this Agreement. - 25 - 21.3 Suspension Without Pay Of More Than 40 Hours: The Police Chief may suspend without pay an employee from his position at any time for disciplinary purposes. No permanent employee shall be suspended without pay for disciplinary reasons without just cause. Suspension without pay shall not exceed thirty (30) calendar days without confirmation by the City Manager. Such suspension shall be in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws. The Association shall be entitled to appeal a suspension without pay of more than forty (40) hours in accordance with Section 16.2.5 of this agreement. 21.4 Suspension Without Pay Of 40 Hours Or Less : The Police Chief may suspend without pay an employee from his position at any time for disciplinary purposes. No permanent employee shall be suspended without pay for disciplinary reasons without just cause. Suspension without pay shall not exceed thirty (30) calendar days without confirmation by the City Manager. Such suspension shall be in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws. The employee shall be entitled to appeal suspension without pay of forty (40) hours or less in accordance with Section 21.9. 21.5 Reductions In Pay Equal To More Than A 40 Hour Suspension Without Pay: The Police Chief may reduce an employees pay at any time for disciplinary purposes. Reductions in pay shall not exceed the equivalent of a thirty (30) calendar day suspension without pay without confirmation by the City Manager. Such reductions in pay shall be in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws. An employee shall be entitled to appeal a reduction in pay of the equivalent of more than forty (40) hours suspension without pay in accordance with Section 16.2.5. 21.6 Reductions In Pay Equal to 40 Hours Or Less Suspension Without Pay: The Police Chief may reduce an employee’s pay at any time for disciplinary purposes. Reductions in pay shall not exceed the equivalent of a thirty (30) calendar days suspension without pay without confirmation by the City Manager. Such reductions in pay shall be in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws. An employee shall be entitled to appeal a reduction in pay of the equivalent of forty (40) hours or less suspension without pay in accordance with Section 21.9. 21.7 Discharge: A permanent employee may be discharged for just cause. Such discharge shall be in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws. The employee shall be entitled to appeal the action in accordance with Section 16.2.5 of this agreement. 21.8 Notice of Intended Discipline: - 26 - The Police Chief will issue a notice of Intended Discipline before suspending without pay, reducing pay, demoting or discharging a Police Officer. Such notice will advise the employee of his/her due process rights to a "Skelly" hearing. At the employee’s request, the Police Chief will conduct such a "Skelly" hearing to consider any exonerating or mitigating evidence. 21.9 Appeal Process: Within ten (10) business days upon receipt of the Notice of Imposition of Discipline, the employee, by written notice to the Human Resources Director, may request an appeal hearing be submitted to the City Manager or a Department Head of the Associations choice. The City Manager or the Department Head will conduct the appeal hearing within 60 calendar days of the written request for the appeal hearing. The City Manager or the Department Head shall render a decision within 30 calendar days of the appeal hearing. The decision of the City Manager or Department Head shall not be subject to appeal through Section 16 Grievance/Arbitration Procedure of this agreement. 21.10 Employee Appeal: If an employee appeals a disciplinary action without the written support of the Association the employee may process the appeal in accordance with Section 16.2.4 Step 4 of the Grievance/Arbitration Procedure. If the employee is not satisfied with the decision at Step 4, the employee, within 10 calendar days may request an appeal hearing by written notice to the Human Resource Director. The Employee may request the appeal hearing be conducted by the City Manager or the Department Head of the employee’s choice. The City Manager or the Department Head will conduct the appeal hearing within 60 calendar days of the written request for the appeal hearing. The City Manager or the Department Head shall render a decision within 30 calendar days of the appeal hearing. The decision of the City Manager or Department Head shall not be subject to appeal through Section 16 Grievance/Arbitration Procedure of this agreement. 22. PROMOTION - 27 - 22.1 Promotional Appointments: Insofar as practicable and consistent with the best interests of the Department, all vacancies in higher positions shall be filled by promotion from within the service, after a promotional examination has been given and an eligibility list established. 22.2 Duration of Lists: Each eligibility list shall remain in effect for a period of one (1) year. When deemed necessary and in the best interest of the City service, the Police Chief may, with the City Manager’s approval, extend the eligibility list in effect for an additional period not to exceed two years. A statement of the reasons for any such extension shall be approved by the City Manager and recorded with the Human Resources Department. 22.3 Notification of Examination Results: All applicants who complete the examination process for a position in a given classification shall be notified in writing relative to their passing or failing the examination process, and be advised of their scores and their individual ranking. They shall also be informed of the remaining steps and procedures that may occur before final disposition on their applications. 22.4 Promotional Tests: The City agrees that recruitments for promotional positions will consist of a written and oral examinationcomponent. Candidates must pass the written examination in order to qualify for the oral examination process. The written score and the oral score will carry equal weight in the overall assessment of candidates. The format for the test shall be provided to any qualified applicant within a reasonable amount of time (generally 30 days or more) prior to the testing procedure. The City and the POA agree to meet and confer prior to the test to determine an appropriate assessment process. 23. PERSONNEL FILES Each employee shall have the right to inspect and review any record relating to his/her performance as an employee or to a grievance concerning the employee that is kept or maintained by the City in his/her personnel file. The contents of such records shall be made available to the employee for inspection and review at reasonable time during the regular business hours of the City. An employee shall receive a copy of any written reprimand or warning prior to it being placed in the employee's personnel file - 28 - The City shall provide an opportunity for the employee to respond in writing, to any information about which he/she disagrees. Such response shall become a permanent part of the employee's personnel record. The employee shall be responsible for providing any written response to be included as part of his/her permanent personnel record. No information shall be placed in a personnel file without the knowledge of the employee, and preferably should only be placed in the file along with the employee's signature and date. 24. EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT FOR CITY BUSINESS If prior approval has been obtained from the City, personal expenses incurred shall be reimbursed. These reimbursements shall be based on the most economical means of travel but if use of a personal auto is authorized, payment shall be at the same rate established by the IRS. Upon prior Department Head authorization, the cost of food at meetings shall be reimbursed. If required to stay overnight or nights, the City shall reimburse the employee for all lodging and necessary expenses. Use of Personal Cell Phone For City Business A Police Officer in the Inspector or School Resource Officer specialty assignment, who uses their personal cell phone for City business, will receive $40 per month, paid twice a year. 25. SAFETY COMMITTEE The City and the Association agree to cooperate to the fullest extent in the promotion of safety. 26. LIVING DISTANCESEPARATION PAYS The living area requirement is within the ten bay area counties (San Mateo, San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz, and San Joaquin), except as may be agreed to by the City Manager. Accumulated Leave Allowance For Separated Employees Employees who separate shall be paid the straight-time, base pay, salary equivalent in a lump sum for all eligible accrued and unused leave (vacation, administrative leave, CTO, holiday, eligible sick leave). 27. SENIORITY Seniority begins on the first day of permanent employment with the City of Burlingame. If an employee is rehired after separating service for more than six (6) months, the prior employment shall not be attributed for seniority purposes. The City - 29 - shall keep an up-to-date seniority list of all employees covered by this Agreement and post the seniority list in a conspicuous place. This provision is for the convenience of the parties and in case of any disputes concerning the accuracy of the posted list, the grievance procedure may be utilized. Seniority will be used to determine shift bid assignments, days off and vacations. Overtime in each division of the Police Department will be based on seniority unless it calls for a special assignment or supervisor. This will be up to the discretion of the individual LieutenantsDivision Commanders. 28. SHIFT BID The senior Officer will bid first and this will continue until the least senior Officer has completed the bid. The Chief of Police or his designee will have discretion to assign Officers. 29. RESIGNATION In order to leave the Department in good standing, an employee shall file with the Police Chief a written resignation. The written resignation must be submitted within two (2) weeks of separation and shall state the effective date and reasons for leaving. Once the resignation has been accepted in writing by the Police Chief, it shall be irrevocable. 30. REHIRE PROCEDURE 30.1 Within a period of two (2) years of the effective date of his or her resignation, an employee who resigns in good standing is eligible to submit a formal written request to be rehired to a vacant position in the same classification as the position from which the person resigned. Upon receipt of the request to be rehired, the City shall place the employee’s name on the rehire list for that classification in the order in which similar requests have been received, and the requesting employee’s name shall remain on the rehire list for a period of three (3) years from the effective date of the employee’s resignation. 30.2 Upon the occurrence of a vacancy in the classification, the City shall utilize an existing rehire list prior to pulling from or creating an eligibility list. The City shall contact the employee at the top of the rehire list to determine if the former employee is interested in the vacant position. If the former employee is not interested, the employee’s name shall be removed from the rehire list. If the former employee is interested, the former employee’s name will be submitted to the Police Chief for review. If the Police Chief determines the name submitted should not be rehired, he/she can continue to review names from the rehire list. Once the list is exhausted, the Chief may elect to utilize or create an eligibility list. - 30 - 30.3 The Police Chief will have a background check conducted to determine the fitness of the former employee for rehiring. The former employee will also submit to a physical examination and a psychological evaluation to determine fitness for duty. 30.4 If the Police Chief is satisfied with the results of the background check and the employee passes the physical examination and psychological evaluation, the Police Chief will forward the request for reinstatement to the City Manager for approval. If the former employee is rehired, the employee shall be placed at the same salary step as the employee held when the employee resigned. 30.5 As a condition of rehiring, the former employee will be required to undergo the training determined by the Chief of Police to be commensurate with the former employee’s length of absence from City employment. 30.6 Any former employee who left employment more than six (6) months before being rehired shall serve a probationary period of one (1) years as a condition of being rehired. 30.7 Upon successful completion of the probationary period, the employee’s vacation and sick leave accrual rate on the effective date of resignation plus the period of the probationary period shall be reinstated. Upon successful completion of the probationary period, the employee’s sick leave balance as of the effective date of resignation shall be reinstated, unless the employee received a payout of sick leave. 30.8 No departmental seniority for prior employment shall be attributed to any former employee rehired unless the employee is rehired within six (6) months of the effective date of the former employee’s resignation. 30.9 Anyone rehired under this section shall not be eligible to take any promotional examination during the employee’s probationary period, if any, under this section. 30.10 Any employee who resigns from the Police Department will be removed from any existing promotion lists. 31. RETIREMENT The City agrees to continue to maintain a contract with the Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) to provide: For Classic Employees (Sworn Personnel – Police Officer) - 31 - A classic employee is 1) any full-time employee hired prior to January 1, 2013 or 2) a full-time employee hired after January 1, 2013, who was already a member of a public employee retirement system at the time of hire by the City with a break in service of no more than six (6) months between the employee’s prior public employee retirement system-participating agency and the City. Classic employees shall be members of PERS, as provided by the terms of the contract in effect between the City and PERS which includes: • Government Code Section 21362.2 - 3.0% @ 50 Benefit formula • Government Code Section 20042 – One Year Final Compensation • Government Code Section 21574 – 4th level 1959 Survivor Benefits • Government Code Section 21624 – Post Retirement Survivor Allowance • Government Code Section 2102 – Military Service Credit as Public Service • Effective the first pay period of January 2015 employees to contribute an additional 1.0% towards retirement for a total contribution of 10.0%. • Effective the first pay period of January 2016 employees to contribute an additional 1.0% towards retirement for a total contribution of 11.0%. • Effective the first pay period of January 2017 employees to contribute an additional 1.0% towards retirement for a total contribution of 12.0%. • Effective the first pay period of January 2018 employees to contribute an additional 1.0% towards retirement for a total contribution of 13.0%. The additional 1.0% effective the first pay period of January 2018, shall sunset on December 31, 202118. For New Mmembers Hired on or after January 1, 2013 (Sworn Personnel – Police Officer) New members of PERS, who are hired after January 1, 2013, shall have the PERS 2.7% @ 57 formula, as provided by the terms of the contract in effect between the City and PERS. The employee contribution rate shall be fifty percent (50%) of the “normal cost” (as defined by Government Code Section 7522.04(g)) for the 2.7% @ 57 formula rounded to the nearest quarter of one percent (1%). Other terms shall include: • Government Code Section 7522.32 – Three Year Final Compensation • Government Code Section 7533.3 – No employer payment for employee contribution. • Government Code Section 21574 – 4th level 1959 Survivor Benefits • Government Code Section 21624 – Post Retirement Survivor Allowance • Government Code Section 2102 – Military Service Credit as Public Service. • Employees shall make retirement contributions in accordance with PEPRA. The City shall provide the deferral of retirement deductions by IRS 414 H(2). - 32 - Police Officer Trainees are classified as Miscellaneous employees. Effective 03/31/08, the City implemented the 2.5% at 55 retirement formula for miscellaneous employees hired on or before 12/31/12(Classic Employees). Classic employees shall pay 1.5 % of the City’s contribution for the CalPERS retirement costs. Miscellaneous employees hired on or after January 1, 2013, who are not considered “classic employees”, shall receive the 2% @ 62 retirement benefit and are subject to the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) rules. PEPRA employees do not pay 1.5% of the City’s contribution for the CalPERS retirement costs. The City shall provide the deferral of retirement deductions by IRS 414(h) (2). 32. SPECIAL PROVISIONS 32.1 Annual Evaluation: Annual evaluations will be in accordance with Department Manual Section 1- 790. 32.2 Acting Watch Commander: Effective with the July 2006 Shift Bid, the Acting Watch Commander shall be designated in accordance with Section1-785 of the Burlingame Police Manual, Department Standard Operating Procedures. 32.3 Meet and Confer Requirements Regarding Standard Operating Procedures: The City and the Association agree to meet and confer on any proposed modifications to the following Burlingame Police Manual, Department Standard Operating Procedures: Section 1-785 Section 1-766.04 Section 1-766.48 Section 1-766.50 33. CONCERTED ACTIVITIES It is agreed and understood that there will be no strike, work stoppage, slow down or refusal to perform job functions during the term of this Agreement. 34. NO LOCKOUT The City agrees not to engage in any lockout during the term of this Agreement - 33 - 35. RIGHTS 35.1 City Rights: The City hereby retains and reserves unto itself, without limitation, all powers, rights, authority, duties and responsibilities conferred upon and vested in it by the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of California, the laws of the United States, the laws of California, and the ordinances and resolutions of the City of Burlingame and shall be limited only by the express and specific terms of the Memorandum. 35.2 Employee Rights: Nothing contained in this Memorandum of Understanding shall prohibit the Association from meeting and conferring on matters within the scope of representation as provided by law. The City acknowledges the employees and the Association retain the all rights under Section 3500 et. seq. of the California Labor Code. 36. EFFECT OF AGREEMENT This Memorandum of Understanding shall supersede any prior Memoranda of Understanding, rules, regulations or ordinances in direct conflict with the provisions hereof. 37. MODIFICATION There will be no alteration or modification of any provision contained in this Memorandum without the written consent of all parties hereto. 38. TOTAL AGREEMENT This Memorandum of Understanding constitutes a full and complete agreement by the parties and contains all of the matters upon which the parties reached agreement. Any matter not contained in this Memorandum has not been agreed upon and, if raised in negotiations, was dropped by the party raising it as part of a good faith attempt to reach agreement. 39. SEPARABILITY OF PROVISIONS Should any section, clauses or provision of this Memorandum of Understanding be declared illegal by final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidation of such section, clause or provision shall not invalidate the remaining portions hereof, and such remaining portions shall remain in full force and effect for the duration of this Memorandum of Understanding. In the event of such invalidation, the parties agree to meet and confer concerning substitute provisions for provisions rendered or declared illegal. - 34 - 40. TERM The term of this agreement shall begin on January 1, 200194 and expire on December 31, 202118. POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION CITY OF BURLINGAME Date:_____________________ Date:____________________ _______________________________ _____________________________ James HutchingChuck Witt, President Angela RodriguezSonya M MOrrison, Human Resources SpecialistDirector _______________________________ _____________________________ Todd Chase, Vice PresidentTreasurer Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager - 35 - Appendix A Salary Schedule City of Burlingame Classifications and Salaries for Police Officers Association Police Officer A B C D E Effective January 20194 Monthly $7,473.96 $6,676.31 $7,885.61 $7,039.42 $8,242.69 $7,361.37 $8,676.64 $7,746.27 $9,090.76 $8,114.21 Biweekly $3,449.52 $3,081.38 $3,639.51 $3,248.96 $3,804.32 $3,397.56 $4,004.61 $3,575.20 $4,195.74 $3,745.02 Hourly $43.12 $ 38.52 $45.50 $ 40.61 $47.55 $ 42.47 $50.05 $ 44.69 $52.45 $ 46.81 A B C D E Effective January 2015 Monthly $6,776.46 $7,145.01 $7,471.79 $7,862.46 $8,235.93 Biweekly $3,127.60 $3,297.70 $3,448.52 $3,628.83 $3,801.20 Hourly $ 39.09 $ 41.22 $ 43.11 $ 45.36 $ 47.51 - 36 - Appendix B Grievance Form CITY OF BURLINGAME POLICE DEPARTMENT GRIEVANCE FORM DEFINITION: A grievance is defined section 16.1.2 in the current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Please check this definition before filing a grievance. A “working day” is defined as days when the City Hall of the City of Burlingame is open for business. 1. Employee Name:_____________________________________ 2. Date filed with Supervisor:_____________________________ 3. Date filed with Union:_________________________________ 4. Department:_________________________________________ 5. Specific clause(s) of the agreement allegedly violated: Specific clauses: __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 6. Statement of Grievance: __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ - 37 - 7. Remedy requested under this agreement: __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 8. Are you being represented by another person or the Union on this matter? _________ Yes ____________ No If applicable, name of representative: __________________________________________________________________ 9. Grievant ’s signature:_________________________________________ Date:_____________________________________ cc: Human Resources Director - 38 - Appendix C Administrative Procedures Administrative Procedure #4.28 - Bilingual Pay Policy Administrative Procedure #4.29.1 – Modified Duty Policy Administrative Procedure #4.27 – Catastrophic Leave - 39 - Side Letter of Agreement Between The City of Burlingame And The Burlingame Police Officers Association Regarding PERS Compounding And Shared Services Representatives for the City of Burlingame and representatives for the Burlingame Police Officers Association have agreed to the following: PERS Compounding Effective as soon as practicable after ratification of this Agreement, the City shall eliminate the practice of compounding differentials. Shared Services The City and the Association understand that there are no limitations or restrictions on the exploration or pursuit of share services. Approved and Accepted POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION CITY OF BURLINGAME Date:_____________________ Date:____________________ _______________________________ _____________________________ Dale Wild, President Deirdre Dolan, Human Resources Director _______________________________ _____________________________ James Hutchings, Vice President Jim Nantell, City Manager _______________________________ Todd Chase, Negotiator Burlingame Police Officers’ Assoc - 40 - Side Letter of Agreement Regarding Overtime Scheduling – Section 1-766.04 Of the Burlingame Police Manual Department Standard Operating Procedures – March 19, 2006 Representatives for the City of Burlingame and representatives for the Burlingame Police Officers Association have agreed to the following: Volunteer overtime will be offered from the top of the seniority list to the bottom and ordered overtime will begin from the bottom of the seniority list to the top (non rotational). Department personnel acting in a supervisory capacity will call and offer overtime to the senior officers who are able to work the overtime, before giving the overtime to a junior Officer. If no Officer wants the overtime, then Department Personnel will order the most junior Officer able to work that overtime detail to work. Once a Sergeant or AWC has called the officer he/she is to leave a message if the individual officer has a message machine. The message shall state the reason for the call and the date and time of call. Approved and Accepted: Police Officers Association City of Burlingame Date: _______________________________ Date: _______________________________ _______________________________ _____________________________ Dale Wild, President Deirdre Dolan, Human Resources Director _______________________________ _____________________________ James Hutchings, Vice President Jim Nantell, City Manager _______________________________ Todd Chase, Negotiator Burlingame Police Officers’ Assoc MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ADMINISTRATORS AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME JANUARY 1, 20194 – DECEMBER 31, 202118 - 2 - TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. RECOGNITION .................................................................................................... 4 2. ASSOCIATION DUES AND RIGHTS ................................................................... 4 3. NO DISCRIMINATION ......................................................................................... 6 4. ADVANCE NOTICE .............................................................................................. 7 5. SALARY PLAN AND PREMIUM PAYS ................................................................ 7 6. DAYS AND HOURS OF WORK ........................................................................... 9 7. COURT PAY ......................................................................................................... 9 8. HOLIDAYS ......................................................................................................... 10 9. VACATION ......................................................................................................... 10 10. ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE ................................................................................. 11 11. TUITION REIMBURSEMENT ............................................................................. 12 12. SICK LEAVE....................................................................................................... 12 13. LEAVES OF ABSENCE ..................................................................................... 13 14. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ............................................................................... 14 15. HEALTH AND WELFARE .................................................................................. 17 16. UNIFORM ALLOWANCE ................................................................................... 21 - 3 - 17. PROBATIONARY PERIOD ................................................................................ 22 18. LAYOFF AND RECALL ...................................................................................... 22 19. DEMOTION, SUSPENSION AND DISMISSAL OF PERMANENT EMPLOYEES ..................................................................................................... 23 20. EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT FOR CITY BUSINESS ..................................... 24 21. LIVING DISTANCE ............................................................................................. 25 22. SENIORITY ........................................................................................................ 25 23. RESIGNATION ................................................................................................... 25 24. RETIREMENT .................................................................................................... 25 25. CONCERTED ACTIVITIES ................................................................................ 27 26. NO LOCKOUT .................................................................................................... 27 27. RIGHTS .............................................................................................................. 27 28. EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ................................................................................ 27 30. TOTAL AGREEMENT ........................................................................................ 27 31. SEPARABILITY OF PROVISIONS ..................................................................... 28 32. TERM ................................................................................................................. 28 APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................. 30 APPENDIX B: Grievance Form ........................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. - 4 - The Association of Police Administrators and representatives of the City of Burlingame have met and conferred in good faith regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment of employees in the representation unit listed in Section 1, have freely exchanged information, opinions and proposals and have endeavored to reach agreement on all matters relating to the employment conditions and employer-employee relations of such employees. This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into pursuant to the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act and has been jointly prepared by the parties. 1. RECOGNITION The Association of Police Administrators, hereinafter referred to as the “Association”, is recognized as the majority representative, as provided in the City's Employer- Employee Relations Ordinance, for all employees assigned to the following classifications: Police Sergeant Police Lieutenant Police Captain 2. ASSOCIATION DUES AND RIGHTS 2.1 The City shall deduct Association membership dues and any other agreed-upon payroll deductions, to the extent permitted by law, from the monthly pay of each member employee, in accordance with the procedures set forth herein.shall be entitled to have their regular dues of its members deducted from their paychecks. 2.2 Dues paying bBargaining unit members who have affirmatively consented to or authorized dues deductions shall be entitled to have dues deducted by filling out, signing and filing with the City Association an authorization form provided by the Association. The Association will notify the City of the employee name and amount of dues to be withheld. Any employee who signs such an authorization shall not revoke such authorization during the term of this Memorandum, except during the following time periods: 2.2.1 His/her first thirty (30) calendar days of employment; 2.2.2 The first thirty (30) calendar days following approval of this Memorandum by City Council; 2.1.1 The thirty (30) calendar day period between ninety (90) calendar days and sixty (60) calendar days preceding the expiration of this Memorandum of Understanding. Revocation during said period shall be by a written signed statement furnished by the Association. 2.2 The City agrees to direct each member employee to the Association with - 5 - regard to any questions or concerns related to membership dues or any other mutually agreed payroll deduction, to the extent permitted by law. 2.3 The Association is responsible for providing the City with timely information regarding changes to member employees’ dues and any other lawful union- related payroll deduction. 2.4 The Association’s Certification 2.5 The City shall make payroll deductions in reliance on the Association’s certification certifying that Association has and will maintain an authorization, signed by each member employee who affirmatively consents to pay Association membership dues. Similarly, the City shall only cancel or modify any membership dues or any other mutually agreed payroll deduction, to the extent permitted by law, for any member employees in reliance on the information provided by the Association. 2.6 The City shall not request the Association to provide a copy of any member employees’ authorization unless a dispute arises about the existence or terms of the authorization. 2.7 The Association shall indemnify, defend, protect and hold harmless the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, officers and agents (collectively hereafter the “Indemnitees”) from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, damages, fines, penalties, claims, demands, suits, actions, causes of action, judgments, costs and expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs) arising from the application of any provisions under Section 2, including, but not limited to, any claims made by any member employees for the membership dues deductions the City made in reliance on the Association’s certification, and any claims made by any member employees for any deduction cancellation or modification the City made in reliance on the information provided by the Association. 2.32.8 In the event any such action or proceeding is brought against the City by reason of any such claim, the Association upon notice from the City, covenants to defend such action or proceeding by counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City. Further, the Association agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City for any loss or damage arising from Association’s actions or inactions under Section 2. 2.42.9 The employee's earnings must be regularly sufficient after other legal and required deductions are made to cover the amount of the dues check-off authorized. When a member is in good standing of the Association and is in a non-pay status for the pay period when his/her dues would normally be withheld, no dues withholding will attach to future earnings nor will the - 6 - member be required to deposit the amount with the City which would have been withheld if the member had been in a pay status during that period. In the case of an employee who is in a non-pay status during only a part of the pay period and the salary is not sufficient to cover the full withholding, no deduction shall be made. In this connection, all other legal and required deduction(s) shall be made. In this connection, all other legal and required deductions have priority over Association dues. 2.52.10 Dues withheld by the City shall be transmitted monthly to the officer designated in writing by the Association as the person authorized to receive the funds, at the address specified. 2.62.11 The Association shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City harmless against any claims made and against any suit instituted against the City on account of check-off of employee organization dues. In addition, the Association shall refund to the City any amounts paid to it in error upon presentation of supporting evidence. In the event the City fails to collect an employee’s Association dues, the City shall transmit delinquent dues to the Association collected from future employee payroll deductions. 2.72.12 2.6 The Association may use portions of City bulletin boards to post Association materials under the following conditions: 2.7.12.12.1 2.6.1 All materials must receive the approval of the Police Chief or his/her designee in charge of the department bulletin board for conformance with this section. 2.7.22.12.2 2.6.2 All materials must be dated and must identify the organization that published them; 2.7.32.12.3 2.6.3 The City reserves the right to determine where bulletin boards shall be placed. 2.82.13 2.7 The Association shall designate in writing to the City Manager or his/her designee the names of the Association officers and representatives within thirty (30) days of any change in officers or representatives. 3. NO DISCRIMINATION The City agrees not to discriminate against any employee because of membership in the Association or because of any activities on behalf of the Association. Association activities shall not interfere with the normal operation of the City. Neither the City nor the Association shall discriminate for or against any employee or applicant for employment on account of a protected category, as defined by Federal and State law, race, color, creed, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability which does not prevent an employee from meeting the - 7 - minimum job standards established. 4. ADVANCE NOTICE Except in cases of emergency, the Association shall be given reasonable advance written notice of any ordinance, resolution, rule or regulation directly relating to matters within the scope of representation proposed to be adopted by the City and shall be given the opportunity to meet and confer with management representatives prior to adoption. 5. SALARY PLAN AND PREMIUM PAYS Effective the first pay period of January 2019, there will be an increase in base salary for all classes of three percent (3.0%). Effective the first pay period of January 2019, there will be a two percent (2.0%) equity adjustment. Effective the first pay period of January 2020, there will be an increase in base salary for all classes of four percent (4.0%). Effective the first pay period of January 2021, there will be an increase in base salary for all classes of two percent (2.0%). Effective the first pay period of January 2014, the following classification shall receive an increase in base salary: Police Sergeant - 2.5% Police Captain – No increase Effective the first pay period of January 2015, there shall be an increase in base salary for all classes of 2.0%; however, 0.5% of the 2.0% salary increase shall offset the City’s cost of medical premiums, such that the actual increase to base salary shall be 1.5%. Effective the first pay period of January 2016, there shall be an increase in base salary for all classes of 2.0%. Effective the first pay period of January 2017, there shall be an increase in base salary for all classes of 1.0%. Effective the first pay period of January 2018, there shall be an increase in base salary for all classes of 2.5%; however, 0.5% of the 2.5% salary increase shall offset the City’s cost of medical premiums, such that the actual increase to base salary shall be 2.0%. 5.1 Premium Pays will be provided as follows: - 8 - 5.1.1 A sergeant assigned to a shift from 18:00 – 06:00 shall receive a 6% shift differential. 5.1.2 A sergeant that is not assigned to the shift defined above will qualify for a 6% shift differential if more than one-half (½) of the sergeant’s shift is from 18:00 – 06:00. The differential will apply to the entire shift. If less than one-half (1/2) the shift is between 18:00 - 06:00, the differential will only apply to the hours worked within 18:00 - 06:00. 5.1.3 The City will provide a 5% premium pay differential to employees designated as bi-lingual service providers, requiring communication skills in languages other than English. Such designation will be pursuant to the City’s Administrative Procedure #4.28.1. 5.1.4 Sergeants assigned to Detective, Traffic, Administrative Services and Crime Prevention shall receive a 7.0% differential. In exchange for this differential, Sergeants assigned to Traffic, Administrative Services and Crime Prevention will forego 16 hours of Paid Administrative Leave. 5.1.5 The education increment for POST certifications shall be considered as wages for the purposes of computing overtime and holiday pay. 5.1.5.1 An employee with a POST certificate shall receive a premium pay differential (Peace Officer Standard Training (POST) Certificate Pay) in the following amounts: POST Advance Certificate = $430/month POST Supervisory Certificate = $700/month POST Management Certificate = $885/month POST Advance Certificate = $518.70/month POST Supervisory Certificate=$813.00/month POST Management Certificate=$974.82/month 5.2 Hourly Rate of Pay The hourly rate of pay for unit members shall be calculated bi-weekly. The rates of pay set forth herein represent, for each classification, the standard rate of pay for full-time employment, except for overtime compensation, any applicable premium pay and other benefits specifically provided for by the City, unless specifically indicated otherwise in the schedule. 5.3 Acting Pay Any regular full-time unit member who is assigned to work in an upgraded position/classification within the unit for a limited duration shall receive a fifteen percent (15%) increase, on base pay, for the duration of the (acting) assignment. - 9 - 6. DAYS AND HOURS OF WORK 6.1 Work Schedule: Work schedule is subject to Department policies and practices. 6.2 Overtime Definition (Sergeants only): Overtime is authorized time worked in excess of an employee’s normal daily work schedule. 6.2.1 Effective April 15, 2002 the Department will implement an Alternative Work Schedule Program. Once implemented, Sergeants who are assigned to 12-hour shifts will be authorized overtime for time worked in excess of 12 hours in a day. Overtime shall be compensated at one and one-half (1-1/2) times the employee's regular rate of pay for every hour of overtime worked. Payment for overtime shall not be made unless such overtime has been authorized by the City prior to such overtime being worked. 6.2.2 Overtime details are assigned in accordance with Section 1037 of the Burlingame Police Manual, Department Standard Operating Procedures. 6.3 Compensatory Time Off: Compensatory Time Off shall be allowed to accrue to a maximum of 160 hours. 6.4 Shooting Range Time (Sergeants only): Any represented employee who is required to attend the shooting range on off-duty time shall be entitled to pay at the rate of time and one-half (1½) for shooting at the range with a minimum of two (2) hours. 6.5 Call Back (Sergeants only): Employees shall be eligible for call back time if they are called back to work with less than 48 hours’ notice. Call back time shall be paid at time and one-half (1½) with a four-hour minimum. 6.6 Paid Work Details (Sergeants only): Employees who volunteer for Paid Work Details outside their scheduled hours shall receive payment in accordance with Section 6.2 Overtime Definition for a minimum of three (3) hours or actual time worked whichever is greater. If an employee is mandatory assigned to Paid Work Detail, then the employee shall be compensated in accordance with Section 6.5 Call Back. 7. COURT PAY Any represented employee who is required to be in court on off-duty time as part of his/her job duties shall be entitled to pay at the rate of time and one-half (1½) for all - 10 - court time with a minimum entitlement of three (3.0) hours at time and one-half (1½). In addition, such employee shall be entitled to a maximum of one (1) hour of total travel time at time and one-half (1½) for such court appearance, unless the employee utilizes a City vehicle to travel to court. It is understood that a represented employee who is required to appear in court during his/her shift and who is required to stay beyond the end of his/her shift, shall be entitled to pay at the rate of time and one- half (1½), but shall not be entitled to any minimum number of hours or to any travel time. 8. HOLIDAYS 8.1 Holiday Pay: Employees will receive 112 hours of holiday pay per year. Effective 1/1/03, the City agrees to pay out holiday pay over 26 pay periods. Holiday pay will be calculated by converting the number of observed and floating holidays in a calendar year to hours and multiplying that number by the employee’s hourly rate. The figure derived will be divided by 26 pay periods. 8.2 Mandatory Overtime on Holidays: Double time will be paid to any personnel who are ordered to work (mandatory) overtime on the following four holidays: New Year’s Day, July 4th, Thanksgiving and Christmas. 9. VACATION 9.1 Vacation Eligibility: Employees shall be entitled to annual vacation leave with pay as it is accrued. 9.2 Vacation Schedule: Years of Service Bi-Weekly Accrual Rate Annual Hours of Vacation 4 & fewer 4.00 104 5 4.93 128 10 6.46 168 15 7.45 194 On an employee’s 20th anniversary date of employment with the City of Burlingame, the employee will receive a one-time allotment of 16 hours of vacation in his/her vacation accrual bank. This allotment will be provided to current active Association members that have 20 or more years of service. 9.3 Vacation Accumulation: Earned vacation time may be accumulated to a maximum of two (2) times the employee’s annual accrual. Once in a calendar year (January – December), an employee who has reached the maximum vacation accrual may request to be paid-out Forty (40) hours of accrued vacation time. Such payout is - 11 - subject to the Police Chief’s approval. 9.4 Vacation During Leave of Absence: An employee who is on leave of absence without pay shall not accrue vacation leave benefits. 9.5 Vacation Scheduling: Vacations shall be scheduled bi-yearly by employees with the approval of the Police Chief or his/her designee. Scheduling shall be done in accordance with Sections 1015 of the Burlingame Police Manual, Department Standard Operating Procedures. Unit members shall be allowed to change scheduled vacation days if an opening exists on the vacation schedule, provided that the Chief or his/her designee is given notice forty-eight (48) hours in advance of such proposed change. 10. ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE Administrative Leave and Personal Time Off (PTO) - Effective 7/1/02, the City will transfer twenty-four hours of PTO given to Association employees to their administrative leave banks. Members of this unit will no longer receive PTO. Effective 7/1/02, the City will grant the following administrative leave hours per fiscal year. The following total administrative leave includes the twenty-four (24) hours of PTO converted to administrative leave as noted above: Police Sergeant - 64 hours of administrative leave per fiscal year Police Captains - 84 hours of administrative leave per fiscal year. Effective 7/1/02, members of this unit can accrue up to two (2) times their annual allotment of administrative leave. Association employees may submit up to a maximum of one year of administrative leave accrual for payment. Payout of administrative leave can be requested to be paid with the first paycheck of December and/or the final paycheck of June each calendar year. In lieu of overtime, Police Captains and Police Lieutenants receive 84 hours of administrative leave per fiscal year. Administrative leave accrues on a bi-weekly basis. 10.1 Administrative Leave Payout Employees eligible for administrative leave may have a maximum of one year of administrative leave on the books and may request administrative leave payout at any time by submitting the payout request on the timesheet. When administrative leave balances exceed the one-year maximum of 84 hours for Police Captains and Lieutenants, hours that exceed the one-year maximum will automatically be paid out. - 12 - 11. TUITION REIMBURSEMENT The City will reimburse employees up to $3000 a year for the cost of tuition, and up to $500 a year for the cost of books and/or computer equipment and programs. Credit/No credit courses will be reimbursed when verification of course credit is submitted. 12. SICK LEAVE 12.1 Sick Leave Defined: Sick Leave is absence from duty with pay because of an employee's illness or injury; or to attend medical, dental, or optical examinations or treatments for the employee; or to care for an immediate family member who is ill and requires the employee’s care. Sick leave shall not be considered as a right that an employee may use at his/her discretion, but shall be allowed in case of necessity and actual personal or immediate family illness. 12.2 Sick Leave Accrual: All full time regular and probationary members shall accrue sick leave at the rate of 3.69 hours per bi-weekly pay period to a maximum of 2080 hours. An employee who is on paid leave shall continue to earn sick leave credit. An employee who is on leave without pay shall not accrue sick leave credit. Sick leave shall accrue during an absence that is a result of occupational disability resulting from employer service. 12.3 Maximum Sick Leave Accrual: Sick Leave with pay shall be granted to all full-time regular and probationary employees to a maximum of 2080 hours. 12.4 Notification of Sickness: Sick leave usage will be in conformance with the Police Manual Standard operating Procedures. Section 1014 12.5 Sick Leave Monitoring Program: The record keeping to determine sick days used will be from January 1 to December 31 of each year. Sick leave monitoring will be in accordance with the Department’s standard operating procedures. 12.6 Sick Leave for Care of Family: Sick leave to care for family members will be in conformance with the City’s Administrative Procedure, Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and other federal and state leave requirements. Generally, these laws grant up to twelve (12) weeks of leave in a twelve (12) month period, to care for members of the employee’s immediate family. - 13 - Employees who feel they may need to exercise their rights for extended family medical leaves should talk to their supervisors and/or the Human Resources Department. The immediate family shall consist of the spouse, children, parents, brothers, sisters, grandparents, grandchildren, domestic partners, and stepchildren. The employer shall grant such sick leave only for the purposes of sickness or disability as provided above when the relationship of the sick or disabled person to the employee warrants such use of accumulated sick leave. 12.7 Sick Leave Upon Retirement: Upon retirement, the employee shall be entitled to and be compensated for up to 600 hours of the employee’s accumulated sick leave. 12.8 Sick Leave Conversion: Employees can elect to have all sick leave hours converted to CalPERS credible service per GC Section 20965. If an employee elects to have sick leave hours paid out per Section 12.74.9, the remaining sick leave balance not paid out is eligible for conversion to credible service per GC Section 20965. The maximum available for conversion after payout is 2080 hours. Any sick leave hours paid out at retirement are not eligible for conversion. 13. LEAVES OF ABSENCE 13.1 Industrial Accident Leave: Industrial accident leave means the absence from duty of an employee because of work-incurred illness or bodily injury when such absence has been accepted for coverage under the provisions of the Worker's Compensation laws of the State of California, and such leave shall not be deducted from the employee's sick leave balance. Police unit members shall be provided benefits pursuant to Section 4850 of the Labor Code of the State of California and other applicable State law. All temporary disability benefits shall be assigned to the City. 13.1.1 Benefits During Disability: No represented employee shall be denied the normal accrual of vacation or sick leave benefits during a period of disability covered by Section 4850 of the Labor Code. While covered by Section 4850, all benefits, which include medical, dental, vision, and life insurance are continued. 13.2 Military Leaves of Absence: In addition to the leaves of absence herein provided for members of the classified service, those Sergeants/Commanders or employees in such service who are members of the National Guard or Reserve Corps in the federal Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine or Coast Guard Service shall be entitled - 14 - to leaves of absence authorized and provided by the military and veterans’ code of the State of California, and in addition thereto shall be entitled to the rights and privileges authorized by said military and veterans’ code with respect to status and re-employment. 13.3 Other Leaves of Absence With or Without Pay: The City Manager may, for good cause, grant other leaves of absence with or without pay for up to one (1) year. 13.4 Jury Duty Leave: Every full-time employee of the City who is called and required to serve as a trial juror shall be entitled to jury duty leave during the period of such service or while necessarily being present in court as a result of such call. Under such circumstances, the employee shall be paid his/her full salary and shall reimburse the City any payments received, except for travel pay. 13.5 Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL): Failure on the part of any employee, to report to duty at his/her regularly scheduled starting time shall be considered absence without official leave and may be cause for disciplinary action. 13.6 Bereavement Leave: In the event of a death in the immediate family or a member of the household of an employee, absence from duty shall not exceed three (3) work days. In the event of the death of a relative not a member of the immediate family, absence from duty shall not exceed one (1) day. Such absences shall not be charged to sick leave. In the event of the death of a non-family member, an employee shall be allowed to use vacation or CTO. For the purposes of this section, "immediate family" means parent, spouse, domestic partner, child, sibling, grandparents, mother-in-law, or father-in-law. 14. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 14.1 Definitions: 14.1.1 "Days" as used herein shall be days when the City Hall of the City of Burlingame is open for business. 14.1.2 "Grievance" is a written allegation by a unit employee, submitted as herein specified, claiming violation(s) of the specific express terms of this Agreement for which there is no Civil Service or other specific method of review provided by City law. 14.1.3 "Grievant" is an individual employee or employee organization adversely affected by any dispute over the interpretation or application of any provision of this Memorandum of Understanding. - 15 - 14.2 Steps: 14.2.1 Step 1: The grievant shall discuss the grievance with his/her immediate supervisor within fifteen (15) days of actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of the grievance. If the issue is not resolved, the grievant shall be entitled to proceed to Step 2. 14.2.2 Step 2: Within ten (10) days of the conclusion of the Step 1 meeting, the grievant shall file with the Police Chief a written grievance on the agreed upon form, which is attached as “Appendix A,” setting forth the following: Name Classification Section or sections of the MOU allegedly violated Remedy sought Within ten (10) days of receipt of the written grievance, the Police Chief will meet with the grievant and his/her representative to attempt to reach a satisfactory resolution. 14.2.3 Step 3: If the grievance remains unresolved at Steps 1 and 2, it may be appealed to the Human Resources Director within ten (10) days of the conclusion for the meeting described in Step 3. Said appeal shall be in the form of a written request to proceed to Step 3, along with the written grievance. The Human Resources Director shall respond to the grievance within ten (10) days of receipt of the written appeal. The determination of the Human Resources Director shall be final, except as provided in Step 4. 14.2.4 Step 4: (a) If not satisfied with the decision at Step 3, the grievant, within five (5) days after receipt of the Step 3 response, may request in writing that the Association submit the grievance to advisory arbitration. Within ten (10) days of the grievant's receipt of the decision at Step 3, the Association shall inform the City of its intent as to whether or not the grievance will be arbitrated. Should the Association deem that the grievance not be continued as an Association grievance, it shall so inform the City within ten (10) days. This shall not preclude an individual grievant from pursuing the arbitration procedure, as provided below. (b) The Association or individual grievant, by written notice to the City Manager within fifteen (15) days of the Step 3 response, may submit a - 16 - grievance to an arbitrator who shall be selected by mutual agreement. If no agreement can be reached within five (5) days of the notice, the parties shall request of the State Mediation Conciliation Service (SMCS) a list of five (5) names of persons experienced in hearing grievances. Each party shall alternately strike a name until only one name remains. The order of strike shall be determined by lot. (c) In each dispute, the arbitrator shall, as soon as possible, hear evidence and render a decision on the issue(s) submitted. If the parties cannot agree upon a submission agreement, the arbitrator shall determine the issue(s) by referring to the written grievance and the answers thereto at each step. After the hearing, and after both parties have been given the opportunity to make written arguments, the arbitrator shall submit, in writing, his/her findings and award to the Association and the City. (d) The award of the arbitrator shall be advisory to the City Manager. (e) The arbitrator will have no power to add to, subtract from, or modify the terms of the Agreement or the written policies, rules, regulations and procedures of the City; nor shall the arbitrator be empowered to render a decision on issues not before the arbitrator or on facts not supported by the evidence. (f) The fees and expenses of the arbitrator and each hearing shall be borne equally by the City and the Association; or if an individual pursues arbitration without the Association’s consent, said individual shall share equally in the cost with the City. All other expenses shall be borne by the party incurring them. (g) If any question arises regarding the arbitrability of a grievance, the party raising the question of arbitrability may, upon request, have such question first ruled upon and decided by an arbitrator prior to any other hearing on the merits of the grievance that would thereafter be conducted by a second and different arbitrator. The selection of the arbitrator will be as described in Section 14.2.5 (b) above. The fees and expenses of the separate arbitrator deciding the issue or arbitrability shall be borne by the party that raised the question of arbitrability. 14.3 Failure to Pursue: 14.3.1 Any failure by a grievant to pursue his/her grievance to the next step within the time limits shall be a voluntary abandonment of the grievance and the grievant shall not thereafter be entitled to pursue said grievance. The grievance will be deemed settled. - 17 - 14.3.2 Any failure by the City to respond within the time limits set forth shall entitle the grievant to pursue his/her grievance to the next step. 14.3.3 By mutual written consent by both the City and grievant, an extension can be granted for any step in the grievance process. 14.4 Representation: 14.4.1 A grievant shall be entitled to be represented by his/her Association and/or his/her attorney at any grievance meeting or discussion described in any one (1) of the steps of the grievance procedure; provided, however, in no event shall more than one (1) City employee, in addition to the grievant, attend such grievance meetings as representative. The limitations of this Section shall apply to employees on paid release time and not to Association staff or witnesses who may be necessary to the grievance. 14.4.2 Neither the grievant nor his/her representative shall suffer loss or pay for attending the meetings described in the steps of the grievance procedure. 14.4.3 Except for grievance meetings described in the steps of the grievance procedure, neither grievant nor any representative of the grievant shall be entitled to use regular work time to process the grievance. 14.5 Other Procedures: The grievance procedure set forth herein shall supersede and replace any other grievance or appeal procedures otherwise available to represented employees and are deemed sufficient to satisfy procedural due process requirements for such hearings and/or appeals. Nothing contained herein to the grievance procedure shall apply to employee disciplinary matters. 15. HEALTH AND WELFARE 15.1 Flexible Benefits Plan: Under the Flexible Benefit Plan the City’s monthly contribution for the individual employee and the employee’s eligible dependents shall be oOne hHundred and nineteen thirty six dollars ($13619.00) per month effective January 1, 20194 and shall adjust in accordance with the Minimum Employer Contribution (MEC) established by the Public Employees Medical and Hospital Care Act. In addition, the City shall offer an Internal Revenue Code Section 125 Plan that contains the components of benefit allowance, premium conversion, health care reimbursement account, and dependent care reimbursement account. The City shall contribute the below-listed amount per month toward each employee’s Section 125 Plan benefit allowance components. All - 18 - amounts listed below include the Minimum Employer Contribution (MEC): • Employee only: third highest plan CalPERS Bay Area Region premium Blue Shield HMO rate for Employee only • Employee plus one: third highest plan CalPERS Bay Area Region premium Blue Shield HMO rate for Employee plus one • Employee plus two or more: CalPERS Bay Area Region premium Kaiser family rate An employee may use any benefit allowance stated above toward the cost of employer-provided PERS Health insurance for the employee and eligible dependents. An employee may not use the benefit allowance for other reasons. Any employee that enrolls in a Medical Plan that has a higher premium than the City’s contribution, as stated above, will pay the difference via pre-tax payroll deductions. NO PLAN – Any employee that demonstrates they have medical insurance from another service will receive two three hundred and fifty dollars ($200) per month in lieu of medical benefits. The two hundred dollars ($200) per month may be put into a deferred compensation plan, Section 125 Plan, or taken in cash. Any cash payment is subject to normal taxation. Effective January 1, 2015, the City’s contribution in lieu of medical benefits will increase to three hundred and fifty dollars ($350.00) per month. 15.2 Retiree Medical Benefits 15.2.1 Retiree Medical for Employees Hired Prior to June 26, 2006 Who Retire Prior to January 1, 2014 (Tier 1): Employees hired prior to June 26, 2006 who retire prior to January 1, 2014 with a minimum of five (5) years of service with the City, will receive a retiree medical benefit equivalent to the amount necessary for actual enrollment in single, two-party, or family coverage, up to a maximum dollar amount of the Kaiser family premium rate. 15.2.2 Retiree Medical for Employees Hired Prior to June 26, 2006 Who Retire On or After January 1, 2014 (Tier 1a): Effective January 1, 2014, employees hired prior to June 26, 2006, who retire from the City with five (5) years of City service, will receive a retiree medical benefit in accordance with the following: • For eligible retirees, the City contribution will be equivalent to the - 19 - Bay Area Region premiums for Blue Shield Access HMO Single, Blue Shield Two-Party, or Kaiser Family coverage as applicable. • For eligible retirees who are 65 years of age or older and enrolled in Medicare, or a Medicare Combination plan, the City contribution will be equivalent to the Medicare, or Medicare Combination, supplement plan premium for the Bay Area Region for Blue Shield Access HMO Single, Blue Shield Two-Party, or Kaiser Family coverage as applicable. If the Blue Shield Access HMO or Kaiser is no longer offered by CalPERS medical, the employee will receive the contribution equal to the third highest cost plan offered by CalPERS medical. 15.2.3 Retiree Medical for Employees Hired After June 26, 2006 and Before November 1, 2010 (Tier 2): Employees hired on or after June 26, 2006 (the date of implementation of the 3.0% @50 Retirement Benefit) and before November 1, 2010, will receive retiree medical contributions based on years of service with the Police Department. The retiree medical contribution for employees who have a service retirement will be as follows: Years of Service Monthly Contribution 0-end of 9th year of service Minimum monthly amount as governed by the CalPERS Health System. 10 years to the end of the 14th year of service 50% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee +1 dependent. 15 years to the end of the 19th year of service 75% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee +1 dependent. 20 years of service or more 100% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee +1 dependent. 15.2.4 Industrial Disability Retiree Medical Benefits for Employees Hired On or After June 26, 2006 and Before November 1, 2010 (Tier 2): This section does not affect employees hired before June 26, 2006. For employees hired before June 26, 2006, the City’s contribution for health insurance premiums shall equal the amount received by active employees. - 20 - Employees hired after the implementation of 3% @50 (June 26, 2006) and before November 1, 2010 that have an industrial disability retirement will have a retiree medical contribution as follows: Years of Service Monthly Contribution 0-end of 19th year of service 75% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee +1 dependent. 0-end of 19th year of service 100% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee +1 dependent if the disability is the direct result of performing a specific job task unique to that of a Police Officer (examples include, but are not limited to, operation of an emergency vehicle, involvement in a shooting, apprehension of a suspect, rescue of a citizen, assault by a suspect or other individual or direct involvement in a vehicle accident). 20 years of service or more 100% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee +1 dependent. 15.2.5 Retiree Medical for Employees Hired On or After November 1, 2010 (Tier 3): Employees hired on or after November 1, 2010 shall receive the following contributions to a Retireement Health Savings AccountReimbursement Arrangement (RHRASA), based on years of service with the Police Department, in lieu of the Retiree Medical Benefits in Section 15.2.1, 15.2.2 and 15.2.3. Years of Service Monthly Contribution 0- to the end of the 45th year of service 20.0% 56 years of service to the end of the 19th year of service 32.0% 20 years of service or more 52.5% 15.3 Dental: The City will continue to provide dental coverage provided through Delta Dental. 15.4 Vision: The Association will continue vision coverage under the City’s self-insured vision pool. - 21 - 15.5 Life Insurance: During the term hereof, the City agrees to provide life insurance to the extent of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) coverage for members of the bargaining unit. The City also agrees to offer supplemental life insurance. The cost for supplemental life insurance will be paid for by the employee through payroll deduction. 15.6 Deferred Compensation: Full time regular employees are eligible, subject to IRS regulations and the terms and conditions thereof, to participate in the deferred compensation plans made available to all city employees. Effective January 1, 2006, the City shall provide a matching contribution of up to forty-five dollars ($45.00) per pay period to an employee’s deferred compensation account. 15.7 Section 125 Flexible Benefit Plans: The City will provide dependent daycare reimbursement and healthcare reimbursement plans per the provisions of IRS Section 125. 15.8 Retiree Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) The City shall contribute one percent (1%) of base salary per pay period into the retiree HRA plan. Employees in the unit shall contribute one percent (1%) of base salary per pay period into the retiree HRA. Fees will be paid in accordance with the Plan Document. During the term of this MOU, employees in this bargaining unit may elect to contribute a set amount of salary to the retiree HRA and/or contribute separation pay to the retiree HRA. The City shall be notified of any such election sixty (60) days prior to the effective date. 16. UNIFORM ALLOWANCE Effective January 1, 2008 the City agrees to pay one thousand and sixty dollars ($1,060) annually per employee. Effective June 26, 2017, uniform allowance will be paid bi-weekly with the regular payroll check. Uniform allowance will be paid on a separate paycheck. - 22 - 16.1 For any employee who leaves prior to the end of the fiscal year in which he/she has received such payment, the amount shall be prorated based on the percentage of the year worked, and the final paycheck adjusted accordingly. 16.2 It is understood that the City shall provide and maintain all employees with required safety equipment. Any failure or refusal by any employee to care for and maintain a proper uniform or equipment shall be deemed cause for discipline. 17. PROBATIONARY PERIOD 17.1 All original appointments shall be tentative and subject to a probationary period of eighteen twelve (128) months of actual service from the date of appointment as a sworn Police Officer. Upon satisfactory completion of such probationary period, employees shall be appointed as regular employees. 17.2 The City may extend the probationary period for an equal period of time in case of an absence of thirty (30) days or more for extended sick or accident leave. 17.3 Employees may be suspended or separated from the City at any time during the probationary period, except as otherwise provided by law. 17.4 All promotional appointments shall be tentative and subject to a probationary period of one (1) year from date of appointment. Upon satisfactory completion of such probationary period, employees shall be appointed as regular employees. 17.5 Any regular employee rejected during the probationary period following a promotional appointment, or prior to the conclusion of the probationary period, shall be reinstated to the position from which they were promoted unless conditions warrant their dismissal. 18. LAYOFF AND RECALL 18.1 Permanent employees may be laid off, without prejudice, due to lack of funds or curtailment of work. No permanent employee, however, may be separated while there are temporary employees serving in the same class or position in the City service, unless that employee has been offered the temporary work. 18.2 When the Police Chief is instructed by the City Manager to reduce the number of employees, layoff shall be made in accordance with the following rules: 18.2.1 Layoffs shall be according to reverse order of seniority as defined by - 23 - total City service. 18.2.2 An employee may demote or transfer to a vacant position for which he/she possesses the necessary skills as determined by the minimum qualifications and job specifications for the position. 18.2.3 The name of each employee laid off shall be entered on a Reemployment List in order of seniority for two (2) years 18.2.4 Former employees appointed from a reemployment eligibility list shall be restored all rights accrued prior to being laid off, such as sick leave, vacation credits, and credit for years of service. However, such reemployed employees shall not be eligible for benefits for which they received compensation at the time of or subsequent to the date they were laid off. 18.2.5 The City further agrees to meet and confer with the Association and reach mutual agreement prior to said layoff concerning all ramifications of the proposed layoff. 19. DEMOTION, SUSPENSION AND DISMISSAL OF PERMANENT EMPLOYEES 19.1 Demotion: No permanent employee shall be demoted in grade or pay step for disciplinary reasons without just cause, and no employee shall be demoted to a position for which he does not possess the minimum qualifications. Written notice of demotion shall be given by the Police Chief to the employee before the effective date of the demotion. The employee shall be entitled to appeal the action in accordance with Section 19.5 of this Agreement. 19.2 Suspension Without Pay: The Police Chief may suspend without pay an employee from his position at any time for disciplinary purposes. Suspension without pay shall not exceed thirty (30) calendar days without confirmation by the City Manager. Such suspension shall be in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws. The employee shall be entitled to appeal the action in accordance with Section 19.5 of this agreement. 19.3 Discharge: A permanent employee may be discharged for just cause. Such discharge shall be in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws. The employee shall be entitled to appeal the action in accordance with Section 19.5 of this agreement. 19.4 The Police Chief will issue a notice of Intended Discipline before suspending without pay, demoting or discharging a Police OfficerLieutenant/Captain. - 24 - Such notice will advise the employee of his/her due process rights to a "Skelly" hearing. At the employee’s request, the Police Chief will conduct such a "Skelly" hearing to consider any exonerating or mitigating evidence. 19.5 Within five (5) business days upon receipt of the Notice of Imposition of Discipline, the employee, by written notice to the Human Resources Director, may request an appeal hearing be submitted to an ad hoc review board. Business days are defined as days that City Hall is open to the public. The ad hoc review board shall be selected as follows: The City shall select one member, the employee shall select one member and the two members thus chosen will select a third impartial member from a list supplied by the State Mediation Conciliation Service (SMCS) who will serve as Chair of the board. SMCS will supply a list of five names of persons experienced in disciplinary hearings. Each party shall alternately strike a name until one remains. The remaining panel member shall be the third member of the ad hoc review board. The order of the striking shall be determined by lot. The City will pay the fees of the panel Chair selected from SMCS. The board shall, as soon as possible, hear and receive evidence and render a decision on the disciplinary action. Such a hearing will not be open to the public and will be recorded by a Court Reporter paid for by the City. The disciplinary action can be upheld, modified, or rejected by the panel. The board's decision will be explained in writing and any changes or modifications to the disciplinary action clearly explained. The decision by the board is advisory to the Human Resources Director. The Human Resources Director can adopt the proposed decision in its entirety; reject the proposed decision; refer the case back to the panel to take additional evidence and then render a decision; or modify the decision. 20. EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT FOR CITY BUSINESS If prior approval has been obtained from the City, personal expenses incurred shall be reimbursed. These reimbursements shall be based on the most economical means of travel but if use of a personal auto is authorized, payment shall be at the same rate established by the IRS. Upon prior department head authorization, the cost of food at meetings shall be reimbursed. If required to stay overnight or nights, the City shall reimburse the employee for all lodging and necessary expenses. 20.1 Use of Personal Cell Phone For City Business A Police Captain or Police Lieutenant who uses their personal cell phone for City business will receive $40 per month, paid twice a year. - 25 - 21. SEPARATION PAYS Accumulated Leave Allowance For Separated Employees Employees who separate shall be paid the straight-time, base pay, salary equivalent in a lump sum for all eligible accrued leave earned (vacation, administrative leave, holiday, eligible sick leave). LIVING DISTANCE The living area requirement is within the ten bay area counties (San Mateo, San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz, and San Joaquin), except as may be agreed to by the City Manager. 22. SENIORITY Seniority begins on the first day of permanent employment with the City of Burlingame. If an employee is rehired after separating service for more than six (6) months, the prior employment shall not be attributed for seniority purposes. The City shall keep an up-to-date seniority list of all employees covered by this Agreement. 23. RESIGNATION In order to leave the Department in good standing, an employee shall file with the Police Chief a written resignation. The written resignation must be submitted within two (2) weeks of separation and shall state the effective date and reasons for leaving. Once the resignation has been accepted in writing by the Police Chief, it shall be irrevocable. 24. RETIREMENT The City agrees to continue to maintain a contract with the Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) to provide: 24.1 Classic Employees A classic employee is 1) any full-time employee hired prior to January 1, 2013 or 2) a full-time employee hired after January 1, 2013, who was already a member of a public employee retirement system at the time of hire by the City with a break in service of no more than six months between the employee’s prior public employee retirement system participating agency and the City. Classic employees shall be members of PERS, as provided by the terms of the contract in effect between the City and PERS which includes: • Government Code Section 21362.2 - 3.0% @ 50 Benefit formula - 26 - • Government Code Section 20042 – One Year Final Compensation • Government Code Section 21574 – 4th level 1959 Survivor Benefits • Government Code Section 21624 – Post Retirement Survivor Allowance • Government Code Section 2102 – Military Service Credit as Public Service • Effective the first pay period of January 2015, employees shall contribute an additional 1.0% towards retirement for a total contribution of 10.0% • Effective the first pay period of January 2016, employees shall contribute an additional 1.0% towards retirement for a total contribution of 11.0% • Effective the first pay period of January 2017, employees shall contribute an additional 1.0% towards retirement for a total contribution of 12.0% • Effective the first pay period of January 2018, employees shall contribute an additional 1.0% towards retirement for a total contribution of 13.0%. The additional 1.0% effective the first pay period of January 2018 shall sunset on December 31, 202118. 24.2 For New Members Hired On or After January 1, 2013 New members of PERS, who are hired after January 1, 2013, shall have the PERS 2.7% @ 57 formula, as provided by the terms of the contract in effect between the City and PERS. The employee contribution rate shall be 50 percent of the “normal cost” (as defined by Government Code Section 7522.04(g)) for the 2.7% @ 57 formula rounded to the nearest quarter of 1 percent. Other terms shall include: • Government Code Section 7522.32 – Three Year Final Compensation • Government Code Section 7533.3 – No employer payment for employee contribution. • Government Code Section 21574 – 4th level 1959 Survivor Benefits • Government Code Section 21624 – Post Retirement Survivor Allowance • Government Code Section 2102 – Military Service Credit as Public Service • Employees shall make retirement contributions in accordance with PEPRA. - 27 - The City shall provide the deferral of retirement deductions by IRS 414 H(2). 25. CONCERTED ACTIVITIES It is agreed and understood that there will be no strike, work stoppage, slow down or refusal to perform job functions during the term of this Agreement. 26. NO LOCKOUT The City agrees not to engage in any lockout during the term of this Agreement. 27. RIGHTS 27.1 City Rights: The City hereby retains and reserves unto itself, without limitation, all powers, rights, authority, duties and responsibilities conferred upon and vested in it by the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of California, the laws of the United States, the laws of California, and the ordinances and resolutions of the City of Burlingame and shall be limited only by the express and specific terms of the Memorandum. 27.2 Employee Rights: Nothing contained in this Memorandum of Understanding shall prohibit the Association from meeting and conferring on matters within the scope of representation as provided by law. The City acknowledges the employees and the Association retain all rights under Section 3500 et. seq. of the California Labor Code. 28. EFFECT OF AGREEMENT This Memorandum of Understanding shall supersede any prior Memoranda of Understanding, rules, regulations or ordinances in direct conflict with the provisions hereof. 29. MODIFICATION There will be no alteration or modification of any provision contained in this Memorandum without the written consent of all parties hereto. 30. TOTAL AGREEMENT This Memorandum of Understanding constitutes a full and complete agreement by the parties and contains all of the matters upon which the parties reached agreement. Any matter not contained in this Memorandum has not been agreed upon and, if raised in negotiations, was dropped by the party raising it as part of a good faith attempt to reach agreement. - 28 - 31. SEPARABILITY OF PROVISIONS Should any section, clauses or provision of this Memorandum of Understanding be declared illegal by final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidation of such section, clause or provision shall not invalidate the remaining portions hereof, and such remaining portions shall remain in full force and effect for the duration of this Memorandum of Understanding. In the event of such invalidation, the parties agree to meet and confer concerning substitute provisions for provisions rendered or declared illegal. 32. TERM The term of this agreement shall begin on January 1, 20194 and expire on December 31, 202118. - 29 - ASSOCIATION OF POLICE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADMINISTRATORS Date:_____________________ Date:______________________ ______________________ _______________________ Robert Boll Angela RodriguezSonya M. Morrison, Human Resources SpecialistDirector ___________________________ _______________________ Michael MatteucciJohn Kiely Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager - 30 - APPENDIX A Salary Schedule City of Burlingame Classifications and Salaries for the Association of Police Administrators Effective January 20194 A B C D E Police Monthly $12,640.5011,2 86.87 $13,253.8711,8 37.06 $13,833.9512,3 53.29 $14,516.2512,9 62.35 $15,219.9613,5 89.53 Captain Biweekly $5,834.085,209 .33 $6,117.175,463 .26 $6,384.905,701 .52 $6,699.815,982 .63 $7,024.596,272 .09 Hourly $72.9265.12 $76.4668.29 $79.8171.27 $83.7574.74 $87.8178.40 A B C D E Police Monthly $10,816.678,10 6.95 $11,354.778,49 1.84 $11,925.128,91 3.05 $12,520.269,36 5.72 $13,145.16984 2.60 Sergeant Lieutena nt Biweekly $4,992.313,741 .67 $5,240.673,919 .31 $5,503.904,113 .71 $5,778.584,322 .64 $6,066.994,552 .74 Hourly $62.4046.77 $65.5148.99 $68.8051.42 $72.2354.03 $75.8456.78 - 31 - Appendix B Grievance Form CITY OF BURLINGAME POLICE DEPARTMENT GRIEVANCE FORM DEFINITION: A grievance is defined section 16.1.2 in the current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Please check this definition before filing a grievance. A “working day” is defined as days when the City Hall of the City of Burlingame is open for business. 1. Employee Name:_____________________________________ 2. Date filed with Supervisor:_____________________________ 3. Date filed with Union:_________________________________ 4. Department:_________________________________________ 5. Specific clause(s) of the agreement allegedly violated: Specific clauses: __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 6. Statement of Grievance: __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ - 32 - 7. Remedy requested under this agreement: __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 8. Are you being represented by another person or the Union on this matter? _________ Yes ____________ No If applicable, name of representative: __________________________________________________________________ 9. Grievant ’s signature:_________________________________________ Date:_____________________________________ cc: Human Resources Director - 33 - Insert Lay off Policy Side Letter (in PDF) 1) Amend Section D (Displacement Rights) of the Side Letter regarding Layoff Policy for the Police Administrators to include bumping rights for the Police Lieutenant as follows by amending the first paragraph and adding a paragraph after the first paragraph: If an employee in the classification of Police Captain is given a Notice of Layoff by the City the Captain can displace a Police Lieutenant with less city seniority, regardless of whether the employee previously held the position of Police Lieutenant with the City. The Police Captain must notify the City within 15 days of receipt of the Notice of Layoff of his/her desire to exercise displacement rights. If an employee in the classification of Police Lieutenant is given a Notice of Layoff by the City and the employee previously held the position of Police Sergeant with the City, the Lieutenant can displace a Police Sergeant with less city seniority. The Police Lieutenant must notify the City within 15 days of receipt of the Notice of Layoff of his/her desire to exercise displacement rights. - 34 - INDEX A Accrual Maximum Accrual ____________________________ 10 Administrative Leave ___________________________ 9 Advance Notice ________________________________ 5 Association ____________________________________ 4 Dues ________________________________________ 4 Rights _______________________________________ 5 C Concerted Activities ___________________________ 24 Court Pay _____________________________________ 8 D Days and Hours of Work ________________________ 7 Call Back _____________________________________ 7 Compensatory Time Off ________________________ 7 Overtime Defintion ____________________________ 7 Paid Work Details _____________________________ 8 Shooting Range Time ___________________________ 7 Work Schedule ________________________________ 7 Demotion _____________________________________ 21 Discharge ____________________________________ 21 E Effect of Agreement ___________________________ 24 G Grievance Procedure __________________________ 12 Definitions __________________________________ 12 Failure to Pursue _____________________________ 14 Form _______________________________________ 28 Other Procedures ____________________________ 15 Representation ______________________________ 15 Steps _______________________________________ 13 H Health and Welfare ____________________________ 15 Deferred Compensation _______________________ 19 Dental ______________________________________ 18 Flexible Benefits Plan __________________________ 15 Life Insurance ________________________________ 18 No Plan _____________________________________ 16 Retiree Medical Benefits _______________________ 16 Vision ______________________________________ 18 Holidays_______________________________________ 8 Mandatory Overtime ___________________________ 8 Pay _________________________________________ 8 I Industrial Accident Leave Benefits During Disability _______________________ 11 L Layoff and Recall ______________________________ 20 Leaves of Absence ____________________________ 11 Absence Without Official Leave __________________ 12 Bereavement Leave ___________________________ 12 Industrial Accident Leave _______________________ 11 Jury Duty ____________________________________ 12 Military _____________________________________ 12 Other Reasons _______________________________ 12 Living Distance ________________________________ 22 M Modification __________________________________ 25 N No Discrimination _______________________________ 5 No Lockout ___________________________________ 24 P Premium Pays Bilingual _____________________________________ 6 Other Services ________________________________ 6 POST Certifications _____________________________ 7 Shift Differential _______________________________ 6 Probationary Period ____________________________ 19 R Recognition ____________________________________ 4 Reimbursement City Business _________________________________ 22 Tuition______________________________________ 10 Resignation ___________________________________ 22 Retirement ____________________________________ 22 Classic Employees ____________________________ 23 New Members _______________________________ 23 Rights ________________________________________ 24 City ________________________________________ 24 Employee ___________________________________ 24 S Salary Plan ____________________________________ 6 Premium Pays _________________________________ 6 Salary Schedule ______________________________ 27 Seniority ______________________________________ 22 - 35 - Separability of Provisions _______________________ 25 Sick Leave ___________________________________ 10 Accrual _____________________________________ 10 Care of Family _______________________________ 10 Conversion __________________________________ 11 Definition ___________________________________ 10 Monitoring Program __________________________ 10 Notification _________________________________ 10 Upon Retirement _____________________________ 11 Suspension Without Pay ________________________ 21 T Term _________________________________________ 25 Total Agreement ______________________________ 25 U Uniform Allowance _____________________________ 19 V Vacation _______________________________________ 8 Accumulation _________________________________ 9 During Leave of Absence ________________________ 9 Eligibility _____________________________________ 8 Schedule _____________________________________ 9 Scheduling ___________________________________ 9 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8d MEETING DATE: December 3, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: December 3, 2018 From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253 Subject Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. to Perform Environmental Review Services Related to the Proposed Village at Burlingame and Public Parking Structure Development of Lots F and N RECOMMENDATION The City Council is asked to adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. for environmental review services providing additional funds in the amount of $47,418, related to the proposed Village at Burlingame and Public Parking Structure Development of Parking Lots F and N at a maximum total cost of $161,354. BACKGROUND The City of Burlingame is processing an application from The Pacific Companies to construct a new 132-unit residential apartment building at City of Burlingame Parking Lot F, and a 384-space parking garage at City of Burlingame Parking Lot N. An environmental review finding for the project is required. DISCUSSION The City has entered into an Agreement for Professional Services with ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. to perform the environmental review services required for the Village at Burlingame and Public Parking Structure Development, in an amount not to exceed $113,936 (refer to attached Agreement, Exhibit 2). Based on CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, it was determined that the project qualified for a Class 32 Infill Exemption (projects that are specifically identified as urban infill development). The consultant has determined that additional tasks are required which were not included in the original scope of work. They include additional work in the areas of traffic analysis for the parking structure, updates to the project description, review of impacts to surrounding buildings, noise and vibration. The cost to prepare the additional work is 47,418. Professional Services Agreement – ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. December 3, 2018 2 Attached is the draft Amendment to Agreement for Professional Services with ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. to increase the budget amount for the environmental review services required for the proposed Village at Burlingame and Public Parking Structure Development by $47,418, for a total amount not to exceed $161,354 (Amendment to Agreement, Exhibit 3). Because the cost of the amended agreement exceeds $100,000, Council approval is required. The Contract Amendment Requests from ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. are attached to this report as Exhibit 4 (Budget Amendment 1 is for $5,500 and Budget Amendment 2 is for $41,918 for a total of $47,418). Although the contract is with the City of Burlingame, the applicant will submit a check in the amount of $47,418 to the City of Burlingame to cover the costs of the additional environmental review. The City will administer the contract, and will pay the consultant on a monthly basis as services are rendered. 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: • Proposed Resolution • Executed Agreement for Professional Services with ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. • Proposed Amendment to Agreement for Professional Services with ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. • Contract Amendment Requests from ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ICF JONES & STOKES, INC. TO PERFORM ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED VILLAGE AT BURLINGAME AND PUBLIC PARKING STRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT OF LOTS F AND N WHEREAS, an application has been submitted by The Pacific Companies to construct a new 132- unit residential apartment building at City of Burlingame Parking Lot F, and 384-space parking garage at City of Burlingame Parking Lot N.; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an environmental review of the project must occur prior to consideration of the proposed development at Parking Lots F and N by the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, the City has entered into an Agreement for Professional Services with ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. to perform the environmental review services required for the proposed development at Parking Lots F & N, in an amount not to exceed $113,936, and WHEREAS, the City has determined that additional work is required to provide a traffic analysis for the parking structure, updates to the project description, review of impacts to surrounding buildings, noise and vibration, and the Consultant has prepared Contract amendment Request 1 outlining the additional work required and estimated costs of $47,418; and WHEREAS, because the amendment to the agreement will authorize work in excess of $100,000, City Council approval is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The City Manager is authorized to enter into Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement with ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. for environmental review services related to the proposed Village at Burlingame and Public Parking Structure Development of Parking Lots F and N, consistent with the Scope of Work attached to this resolution, for an additional cost of $47,418, for a maximum total cost of $161,354, as stated in the Contract Amendment Request 1. 2. The City Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the City Manager upon execution of the Professional Services Agreement. _______________________________________ Mayor Resolution No. 2 I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council, held on the 3rd day of December, 2018, and as adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ______________________________________ City Clerk AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND ICF JONES & STOKES, INC. THIS AGREEMENT is by and between ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. ("Consultant") and the City of Burlingame, a public body of the State of California ("City"). Consultant and City agree: 1. Services. Consultant shall provide environmental consulting services for review of a proposed development project located at on City of Burlingame Parking Lot F and Lot N (together referred to as "the Village at Burlingame"), 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 $ 1 13,936.00, including all materials and other reimbursable amounts ("Maximum Compensation"), for preparation of a CEQA document for the proposal at the Village at Burlingame. Consultant shall submit invoices on a monthly basis. All bills submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient 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 full execution hereof and terminates on December 31,2018, 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 perforrnance 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 Agreement 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 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 coverage prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates 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 ofthe performance or character ofthe Services, except for any such claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful 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 California 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 perforrnance 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 perforrnance of this Agreement, shall be delivered to and become the property of City. All documehts 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 perforrnance 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 with 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 Agreement will be in compliance with all applicable safety rules, laws, statutes, and practices, including but not limited to CallOSHA 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 alltimes 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 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, 2 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 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 Agreement 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 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 that shall take precedence should any differences exist among counterparts of the document. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 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 carry out, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement, which shall continue in full 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 by (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 overnight 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 shallbe deemed delivered upon confirmation 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. J 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 ofinterpretation ofany provision hereof, nor taken as a correct or complete segregation of the several units of materials and labor. Capitalized 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 "shall", "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 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. When a party 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 CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 By Lisa Go City Manager a ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. 620 Folsom Street,2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94107 B Trina L. Prince-Fisher Contracts Administrator Date Federal Employer ID 94-173036r License Number:_ Expiration Date:_ 4 City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A Scope of Work Exhibit B City Insurance Provisions 5 tltTtet November 13,2017 Kevin Gardiner Planning Manager 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 Subject: Proposal to Prepare Environmental Documentation for the Village at Burlingame Project Dear Mr. Gardiner, ICF Jones & Stokes, lnc. ("lCF") is pleased to submit this proposal for a Class 32 Exemption Checklist. ICF formed our team to help the City successfully and efficiently prepare an environmental document in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). We offer a team of highly skilled environmental professionals who will produce legally defensible and comprehensive CEQA documentation, allowing the project to be environmentally cleared and developed as expeditiously as possible. The Village at Burlingame Project (Project) includes two sites within the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan: Lot F and Lot N. These two lots include approximately 210 public parking spaces. Under the Project, Lot F would include a five-story public parking garage for 384 vehicles, resulting in a net increase of approximately 174 parking spaces. Lot N would include a residential building with 78 workforce units and 54 senior units, for a total of 132 affordable housing units. Parking for residents would be provided partially below grade in 149 stackable parking spaces. The ground floor would also include community space for the residents. A 6,750-sf public park would be accessible from Lorton Avenue. As demonstrated in our proposal, ICF has formed a team of expert internal staff and includes subconsultants (Hexagon [transportation/traffic], Edward L Pack [noise], and Ramboll [air qualityi) to successfully and efficiently provide environmental services for the City. This submittal includes our scope of work, cost estimate, and tentative schedule for the Village at Burlingame Class 32 Exemption. ICF proposes to invoice costs monthly, on a time-and-materials basis. This proposal is valid for a period of 90 days, at which time ICF reserves the right to revise the contents or extend the validity date, if needed. We are excited to work with you on this important project and believe we are the best fit for your needs. ICF looks fonrvard to negotiating mutually acceptable terms. To discuss further how ICF can assist you on this project, please feel free to contact Kirsten Chapman, our proposed Project lt/lanager, at 415.537 .1702 or kirsten.chapman@icf.com. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, d"^,**:Q,*. €*rt Trina L. Prince-Fisher Contracts Admin istrator 620 Folsom Street, 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94107 USA +1 .415.677 .7100 +1 .415.677.7177 fax icf.com , l t rjrTter Attachment A - Hexagon Scope of Work Attachment B - Edward L Pack Associates Scope of Work Attachment C - Ramboll Scope of Work Attachment D - Budget Attachment E - Schedule 620 Folsom Street, 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94'107 USA +1.415.677.7100 +1.415.677.7'177 fax icf.com PrcWsalto Prepare CEQA Docunentation for the Village at Bwlingame Project A. Firm Profile Founded in 1969, ICF is a leading global professional services firm that provides consulting and implementation services addressing today's most complex management, technology, and policy challenges. Our work is primarily focused in four key markets: environment and infrastructure; energy and climate change; health, human services, and social programs; and homeland security and defense. Our environmental practice provides services in environmental planning, land use planning, regulatory compliance, regulatory implementation, natural resources, and supporting environmental review. Our full- time professional staff includes environmental compliance experts, land-use and natural resource planners, wildlife and fisheries biologists, plant and wetland biologists, watershed planners, restoration experts, archaeologists, architectural historians, community affairs experts, attorneys, engineers, and information technologists. With more than 4,500 employees on six continents, we combine passion for our work with industry and technical expertise to protect and improve the quality of life. I1,, 1 Use or disdosure of data contained on this sheet ,ls sub/ect to lhe restictions on the title page of this ptoposal. 4ct ICF is a recognized leader in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance, having prepared thousands of environmental impact studies and related documents since the founding of the former Jones & Stokes. Bob Jones, one of the founders of Jones & Stokes, was instrumental in drafting the legislation that ultimately became CEQA in California. Shortly thereafter, Bob joined fellow biologist Jim Stokes to form Jones & Stokes, which rose to prominence in the fields of environmental planning and natural resources management. By the time it was acquired by ICF in 2008, Jones & Stokes was one of the most welFknown and well-respected firms providing NEPA and CEQA compliance services in the Bay Area and throughout the west. Although we are able to draw expertise from allwest coast offices, we will service the Prqect primarjly by our San Francisco otfice. B. Key Personnel and Project Experience We offer unique advantages with our local knowledge on the San Francisco peninsula and experience with issues important to the City of Burlingame (City). This deep local knowledge and familiarity with the area and similar jurisdictions directly relates to enabling us to deliver high-quality environmental support. We understand the issues important to City staff as well as members of the public and, using our relevant experience on other local pro.iects, can anticipate these needs and keep projects on schedule and budget. The ICF team will be led by Erin Efner (Project Director), Kirsten Chapman (Project Manageo, and Alex Hunt (Deputy Project Manager). ICF will be supported by subconsultants Hexagon (transportation), Edward L Pack Associates (noise), and Ramboll (air quality). Key ICF staff prepared the Burlingame Downtown Speciflc Plan lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (lS/MND) and the Burlingame Safeway Mixed-Use Development Project lS/MND while at previous firms. ICF recently prepared the Burlingame Point Prolect EIR Addendum and has extensive experience with residential projects throughout the peninsula and Bay Area. Our team is familiar with the local values and issues in the Proposal to Prepare CEQA Documentation for the Village at Burlingame Project Project area and have demonstrated exceptional project management skills on similar projects in the peninsula. We are eager to assist the City with this important Project. ICF has a long reputation as a leader in the preparation of documents on development, infrastructure, and transportation projects throughout the Bay Area. A list of relevant work is presented below. This is not an exhaustive list of projects completed by ICF on the peninsula/in the Bay Area; additional project information is available upon request. r Burlingame Point Project-City of Burlingame r 1300 El Camino Real Project-City of Menlo Park r Middle Plaza Project at 500 El Camino Real-City of Menlo Park r Various CEQA Streamlining Infill Projects-City of Oakland r 15888 Hesperian Blvd. Affordable Housing lS/MND-Mercy Housing California r Various Community Plan Exemptions-City of San Francisco r The Nueva School 2012 Master PIan Update lS/MND-Town of Hillsborough r City Place Santa Clara E|R-Related Santa Clara (Related), Santa Clara r SF Giants Mission Seawall Lot 337 Pier 48 E|R-Seawall Lot 337 Associates LLC C. Project Understanding and General Approach The Village at Burlingame Project (Project) includes two sites within the Burlingame Downtown Specific PIan: Lot F and Lot N. These two lots are currently operated by the City and include approximately 210 public parking spaces. Under the Project, Lot N would include a five-story public parking garage for 384 vehicles, resulting in a net increase of approximalely 174 parking spaces. Access to the garage would be located off both Highland Avenue and Lorton Avenue. Lot F would include a 137,459-sf residential building with 78 workforce units and 54 senior units, for a total of 132 affordable housing units. Parking for residents would be provided partially below grade in 149 stackable parking spaces. The ground floor would also include community space for the residents. A 6,750-sf public park would be accessible from Lorton Avenue. ICF has reviewed the information provided by the applicant. CEQA Guidelines Sections 15300 to 15333 includes a list of classes of projects that have been determined to not have a significant effect on the environment and, as a result, are exempt from review under CEQA. Among the classes of projects that are exempt from CEQA review are those projects that are specifically identified as urban infill development. Based on CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, we understand that a Class 32 lnfill Exemption is the required level of CEQA review for the Project. This submittal includes our work scope, cost estimate, and tentative schedule for a Class 32 lnfill Exemption. lf it is determined, through the analysis process, that additional CEQA review is required (such as an lnitialStudy), a revised work scope and cost estimate will be prepared. bz:,scr 2 Use or dlsc/os ure of data contained on thrs sheet ls sublecf fo the restrictions on the title page of this proposal. Prcposal to Prcparc CEQA Docunentation fu the Village at Butingane Project D. Scope of Work Task 1. Kick-Off, Scoping, and Team Meeting The CEQA process will be initiated by discussing key issues, reviewing completed environmenlal documents, planning data collection, and reflning the schedule for completion of individual tasks. At the outset of the CEQA process, ICF will meet with City staff and the applicant team (Pro.iect team). At this meeting, the Project team will: r Review the work scope for the document; r Discuss pertinent documents, materials, and technical studies developed by the applicant; r Review the Project schedule and milestones; and r ldentify the roles of each team member. The Project initiation efforts will also include a review of the Specific Plan Standard Conditions of Approval (SCAs) for incorporation into the document. Following a review of all materials and provided technical studies, lCF, in coordination with the subconsultants, will provide a data needs list of any additional materials or information needed. At this time, any necessary reflnement to the scope of work could be made. Deliverables I Revised schedule and work scope, if applicable r Memorandum of data requests for the applicant Task 2. Project Description Prior to starting the CEQA analysis, ICF will prepare the Project Description for the Exemption based on discussions with the applicant team, data needs responses, and review of the Project application, plan sets, and supplemental reports. A clear and accurate Project Description, which will be distributed to the subconsultants, is essentialfor a consistent Project analysis. Based on discussions with the team and on the applicants' application and plans, ICF will prepare a Project Description that will incorporate the following topics:1 r Prolect Overview and Background I Project Site Location r ProjectCharacteristicsincluding: . Site plan . Development area and uses . Site access, circulation, and parking 1 Assumes that data needs outlined in ICF's data request have been fullilled llu.tct 3 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheef ls sub/'ect lo fhe restrictions on the title page of this proposal. Proposalto Prepare CEQA Documentation for the Village at Burlingame Project . Amenities/Utilities r Phasing and Construction Scenario r Project Approvals and Entitlements Deliverables r ICF will submit electronic copies of the draft Project Description in Microsoft (MS) Word and Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). Task 3. Administrative Draft 1 Class 32 lnfill Exemption California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15300 includes a list of classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and are exempt from the provisions of CEQA. To qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption, which applies to infill projects like the Project, the approval of the Project cannot result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. An IS/MND was prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan, which analyzed potential impacts of new infill development and included SCAs to mitigate potential environmental impacts. The SCAs for the Downtown Specific Plan have been found to substantially mitigate environmental effects of projects proposed in the area. As applicable, the SCAs are adopted as requirements of individual projects when approved by the City and are designed to avoid or substantially reduce a project's environmental effects. Because the SCAs are mandatory City requirements, the Exemption will assume that these SCAs will be imposed and implemented by the Project and will not be imposed as mitigation measures under CEQA. The Exemption would use the checklist in Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines in order to consider: (a) consistency with applicable general designation and zoning; (b) project location, size, and context; (c) endangered, rare, or threatened species; (d) impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; (e) utilities and public services. With the exception of 15332(d), a detailed analysis is not needed for these topics. The Project is consistent with existing land use regulations, located on a site smaller than five acres surrounded by urban uses, served by existing utilities and infrastructure, and developed as parking lots. Therefore, the Project site does not have value as habitat and is not expected to result in significant impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. lt is not anticipated that the Project would result in any significant impacts on water quality because it is assumed that the Project would comply with regulations and SCAs that require specific measures for reducing potential impacts on hydrology and water quality, including the rZ"7.ter 4 Use or drsc/os ure of data contained on thrs sheef ls subject to the restrictions on the title page of this proposal. a Proposal to Prcpare CEQA Docunentation for the Village at Bwiingane Project Construction General Permit, Municipal Regional Permit for stormwater discharges (including how the project relates to C.3 requirements), the City Code, and the California Building Code. Thus, in-depth analysis would only be required to analyze the Project's potential traffic, noise, and air quality impacts. Hexagon, Edward L Pack Associates, and Ramboll would prepare a stand-alone technical memorandum to analyze the Project's potential impacts related to traffic, noise, and air quality, respectively. ICF will review the memorandums and incorporate them into the Exemption. The scopes of work for the stand-alone technical memorandums are provided in Attachments A, B, and C. lt should be noted that if the Project would require the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce any impacts to a less-than-significant level, the Project would not qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption and a lS/IilND would likely be required. ln addition to investigating the applicability of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32), the Exemption will also assess whether any of the exceptions to qualify for the Class 32 categorical exemption for an lnfill Prolect are present. The analysis would compare the criteria of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 (Exceptions) to the Pro.iect. Topics include location, cumulative impacts, significant effects, scenic highways, hazardous waste sites, and historical resources. ICF will use the Phase I and Phase ll Environmental Site Assessments to analyze the hazardous materials present on the site. Otherwise, none of the other topics will be evaluated in detail. Deliverables r Two (2) hard copies of Administrative Draft 1 Class 32 lnfill Exemption Memorandum and technical memorandums r One (1)electronic copy of Administrative Draft 1 Class 32 lnfill Exemption Memorandum and technical memorandums in MS Word/Adobe PDF Task 4. Administrative Drafts 2, Screencheck, and Final Class 32 lnfill Exemption The purpose of this task is to prepare Administrative Draft 2, the Screencheck, and the Final of the Class 32 lnfill Exemption for City staff review (if necessary). ICF will prepare each subsequent draft to respond to the City's commenls on the previous drafts. Following, based on comments received from City staff, ICF will revise the draft Class 32 lnfill Exemption as necessary. The scope ofwork assumes that the City will distribute the Notice of Exemption, which will be filed by the Project Sponsor. Deliverables a Two (2) hard copies of Administrative Draff 2 and Screencheck Drafr of the Class 32 lnflll Exemption Memorandum and technical memorandums I One (1)eleckonic copy of Administrative Draft 2 and Screencheck Draft ofthe Class 32 lnfill Exemption Memorandum and technical memorandums in MS Word/Adobe PDF format rlzTter Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheel is sublecl to lhe restictions on the title page of this proposal. 5 Proposalto Prepare CEQA Documentation for the Village at Burlingame Project r Three (3) hardcopies of the FinalClass 32 lnfillExemption Memorandum and technical memorandums r One (1) electronic copy of the Final Class 32 lnfill Exemption Memorandum and technical memorandums in MS Word/Adobe PDF format Task 5. Project ManagemenUMeetings The purpose of this task is to effectively manage the above tasks, maintain communication with City staff, and be available for regular meetings. The Project Manager will be responsible for project coordination activities, will maintain QA/QC requirements for document preparation, and will monitor schedule and performance for allwork tasks. Project management subtasks also include maintaining internal communications among ICF staff with City staff and other team members through emails, frequent phone contact, and in-person meetings, as well as the preparation of all correspondence. The Project Manager will coordinate internal staff, subconsultants, project guidance, and analysis criteria. Team members will attend and participate in meetings on an as-needed basis. For purposes of the cost estimates, ICF has assumed one City staff and/or Project Sponsor face-to-face meetings and two phone conference calls. Additional meetings may be appropriate during the course of this effort, and will be invoiced on a time-and-materials basis. The total budget and schedule are included as Attachments D and E, respectively. r1...Trcr Use or drsc/os ure of data contained on thrs sheef r.s subjed to the restrictions on the title page of this proposal. Proposal to Prepare CEQA Documentation for the Village at Bulingame Project ATTACHMENT A - HEXAGON SCOPE OF WORK \1..Tter Use or disc/os ure of data contained on fhis sheef is subject to the restictions on the title page of this proposal. Attachment A L..J l.l rxl(0tt InlttID0[IAIt0N (oxsttLTANTS, lN(. November 6,2017 Ms. Erin Efner ICF lnternational 620 Folsom Street, 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94107 Re: Proposal to Prepare a Transportation lmpact Analysis (TIA) Report for the Proposed Village at Burlingame Residential Development in Burlingame, California Dear [tls. Efner: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, lnc. is pleased to submit this proposal to prepare a transportation impact analysis (TlA) for the proposed Village at Burlingame residential development. The project is located in downtown Burlingame on Park Road between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue. The existing site is currently occupied by a City-owned surface parking lot, identified as Lot F. The proposed project would replace the existing Lot F with a five- story building that would include 101 one-bedroom units and 31 two-bedroom units, as well as a parking garage to serve the development. To replace the loss of public parking spaces in Lot F and provide additional public parking in the area, the project would replace the existing City- owned surface Lot N, located on Lorton Avenue between Howard Avenue and Bayswater Avenue, with a stand-alone S-story parking structure. This scope of services was developed by Hexagon staff based on our knowledge of City of Burlingame and San Mateo CityiCounty Association of Governments (C/CAG) transportation study requirements, as well as our past experience with preparing various traffic studies for projects within the City of Burlingame. Our proposed scope of work must be reviewed and approved by Burlingame staff prior to our commencement of the study. The Scope of Services provided below is therefore subject to change. We will inform you if the City requests additional work elements not included in our proposal that would affect the project schedule or budget. Note that our scope of work does not include an analysis of the proposed adjacent parking structure on City Lot N. Analysis of the proposed parking structurewould, therefore, be considered additionalservices and would require additionaltime and budget. Scope of Services The purpose of the traffic study is to satisfy the requirements of the City of Burlingame and C/CAG and to determine the traffic impacts of the proposed residential development on key intersections in the vicinity of the site. The traffic analysis will include an analysis of weekday AM and PM peak-hour traffic conditions on the surrounding roadway network. The study will determine the traffic impacts of the proposed project at up to 12 intersections in the study area. The tasks to be included in the traffic analysis are: 1. Sfte Reconnaissance and Existing Conditions. The physical characteristics of the site and the surrounding roadway network will be reviewed to identify existing roadway cross- sections, intersection lane configurations, traffic control devices, and surrounding land uses. Observations of existing traffic conditions will be made to identify any operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of the calculated levels of service. 4 North Second Street, 5uite 400. San.lose, California 95113 , phone 408.971.5100. fax 408.971.6102' wwwhextrans.com Attachment A 71 Ms. Erin Efner November 6,2017 }..-J Page 2 ot 4 2. Data Collection. New manual peak-hour turning movements counts will be conducted during the typicalweekday peak commute hours (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). Hexagon has up-to-date (less than two years old) traffic counts on file for nearby intersections on El Camino Real, but new count data is not available for most of intersections in the immediate vicinity of the project site. New manual peak-hour turning movement counts will be conducted at up to 10 intersections during both the AM and PM peak hours (20 intersection counts total). ln addition, new manualAM and PM peak-hour counts will be conducted at the existing Lot F driveways. 3. Evaluation of Existing Conditions. Existing traffic conditions will be evaluated based on existing trafflc volumes at the study intersections. The existing traffic conditions at the key study intersections will be evaluated using the Synchro software, which employs the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual(HCM) methodology for intersection analyses, and is the designated City of Burlingame and C/CAG level of service methodology. 4. Project Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment. Estimates of trips to be added to the surrounding roadway network by the proposed residential development will be based on the trip generation rates recommended by the lnstitute of Traffic Engineers' Irp Generation Manual, 1Ah Edition The directional distribution of site-generated traffic will be forecast based on the projected areas to be served by the residential development as well as existing travel patterns, relative locations of complementary land uses, and information obtained from previous traffic studies conducted for developments in the study area, as available. The site-generated traffic will be assigned to the roadway network based on the trip generation and distribution pattern discussed above. 5. Evaluation of Existing Plus Project Conditions. Project-generated traffic will be added to the existing traffic volumes. lntersection levels of service under existing plus project conditions will be evaluated using the Synchro software. lntersection level of service calculations will be conducted to estimate existing plus project traffic conditions during the AM and PM peak hours after the completion of the proposed residential development. lntersection impacts associated with the development of the proposed residential development will be evaluated relative to existing conditions. The existing plus project conditions analysis will include reassignment of the existing Lot F trips to the future parking structure on Lot N. 6. Evaluation of Background Conditions. Background traffic volumes represent the existing volumes plus the projected volumes from approved developments that have not yet been constructed and occupied. Approved project trips and/or approved project information will be obtained from the City of Burlingame. ln addition, roadway improvements associated with approved developments will be assumed as directed by City staff. lntersection levels of service under background conditions will be evaluated using the City methodology. 7. Evaluation of Background Plus Project Conditions. Project-generated traffic will be added to the background condition traffic volumes. lntersection levels of service under background plus project conditions will be evaluated using the Synchro software. lntersection impacts associated with the proposed residential development will be evaluated relative to background conditions. The background plus project conditions analysis will include reassignment of the existing Lot F trips to the future parking structure on Lot N. Attachment A;1 Ms. Erin Efner November 6,2017 >.-a Page 3 of 4 8. Evaluation of Cumulative Conditions. Traffic volumes under cumulative no project conditions will either be obtained by applying a growth factor o'f 1% per year to the existing traffic volumes (growth factor taken from the C/CAG travel demand forecast model) or another source as directed by City staff. Roadway improvements associated with volume forecasts will be assumed as directed by City staff. Project-generated traffic will then be added to the cumulative traffic volumes to derive cumulative plus project volumes. lntersection levels of service under cumulative conditions with and without the project will be evaluated using the Synchro software. Cumulative intersection impacts associated with the proposed project will be evaluated relative to cumulative no project conditions. 9. Sife Access, On-Sl'fe Circulation, and Parking. A review of the project site plan will be performed to determine the overall adequacy of site access and on-site circulation in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards. This will include a quantitative analysis of the anticipated traffic volumes at the site's driveway, as well as a qualitative analysis of the proposed site circulation and parking layout. The site plan review will consider driveway location and dimensions, sight distance, truck access, pedestrian aocess and circulation, and vehicle queuing. Parking supply will be evaluated relative to the City of Burlingame parking requirements. 10. Signal Warrant Analysis. The need for future signalization at selected unsignalized study intersections near the project site will be evaluated on the basis of the Peak Hour Warrant (Warrant 3 - Part B) in the California Manualon Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). The warrant will be evaluated using peak-hour volumes for all study scenarios. '11. Evaluation of Vehicle Queuing. For selected locations where the project would add a significant number of left-turning vehicles (e.9., more than 10 trips per left-turn lane), the adequacy of existing and/or planned storage at turn pockets will be assessed by means of comparison with expected maximum vehicle queues. Vehicle queues will be estimated using a Poisson probability distribution. 12. Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Facilities. A qualitative analysis of the project's effect on transit services in the area and on bicycle and pedestrian circulation in the study area will be included in the traffic report. The traffic study will identify any deficiencies due to the project and will recommend improvements if necessary. 13. Description of lmpacts and Recommendations. Based on the results of the intersection level of service analysis, impacts of the site-generated traffic will be identified and described. Recommendations will be formulated that identify the locations and types of improvements or modifications necessary to mitigate significant near-term or long-range project impacts, if any. lmprovements could include street widenings, lane additions, changes in lane usage, or modifications to existing traffic signals. 14. Reports and Meetings. Our findings and recommendations will be summarized in a draft TIA report. Hexagon Transportation Consultants will respond to editorial comments on the draft report and prepare a final report. This proposal does not include attendance at any meetings. Meetings with the project team and/or City statf, as well as appearances or presentations at neighborhood meetings or public hearings, shall be considered additional services and will be billed separately on a time and materials basis. Attachment A 71 Ms. Erin Efner November 6,2017 L.l Page 4 of 4 Additional Services Any work not specifically referenced in the above Scope of Work-for example analyzing a modified project description or project alternative, analyzing different phases of development, conducting additionalcounts of any kind, analyzing morethan 15 intersections, analyzing roadway segments or freeway segments, analyzing the proposed new parking structure, developing a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, drawing conceptual plans for mitigation measures, or attending any meetings- shall be considered additional services. Additional services will require additional budget and additional time. Time of Performance Barring any unforeseen delays, a draft traffic report will be submitted approximately four weeks after: (1) authorization to proceed, (2) City approval of our proposed scope of work, (3) receipt of background project data (ATl), and (4) receipt of all new count data. Overall, we estimate a draft traffic report will be delivered to you in approximately ten weeks. Note that this schedule is subject to the responsiveness of City staff to our requests for information. The final traffic report will be delivered one week after receipt of all review comments. We are ready to start work immediately upon authorization and are prepared to sign your standard contract agreement. Cost of Services The total fee for the Scope of Services (Tasks 1 through 14) rendered under this agreement is quoted for a lump sum amount of $40,000, which includes $5,000 for data collection (i.e., traffic counts). Billings will be conducted monthly, on a percent complete basis. This price quote is good for 30 days and assumes all project-related activities will be completed within one year. Extended project schedules may require additional budget for project administration. We look forward to working with you on this project and appreciate your consideration of Hexagon Transportation Consultants for this assignment. lf you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you. Sincerely, HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, I NC. Gary K. Black President Brian Jackson Senior Associate Rueben R. Rodriguez Engineer t,l*Wa,4n Proposal to Prepare CEQA Documentation for the Village at Burlingame Project ATTACHMENT B . EDWARD L PAGK ASSOCIATES SCOPE OF WORK z4s7.ter Use or drsc/os ure of data contained on thr,s sheet ls subT'ecf to the restrictions on the title page of this proposal. Attachment B EDWARD L. PACKASSOC'ATES, INC, 1975 HAMILTON AVENUE SUITE 26 SAN JOSE, CA 95125 Acou sti c al Con su ltants TEL: 408-371-1 195 FAX: 408-371-1 196 www. packassociates.com November 6,2017 Ms. Erin Efner ICF 620 Folsom Street 2'd Floor SanFrancisco, CA 94107 Subject:Proposal to Perform a Noise Assessment Study for the Planned "The Villages at Burlingame" Multi-family and Parking Structure Development, Park Road and Lorton Avenue, Burlingame Dear Ms. Efner: We are pleased with the opportunity to submit this proposal to perform a noise assessment study for the planned "The Villages at Burlingame" multi-family and parking structure development along Park Road and Lorton Avenue in Burlingame. Upon review of the building plans, we propose the following scope-of-work: 1)Conduct on-site noise level measurements of the existing ambient noise environment at residential properties adjacent to the south of the proposed parking structure. 2)Determine the noise levels at the adjacent residences generated by the parking structure. Determine the noise levels at the adjacent residences generated by roof-top mechanical equipment at the residential portion of the project. Determine the project-generated noise levels from demolition and construction of the project. Determine the effect of project traffic noise on the existing noise environment. 3)Calculate the Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) and evaluate the noise exposure impacts against the standard of the City of Burlingame Noise Element and the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 4)Develop noise mitigation measures, as necessary, to achieve compliance with the standards. ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS Attachment B -2- Prepare and submit a report including recommendations. our findings and The above work tasks will require 18 man-hours of engineering labor and our fee is $! to-Exceed $4.500.00. Terms of payment are: @fB3y4[[9 upon completion of the report. Required attendance at meetings, presentations or other required services beyond the above described scope-of-work will be billed on a time and materials basis at $250.00/hr. portal to portal. Public testimony, meetings or engineering commencing after 6:00 p.m. or on weekends will be billed on a time and materials basis at $300.001hr. JudiciaVexpert witness testimony is billed at $300.00/hr. This proposal can be made a contract by afhxing an authorized signature and date of acceptance in the spaces below and returning one copy to us. A Purchase Order or Consultant Service Agreement may also be submitted. Thank you for considering us for this project and we look forward to working with you. Respectfully Submitted, EDWARD L. PACK ASSOC., INC. Jeffrey K. Pack President ACCEPTANCE: s) Signature: Print Name: P.O. #: Title: Date: IDF: THE VIILAGES AT BURLINGAME Proposalto Prepare CEQA Documentation for the Village at Burlingame Project ATTACHMENT C - RAMBOLL SCOPE OF WORK \1.'Trer Use or disc/os ure of data contained on fhls sheef is subT'ecf to the restrictions on the title page of this proposal. Attachment C ITETIEItr ENVIRON Via Electronic Mail Erin Efner ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. 620 Folsom Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94L07 erin. efner@ icfi. com PROPOSAL FOR AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS FOR THE VILLAGE AT BURLINGAME ON PARK ROAD, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA Dear Ms. Efner Ramboll Environ US Corporation ("Ramboll Environ," formerly ENVIRON International Corporation) is pleased to present this proposal to ICF Jones & Stokes C'ICF") to analyse air quality impacts of the construction and operation of the Village at Burlingame on Park Road in Burlingame, California ("Project" or the "Site"). This proposal provides our understanding of the Project, regulatory background, and a description of the scope of work proposed, along with the cost estlmate. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING We understand that the proposed Project, as currently designed, includes the following elements: o Demolition of parking lot "F" (105 spaces) and parking lot "N" (94 spaces); . Construction of a five-level, 305 space parking structure on parking lot "N"; o Construction of a five story, 132 unit residential apartment building on lot"F", with 78 units for affordable workforce housing and 54 of the units for affordable senior housing; o Construction of an underground parking structure for the residential building; and . 6,75o square foot public park/open space. REGULATORY BACKGROUND Ramboll Environ understands this Project is pursuing a Class 32 exemption for infill projects, Projects that qualify for a Class 32 exemption do not require analyses of greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts, so this scope does not address GHG emissions. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines ("Guidelines")1 provide recommended procedures for evaluating potential air quality (AQ) impacts during the environmental review process consistent with BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, May 2017 November 9, 2017 Ramboll Environ 201 California Street Suite 1200 San Francisco. CA 94111 USA T +1 415 796 1950 F +1 415 398 5812 www.ramboll-environ.com r/7 Attachment C E@[tr ENVIRON CEQA requirements. The analyses we propose herein and methods to perform the analysis is consistent with recommendations in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. PROPOSED TECH NICAL APPROACH Ramboll Environ proposes to conduct the following technical analyses to estimate emissions and health risk impacts from construction of the Project. Ramboll Environ will use the most up-to-date tools and methods to assess Project impacts. Individual tasks are described in detail below. Operational Emissions Estimation In its CEQA Guidelines, BAAQMD provides screening level sizes for land use projects in Table 3-1. As stated in the guidelines, "If the project meets the screening criteria in Table 3-1, the project would not result in the generation of operational-related criteria air pollutants and/or precursors that exceed the Thresholds of Significance." The screening level size for operational criteria air pollutants (CAPs) for mid-rise apaftments2 is494 dwelling units. The Project is 132 dwelling units, so it meetsthe screening criteria and additional analysis of operational CAP emissions is not required. Table 3-1 of the CEQA Guidelines does not provide screening levels for parking structures. However, parking structures do not generate mobile trips and only emit CAPs from area sources such as architectural coating, consumer products and landscaping. The parking structure is smaller in square footage than the apartment building. Because the apartment building meets the screening criteria with a large buffer and the parking structure is expected to have much lower emissions than the apartment building, we assume additional analysis of operational CAP emissions from the parking structure is not required, Thus, analysis of operational emissions will not be conducted, but the screening comparison will be documented in our technical documentation. Task 1. Project Construction Emissions BAAQMD also provides screening level sizes for construction emissions, The screening level size for construction criteria pollutants for mid-rise apartments is 24O dwelling units. The Project is 132 dwelling units, so it meets the screening criteria and additional analysis of construction criteria pollutant emissions is not required. However, as discussed in Task 2, a construction health risk assessment is needed and construction toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions are needed to perform that assessment. Thus, Ramboll Environ will estimate TAC and PMz.s emissions from construction, but not CAPs. For cost estimation purposes, Ramboll Environ assumes all construction equipment will be diesel fired and the onlyTAC from construction will be diesel particulate matter (DPM). If gasoline, propane, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), or other equipment types are proposed, a supplemental cost estimate can be prepared at that time to incorporate corresponding TAC and PMz.s emissions associated with such equipment, and the resulting risk. Ramboll Environ proposes to use CalEEMod@ (California Emissions Estimator Model), or equivalent methods, for the development of the construction-related DPM and PMz.s emissions inventory.3 CalEEMod@ was developed by Ramboll Environ in collaboration with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for use in developing emission inventories suitable for CEQA analysis. According to the CalEEMod User's Guide, "Mid-rise apartments are units located in rental buildings that have between 3 and 10 levels," The Project is 5 levels, so would be considered a mid-rise apartment. Software and User's Guide available publically at www.caleemod.com. Version 20L6.3.2. 2/7 Attachment C E@!tr ENVIRON The model is publically available and employs widely accepted calculation methodologies for emission estimates combined with appropriate default data if site-specific information is not available. We will provide a data request for Project-specific data. If such data are not available, default assumptions specific for the Project size and type in consideration can be used when available. However, the default data may overestimate construction activity, particularly for the parking structure. The type of data we will request includes: 1. Equipment details and usage specific to all phases of construction, including the availability of Tier 4 equipment and line power to the site. Due to the proximity of other residences, construction impacts are unlikely to be below thresholds without some Tier 4 equipment;4 2. Total material imported and exported (in either tons of debris or cubic yards) for the site preparation and grading phases or equivalent hauling trips required; and 3. Tons of debris generated for the demolition phase or equivalent hauling trips required. For purposes of this cost estimate, Ramboll Environ assumes one CalEEMod@ run, or set of equivalent calculations, will be required, Should additional runs, or rounds of calculations, be required due to refined data beyond the initial data collection or the incorporation of mitigation measures, a supplemental cost estimate can be prepared at that time, This task is estimated to cost $8,000, which includes a kick-off call with the Project Sponsor, the preparation of a data request, one CalEEMod@ run (or set of equivalent calculations), and one conference call with ICF and the Project Sponsor. Task 2. HRA Methodology and Risk Results Both the residential building and parking structure are surrounded by residential and other sensitive locations. Thus, the impact of health impact of the construction of the Project needs to be analysed, This task includes estimating health risks based on emissions from Project construction. Ramboll Environ will base the health risk assessment (HRA) on the total exhaust PMro (assuming all exhaust PMro from construction equipment is DPM) and PMz.s emissions from exhaust attributable to onsiteequipment during the construction of the Project. As mentioned above, Ramboll Environ assumes all construction equipment will be diesel or electric' For construction emissions, potential receptors evaluated will include offsite sensitive receptors, including nearby residents, childcare centers, and schools. Ramboll Environ will order an offsite receptor report from Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR) to identify sensitive receptors nearby the Project to be included in the evaluation. The EDR report will be supplemented by manual checks to identify nearby residential areas. For purposes of this proposal, Ramboll Environ assumes there will not be any early occupancy of residential units during construction on any part of the site. To estimate ambient air concentrations of DPM and PMz.s from diesel exhaust from onsite construction activity, Ramboll Environ will use the most recent version of the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency regulatory air dispersion model (AERMOD). We will use meteorological data collected at San Francisco International Airport. The most recent five-year period available in model ready format will be used (2012-2016). The estimated annual concentration of PMz.s at the maximum offsite receptor will be compared with the proposed BAAQMD CEQA threshold for PMz.s from a single source. The maximum annual In particular, appropriate default data for the additional excavation required for an underground parking structure is not available in CalEEMod@. 3/7 Attachment C ENVIRON concentration of DPM at the various types of offsite sensitive receptors will be used to estimate excess lifetime cancer risks and noncancer hazard index (HI). Estimated cancer risks and noncancer HI will be calculated according to the current BAAQMD Guidance and using default BAAQMD and California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) exposure assumptions. Ramboll Environ will use the most recent OEHHA Guidelines released in March 2015, which include refinements of the assumptions and methodologies relating to children. If the construction risk thresholds are exceeded, Ramboll Environ can discuss potential mitigation scenarios. If evaluation of mitigation scenarios is needed, Ramboll Environ can provide an additional cost estimate for this effort. We assume construction of the parking structure and residential building will be completed before residents move into the residential building. If construction will be phased and residents will be present as construction continues, an additional cost estimate can be provided. This task is estimated to cost $15,000, which includes a sensitive receptor search, modeling using AERMOD and BAAQMD-processed meteorological data, one round of health risk calculations using the new OEHHA Guidance, and one conference call with ICF and the Project Sponsor. Task 3. Cumulative Analysis The BAAQMD recommends performing a cumulative analysis of offsite sources on the maximum individual sensitive receptor from construction. The cumulative HRA will evaluate the health impact of offsite sources on the individual who is maximally exposed from the construction activity. The offsite sources include permitted stationary sources and nearby roadways. Caltrain is about 1,000 feet away from the Project. Due to the distance from the Project and the plans to electrify Caltrain locomotives, we expect this source to have minimal cumulative impact. Therefore, we do not propose to analyze it. If an analysis of the health impact of Caltrain is needed, Ramboll Environ can provide an additional cost estimate for this effort. In accordance with BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Ramboll Environ will evaluate the health impact of all sources within 1,000 feet of the Project on the maximally exposed offsite sensitive receptor identified in the construction HRA. The BAAQMD provides tools with conservative estimates of impacts from cedain offsite sources, including a stationary source tool,s highway screening tool,6 and roadway screening tool.7 Ramboll Environ will use these tools and other screening methods, as discussed below, to evaluate each of the sources within 1,000 feet of the Project. The impacts from each source, including the construction of the Project, will be added together and compared against thresholds. In 2015, the Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessments (OEHHA) released new guidance on how to evaluate cancer risk. The BAAQMD screening tools were developed under the old guidance, Thus, Ramboll Environ will use scaling factors approved by BAAQMD to convert risks from the screen tools to be consistent with new guidance. In 2015, the California Supreme Court held that CEQA does not require an analysis of the impact of the surrounding community on new residents. Thus, we assume an analysis of off-site sources on new residents of the Project is not required. However, if this analysis is required by the City of Burlingame for approvals, we can prepare this analysis under a separate scope, s BAAQMD.2012. San Mateo County stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool. Available at: http ://www. baaq md.gov/pla ns-a nd-climate/ca liforn ia-environmenta l-q ua lity-act-ceqa/ceqa -tools 5 BAAQMD. 2011. San Mateo County Highway Screening Analysis Tool. Available at: http ://www. baaq md.gov/pla ns-a nd-climate/ca liforn ia -environmenta l-q ua lity-act-ceqa/ceqa -tools 7 BAAQMD. 2015. Roadway Screening Analysis Calculator. Available at: http://www. baaqmd.govlpla ns-a nd -climate/ca liforn ia -environmenta l-q ua lity-act-ceqa/ceqa -tools 4/7 Attachment C ffi ENVIRON Task 3a. Roadway Air Toxics Analysis The Project is within 1,000 feet of El Camino Real, which is a major roadway, Vehicles on the roadway emit TACs from the combustion of fuel and thus must be evaluated in an offsite risk evaluation. Ramboll Environ proposes to use the BAAQMD screening tools to estimate the health impact from all roadways with over 10,000 vehicles per day within 1,000 feet of the Project. The health impact will be evaluated at the maximally exposed offsite sensitive receptor identified in the construction HRA. Ramboll Environ will work with the City of Burlingame to obtain traffic volumes for nearby roadways. As discussed above, the cancer risk found in the tool will be scaled to account for the new OEHHA guidance. Task 3b. Stationary Source Air Toxics Analysis Permitted stationary sources can emit TACs through their operations. Ramboll Environ will use BAAQMD's tool with risks from permitted stationary sources to evaluate impact of other sources within 1,000 feet of the Project. Where appropriate, Ramboll Environ will use the distance multiplier to take into account the dispersion with distance from the source and will use refined values from BAAQMD where available. As discussed above, the cancer risk found in the tool will be scaled to account for the new OEHHA guidance. Task 3 is estimated to cost $3,000, Task 4. Documentation Ramboll Environ will communicate the preliminary results of the analysis to ICF and the Project Sponsor via conference call prior to drafting final documentation. At your direction, we will prepare documentation of our analysis. This documentation can take two forms: 1. Annotated tables and figures summarizing the results of the analysis and the methodologies used 2. A technical memorandum with annotated tables and figures summarizing the results of the analysis and the methodologies used. Supporting documentation for the calculations and assumptions will be discussed in the report. The form of documentation is dependent on cost and amount of documentation needed. Both forms will be prepared as a stand-alone documents; therefore, all aspects of the analyses will be presented. References will be made to the original source documents from which environmental data and information are derived; the data that forms the basis of the calculations will be presented. All key assumptions and descriptions of methodologies will be presented. The figures and tables will be in PDF format. For cost estimation purposes, we assume one iteration of client review and that comments will be editorial in nature. Annotated tables and figures (Option 1) is estimated to cost $5,000 and the technical memorandum (Option 2) is estimated to cost an additional $5,000. COST ESTIMATE The following table describes the cost estimates and scope for each task. s/7 Table 1 nd EstiListTaskCost Estimated Cost Project Construction Emissions Description $8,000 - Kick-off call - Preparation of Data Request - One CalEEMod@ Run (or set of equivalent calculations) - One conference call 2 HRA Methodology and Risk Results $ 15,000 - Sensitive receptor search - AERMOD modeling, with BAAQMD-processed meteorological data - Health risk calculations using new OEHHA Guidance - One conference call Cumulative Analysis3 $3,000 - Roadway Air Toxics Analysis - Stationary Source Air Toxics Analysis 4 Documentation $5,000 - $10,000 - One conference call to discuss draft results - Preparation of annotated tables and figures - Preparation of technical memorandum (optional - $5,000) $31,OOO - $36,000Total Attachment C fr'ffi1@ ENVIRON The cost estimate for the proposed work is approximately $31,000 and $36,000 if the technical memorandum is desired. Ramboll Environ will conduct this work on a time-and-material basis in accordance with our General Terms and Conditions shown in Attachment A and rates shown in Attachment B. This represents our best estimate of the expected cost to complete the evaluation, and is based on the assumptions described above. Ramboll Environ will not exceed the cost estimate listed here without prior authorization from you. We will work with all parties to deliver the work products on a mutually agreed upon schedule. 6/7 Task 1 Attachment C ffi ENVIRON CLOSING Thank you for the opportunity to assist you with this matter. We look forward to working with you to complete this assignment. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact us at your convenience. Yours sincerely, llShari Beth Libicki/l l/Sarah Manzano// Shari Libicki, PhD Sarah ManzanoPrincipal Senior Consultant D +1 415 796 1933 D +1 415 426 50Lt slibicki@ ramboll. com smanza no@ ra mboll.com Attachments A: General Terms and Conditions B: Rates Authorization to Proceed with Scope of Work for up to $36rOOO for the Air Quality Analysis for Village at Burlingame: Accepted and Agreed to: Name: Signature: Title Date 7/7 Attachment C ATTACHMENT A GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Ramboll Environ Attachment C GWET"TN ENVIRON GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Ramboll Environ US Corporation, a Virginia corporation, ("Ramboll Environ") agrees to provide professional services under the following General Terms and Conditions: 1. @: Ramboll Environ bills for its services on a time and materials basis using standard hourly rates. If requested, we will provide an estimate of the fees for a particular task, and we will not exceed that estimate without prior Client approval. For deposition and testimony we charge premium hourly rates. In certain circumstances we will undertake an assignment on a fixed fee basis if the requirements can be clearly defined. 2. Invoicino: Ramboll Environ bills its clients on a monthly basis using a standard invoice format. This format provides for a description of work performed and a summary of professional fees, expenses, and communication and reproduction charges. For more detailed invoicing requests, Ramboll Environ reserves the right to charge for invoice preparation time by staff members. 3. Ey4qg11t: Ramboll Environ invoices are payable UPON RECEIPT. Ramboll Environ reserves the right to assess a late charge of 1.5 percent per month for any amounts not paid within 30 days of the receipt date. Ramboll Environ also reserves the right to stop work or withhold work product if invoices remain unpaid for more than 60 days past the receipt date, If Ramboll Environ's work relates to a business transaction, Ramboll Environ shall be paid in a timely fashion, without regard to whether or when the transaction closes. If Ramboll Environ legal counsel determines that Ramboll Environ is required to take legal action to obtain payment for unpaid invoices and Ramboll Environ prevails in court, Client agrees to pay all of Ramboll Environ's costs associated with the legal action, including reasonable legal fees. 4. Subcontractors: Ramboll Environ has a policy that its Clients should directly retain other contractors whose services are required in connection with field services for a project (e.9., drillers, analytical laboratories, transporters). As a service to you, we will advise you with respect to selecting other such contractors and will assist you in coordinating and monitoring their performance. In no event will we assume any liability or responsibility for the work performed by other contractors you may hire. When Ramboll Environ engages a subcontractor on behalf of the Client, the expenses incurred, including rental of special equipment necessary for the work, will be billed as they are incurred, at cost plus 15 percent. By engaging us to perform these services, you agree to indemnify, defend and hold Ramboll Environ, its directors, officers, employees, and other agents harmless from and against any claims, demands, judgment, obligations, liabilities and costs (including reasonable attorneys' and expert fees) relating in any way to the performance or non-performance of work by another contractor, except claims for personal injury or property damage to the extent caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of Ramboll Environs'employees. 5. Reimbursable Exoenses: Project-related expenses including travel, priority mail, and overnight delivery, outside reproduction and courier services will be billed at cost plus 15 percent. The use of company-owned cars, trucks, and vans will be charged at $125 per day. The use of company-owned equipment and protective clothing will be billed in accordance with our standard fee sched u le. 6. Access and Information: Client agrees to grant or obtain for Ramboll Environ reasonable access to any sites to be investigated as part of Ramboll Environ's scope of work. Client also agrees to indicate to Ramboll Environ the boundary lines of the site and the location of any underground L/4 Attachment C Ramboll Environ! General Terms and Conditions structures, including tanks, piping, water, telephone, electric, gas, sewer, and other utility lines. Client agrees to notify Ramboll Environ of any hazardous site conditions or hazardous materials, about which Client has knowledge and to which Ramboll Environ's employees or contractors may be exposed while performing services on behalf of Client, including providing copies of relevant Material Safety Data Sheets. Client also shall make available to Ramboll Environ all information within its control necessary to allow Ramboll Environ to perform its services and agrees to comply with reasonable requests by Ramboll Environ for clarification or additional information. Client shall be responsible for the accuracy of this information. Ramboll Environ shall not be responsible for any damage to underground structures or utilities to the extent such damage was caused by incomplete or inaccurate information provided to us by the client or other party. Client agrees to make Ramboll Environ aware of any unsafe conditions at any project site about which Client has knowledge. 7. BgpelgES_BggdI3EC!$: Client may be required under federal, state or local statutes or regulations to report the results of Ramboll Environ's services to appropriate regulatory agencies. Ramboll Environ is not responsible for advising Client about its reporting obligations and Client agrees that it shall be responsible for all reporting, unless Ramboll Environ has an independent duty to report under applicable law. In those situations, Ramboll Environ will provide Client with advance notice that Ramboll Environ believes that it has an obligation to report as well as the substance of the report it intends to make. a. RCRA Comoliance: Client shall be responsible for complying with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et. seq. ("RCRA") and its implementing regulations in connection with Ramboll Environ's work under this Agreement. Client may request Ramboll Environ's assistance in meeting its RCRA and other similar waste management obligations, including analytical testing to assist Client in proper characterization of waste, identifying potential transporters and disposal facilities for waste (provided that Client shall make the final selection of both the transporter and disposal facility), entering into subcontracts or purchase order arrangements with the transporters and/or disposal facilities selected by Client, and preparing manifests for the Client's approval and execution. Client agrees that, by virtue of providing these services, Ramboll Environ shall not be deemed a "generator" or a party who "arranges" for the "transportation," "treatment" or "disposal" of any "hazardous waste" or "hazardous substance" (as those terms are defined in the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act or "CERCLA", 42 U.S.C. Section 9601). Client agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Ramboll Environ, its directors, officers, employees and agents, harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, judgments, obligations, liabilities, any costs (including reasonable attorneys'and expert fees) relating to: (1) Ramboll Environ's work in assisting Client with its RCRA obligations; and (2) the transportation, treatment, and disposal of hazardous substances or hazardous waste generated by the field activities conducted for Client. 9, g9d!CeE!je!!g: We treat all information obtained from Clients as confidential, unless such information is previously known to us, comes into the public domain through no fault of ours, or is furnished to us by a third party who is under no obligation to keep the information confidential. If we are subpoenaed to disclose confidential information obtained from you or about our work for you, we will give you reasonable notice and the opportunity to object before releasing any confidential information. 10. Independent Contractorr Client agrees that Ramboll Environ is acting as an independent contractor and shall retain responsibility for and control over the means for performing its services. 2/4 Attachment C Ramboll Environ's General Terms and Conditions Nothing in these Terms and Conditions shall be construed to make Ramboll Environ or any of its officers, employees or agents, an employee or agent of Client. 11, Sle.ECard-etlglsr In performing services, we agree to exercise professional judgment, made on the basis of the information available to us, and to use the same degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised in similar circumstances by reputable consultants performing comparable services in the same geographic area. This standard of care shall be judged as of the time the services are rendered, and not according to later standards. Ramboll Environ makes no other warranty or representation, either express or implied, with respect to its services. Estimates of cost, recommendations and opinions are made on the basis of our experience and professional judgment; they are not guarantees. Reasonable peopte may disagree on matters involving professional judgment and, accordingly, a difference of opinion on a question of professional judgment shall not excuse a Client from paying for services rendered. client recognizes that there may be hazardous conditions at sites to be investigated as part of Ramboll Environ's work. Client acknowledges that Ramboll Environ has neither created nor contributed to the existence of any hazardous, toxic or otherwise dangerous substance or condition at the site(s) which are covered by Ramboll Environ's work. client also recognizes that some investigative procedures may carry the risk of release or dispersal of pre-existing contamination, even when exercising due care. Client releases Ramboll Environ from any claim (including claims under CERCLA or state law) that it is an "operator" of any site where it performs work for Client or a "generator" or a party who "arranges" for the "transportation," "treatment" or "disposal" of any ',hazardous substance,, (as those terms are defined in cERcLA), by virtue of its work for client at any site. 12. Insurancer Ramboll Environ shall maintain the following insurance coverage while it performs the work described in Exhibit "A:" (1) statutory Workers Compensation and Employer's Liability Coverage; (2) General Liability for bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 aggregate; (3) Automobile Liability with $1,OOO,OOO combined single limiu and (4) Professional Liability and Contractor's Pollution Liability with a combined single limit of $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. If Client desires additional insurance or special endorsements, premiums associated with that coverage would be considered a reimbursable expense. Upon request, we will provide you with a certificate of insurance. 13. Third Parties: Ramboll Environ's services are solely for Client's beneflt and may not be relied upon by any third party without Ramboll Environ's express written consent. Any use or dissemination of Ramboll Environ work products (including Ramboll Environ reports), without the written consent of Ramboll Environ, shall be at Client's risk and Client shall indemnify and defend Ramboll Environ from any and all claims, demands, judgments, liabilities and costs (including reasonable attorneys'and expert fees), related to the unauthorized use or dissemination of Ramboll Environ's work. Client also agrees to be solely responsible for and to defend, indemnify, and hold Ramboll Environ harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, judgments, liabilities and costs (including reasonable attorneys'and expert fees), asserted by third parties arising out of or in any way related to our performance or non-performance of services, except for claims of personal injury or property damage to the extent caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of Ramboll Environ's employees 14. !!$!!e!iSL4!eE!!!!y: Ramboll Environ shall be liable only for direct damages that result from Ramboll Environ's negligence or willful misconduct in the performance of its services. UNDER NO 3/4 Attachment C Ramboll Environ's General Terms and Conditions CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL RAMBOLL ENVIRON BE L]ABLE FOR INDIRECT, CONSEQUENNAL, SPECIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, OR FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE CLIENT'S FAILURE TO PERFORM ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER LAW OR CONTRACT. Ramboll Environ shall not be liable for and Client shall indemnify Ramboll Environ from and against all claims, demands, liabilities and costs (including attorneys'and expert fees) arising out of or in any way related to our performance or non- performance of services, including all on-site activities except to the extent caused by Ramboll Environ's negligence or willful misconduct. In no event shall our liability exceed the amount paid to us by you for our professional services (net of reimbursable expenses) and Client specifically releases Ramboll Environ for any damages, claims, liabilities and costs in excess of that amount. 15. Termination: This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon ten (10) days written notice to the other. If Client terminates the Agreement, Client agrees to pay Ramboll Environ for all services performed until the effective date of the termination. Client's obligations under Paragraphs 3, 4, 8,9, tl, 73, 14, 16, 18 and 20 shall survive termination of this Agreement and/or completion of the services hereunder. 16. gispgtes: All disputes under this Agreement shall be resolved by binding arbitration under the rules of the American Arbitration Association. If our personnel or documents are subpoenaed for depositions or court appearance in any dispute related to the project (except disputes between Ramboll Environ and Client related to our services), Client agrees to reimburse us at our then current billing rates for responding to those subpoenas, including out-of-pocket reimbursable expenses. 17, gggDg-gf-Ag-tCg0-g!: Once Client has signed Ramboll Environ's proposal, that proposal and these Terms and Conditions shall constitute the complete and exclusive Agreement between the parties and will supersede all prior or contemporaneous agreements, whether written or oral. No provision of these Terms and Conditions may be waived, altered or modified except in writing and signed by Ramboll Environ. Client may use standard business forms, such as purchase orders, for convenience only; any provision on those forms that conflict with these Terms and Conditions shall not a pplv. 18. Nonsolicitation I Both Ramboll Environ and Client agree during the term of this Agreement and for 12 months following its termination for any reason, neither party will solicit for employment, or hire as an employee or contractor, any personnel of the other party involved in the performance of services hereunder. 19. Force Maieure: Ramboll Environ shall not be liable in any way because of any delay or failure in performance hereunder due to unforeseen circumstances or causes beyond its control, including without limitation strike, lockout, embargo, riot, war, act of terrorism, fire, act of God, accident, failure or breakdown of components necessary to order completion, subcontractor or supplier non- performance, inability to obtain labor, materials or manufacturing facilities, or compliance with any law, regulation or order. 20. Intellectual Propertv. If Ramboll Environ delivers a written product to the Client, Ramboll Environ hereby grants to Client a perpetual, nonexclusive, royalty-free license to copy, modify and otherwise utilize the product in connection with the Client project for which the Services were provided. Ramboll Environ retains all intellectual property rights. 4/4 REVISION - May 2015 Attachment C ATTACHMENT A RATES Ramboll Environ Attachment C ffi ENVIRON Ramboll Environ US Corporation 2017 Rate Structure Ramboll Environ will bit! monthly for the actualtime and expenses incurred on the client's behalf in performance of the contracted effort. Labor will be billed at the fixed hourly rates indicated below. Materials and supplies, travel, and any other direct costs will be bilted at actual cost plus a handling charge (G&A) of 15%. Any subcontracted effort will be billed at actual cost plus a handling charge of 15%. Ramboll Environ does not directly charge for in house copies or normal phone company charges. Rates Principal $320 Principal Consultant $320 Sr. Managing Consultant $27s Managing Consultant $245 Senior Consultant 2 $220 Senior Consultant 1 $1 85 Consultant 3 $1 75 Consultant 2 $160 Consultant 1 $1 15 Drafting $1 10 Support $85 This document is PROPRIETARY to Ramboll Environ. lt is being made available for the recipient's proposal evaluation and/or contract administration purposes only. No right is granted to the recipient to use, disclose, or reproduce any information presented herein without Ramboll Environ's express written permission. Labor Category Proposalto Prepare CEQA Documentation for the Village at Burlingame Project ATTACHMENT D - BUDGET z"Zs Tset Use or drsc/os ure of data contained on fhis sheet ls subject to the restrictions on the title page of this proposal. Attachment D, Cost Estimate for the Village at Burlingame Project Class 32 Exemption Enployea P.oioat Rob L$q c,Ninoato Tatk Con3ultinq Staff Subcmtractor LaborTolal Dired Ercenses Tolal Price Chapman Efner E K Hunt A Roberts O Rocha L Hstcher S scott E Mathias J Prcjed Diredor Oepuly Poeci PEjed Manager Manager Hazards Hydrology AirQuality Noise Documenl Produdion Saconsull SrConsult srconsull Mng ll ll I Consult Mng Assoc Consu[ ll Asst ConsultProiDirConsult subtotal Edwad Hexagon L Pack Ramboll Trans Noise Air Quality Subtolal Ie:f .1rl_(gf fr9.c.o.p[.s.,.3tr_d_Le_MM991,L9...... Task 2. Proied DessiDtion .Ie9f .1.l9.r'Ir.Pr3!.1.9,|?99.1?.9-e.TP.liq'r......... I?:!.,1r^p.'Ir.PsL?,.99.99tq.e.*.ii!g!......... ti 6i.......4......... 1: ....-..?- 10 2ai 2l" """'1"" " ""': """"4i I,l: .......q1,.819. .......t1;?9. 31 1.266 s,{o.ooo! 34,soo! t36.ooo ..........$9. ..........99. -----e9t99- ....,---__99- ..........t9. ......ql,.8t9. ......q1,.5.?9. .... !.e.1,.7.99. .-.-..s,9#. .....t9#?. $500 $'100 $100 $8,120 .......s.5J1. .......q:t1?. Tolel houB lcF E&P 2017 Billino Rates 14 $235 42 76 $124 10 6 5 3 $112 14 s158 s130 $175 $208 s1 10 Sublotak 33.290 t6,636 i5.124 $1.300 $1,050 $1,040 $336 S1.540 s24 616 $40 000 s4 500 336 000 880.500 $105.1 16 Di.ect Etpoh$s 523.04 Postage and Delivery 523.05 Travel, Aulo, incld. Mileage at cutrenl IRS rato (.535/mile) Mark uD on a[ noFlaboa @sts and subconkadoE: l0% Direcl expense subtolal $8.E20 Total ori@ $1 13,336 ko Fitrt€d I l/tll2017 7:10 AM Apprcvedby Finme I sh )6. Atr&h D,Budgd.xls al 6: 8! 1ti ")i t 1 Proposal to Bulingame Prepare CEQA Documentation for the Village at Prqect ATTACHMENT E. SCHEDULE tl;Tter Use or drcc/os ure of data contained on lhis sheet ls subT'ect to the restrictions on the title page of this proposal. Subconsultants Revise Tech Studies (as needed) ICF Reviews Tech Studies I I I I:I TeamKickoff, City/Applicant Reviews Draft 2 Exemption ICF Prepares Project Prepare Tech StudiesHexagon, Edward L ICF Prepares Draft'l Class 32 Reviews Draft 1 Exemption II Kickoff ICF Prepares Screencheck Exemption Prepare Draft Class 32 Exemption City/Applicant Reviews Screencheck Exemption ICF Prepares Final Exemption Technical Studies ICF/Subs Prepare Drafi 2 Exemption Attachment E - Schedule Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Task Description 23 4 678 't0 11 14 ',15 18 19 20 E Exhibit B INSURANCE REOUIREMENTS Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by the Contractor, his agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Minimum Scope of Insurance Coverage shull be at least os broad as: l. Commercial General Liabitity (CGL): Insurance Services Office (lSO) Form CG 00 0l 12 04 covering CGL on an "occurrence" basis, including products-completed operations, personal & advertising injury, with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be $2,000,000. 2. Automobile Liability: ISO Form Number CA 00 0l covering any auto (Code 1), or if Contractor has no owned autos, hired, (Code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9), with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of Califomia, with Statutory Limits, and Employer's Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. 4. Professionat Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance appropriate to the Contractor's profession, with limit no less than $11000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000'000 aggregate. If the contractor maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the contractor. Other Insurance Provisions The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: Additional Insured Status The City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as insureds on the auto policy with respect to liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on behalf of the contractor and on the general liability policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by oron behalf of the Contractor includingmaterials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Contractor's insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10,11 85 or both CG 20 10 and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used). Primory Coverage For any claims related to this contract, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, orvolunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. Notice of Cancellation Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice (10 days for non-payment) has been given to the City. Waiver of Subrogation Contractor hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Contractor may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Contractor agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer. De ductibles and Self-Insured Retentions Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. The City may require the Contractor to purchase coverage with a lower deductible or retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. Acceptability of Insarers Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Claims Made Policies (note - should be applicable only to professional liability, see below) If any of the required policies provide claims-made coverage: l. The Retroactive Date must be shown, and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work. 2. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided/or ot least five (5) years afier completion of the contract of work. 3. lf coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the Contractor must purchase "extended reporting" coverage for a minimum of five (5/ years after completion of work. VeriJic otio n of Coverag e Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Contractor's obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time. Special Risks or Circumstances City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CERTIFI CATE OF LIAB rLtwt CAI{CELLATION 6 EoE oE (, AFFORDED THEBY POLtctE9 BELOW.ISSUING AUTHORIZEDrNsuRER(S), tsSUBROGATION VI'AIVED,to tfio!ubJect ol8ndtorm6condition!d the certalnPollcy,certlflcate pdlcleidoeand may anconferrequl.othoto endoEomont Ac.dlticab ltrlemsnt thlsonholderlnllouotsUCh (866) 283-7122 (800) 363-0105 IilSURER(8! AFFORUNO COVERAOE t{Atc fl co A)GS ICF Insu Insurance us INSURER A: INSURER E: NAI'RER C! INSURER D; INsURED Aon N€W 199 Risk Servlces Northeast, IncYork Ny offlcewater streat York Ny 10038-3S51 usA [ilAY LIMITS WTH RESPECT HEREIN ts SUBJECT TOI DESCRIBED PAID CLAIMS. SUCH MAY POUCYNUMAERx UMITS EACH OCCURRENCE x MED 0m pctron) & AOV INJURV x PRODUC?8- COMP/OPAGO x OCCUR LIM'I PRO. APPLIES PER:!,o.JECT Con'lautthUny corttt{ERCAL CIAIT'$TIADE POLICY OTHER: Packaoe - oonestlc tx,000x BODILY INJURY (Pcrporron) BODILYINJURY (P.r rcoi&nl)x x A 9CHEDULED AUTO6 NON-OWIeo AUTO6 ONLY oyvNEo AUTOS ONLY T[REDAUTOS ONIY AUTOMOBI"E LIABUW ANYAUIO Automoblle - Al] states EACH UITBRELI.A LIA! EXCEr8IJAE OCOUR CLAU9iIADE AOGREOATE x N E:L, EACH ACCIDENT EL. DISEASE.EA EI'PLOY€E EXECUII\iE N'A trcrkers conpensation EL.c rilary Errors & OitJssions oyerall policy s2 Made Policy. rhere is no Addit'ronar rnsured status on the professionar urab.rlity flltiif.iTllttit8i.lfi."lSifers,.officials, ew]ovees and vo'lunteers are inc'ruded as additiona] rnsu*ds under the RE:1-Bur'l lnoamels a clains6/25/t999, rprca BEFORECANCEITED THE frl UIIIHACCORDANCE THE s'3i1,if,il!11ffi:i. Eurllngails cA g4o1o usA .M,g^/g*r-1..*fur-% o E6 oo 8ot\o ;-sI t(,(, ACORD 25 (20t8r03)ThoAcoRD nrms end toeo r,. nesl*e* fifjff#fRD coRPoRArlot{' All rlsht! reloiled. THIS INSURANCE NOT A BETWEEN THE Inc, USA s7000q024 2s6 ^dfu ADDITIONAL REMARKS SCHEDULE eage - of - AGENCY aon Risk Services Northeast Inc see certificate Number: 570068919540 NAMED INSURED IcF Jones & stokes, Inc. CARRIER see certlflcare Number: 57006E9L9640 NAIC CODE EFTECTIVE OATE: ADDITIOI{AL REIIIARKS AGEI{CY CUSTOTIER ID: LOC *: THIS ADDIT]ONAL REilARKS FORM IS A SCHEDULE TO AGORD FORM, ACORD 25 FORM TfLE: Certificat€ of Ltabllty tnsuranc€ 3 -_rhe indicated coverage is primary and non-contributory with any app'licab'le insu Bu r'l 'i ngame . 4 - waiver of subrogation is included to the extent permitted by law. ce held by the city of ACORD 101 (2008101) Th. ACORD n.m! enC logo rre reglrt reC marh. oIACORD o200t AcoRD All rlght rurorvod, trHLJEIEI'Ltablllty lnsurance Endorsement Policy Perlod Etrectlve Date PoliqNunbu lnsured Name ol Conpany Date laaued Thle Eodorscmcnt applios to thc follorving furru: GENERALL[ABIUTY Who ls An lnsured Additional lnsured - Sched/.tled Pereon Or Organizalion Lleblw ln&wenca Jt LY 1,2017 To JULY1,2019 Jt LY 1,2017 3s8t-2409 DTO ICFINTERNATIONALINC. ICF IONES & STOKES,IIIC. GREAT NORIIIERN INSURANCts COMPANY ydLY 5,2017 Undcr Who Is An Insur€4 thc foloning provislon ts addcd. Pareone c organlzadonc ehom tn tho Schcdrlo ro hcdri but-&cyarc lnmrtdr only if you aroobllgodpurnrant b a cotrmct or agrcc,oot n pmvtb oem vrtn lutl inr,rancc ar 6 atrordcd bythirpolby. Hoq,cvcr, tbc pcnon or ugadzadon ir an hnrmd ouly: ' lf ad thca odl, b tho osbnt rbo pcrron o oryanrzdon ,r dcccrlbcdtn tho sc.hodub;o b tho crtcut nrcb colltrst oI agrGcoErt Igqullls thc pcrron or orgaDtz0doD b bc affor&dstrfirsas anhorrt ' fm acdvltlcc that did mt occur. in wholc or tn pa+ uororc tto crccutlon of thc con6act oregroocogaad ' wlth rcspcctb da&go& los& cost or elecosc fur injury or .{arragc to which thtr tnruranccapp[cc. No pcmn or rgulzadon is an hautd udcr thts pmvidon: ' thatis qgrcryccificallytdcndficdundaanyothcrprovidonofthcwho IsAr hsundscctton (rogudl€ss of any tt'rrttadoo aBeUcOrc UqiOl ' wlth rcqpcct b slly usuqtton .of liabtlity (of amtbcr percou or organizadon) by thcm tn acoffiact or Egr!€@on[ Tlds lidtatba dooc not agply o tno uout! tr damogcs. loss, cos ororpcn-ce for lniury o dansgo, to whish lhle lnnriinic appttcc thafthc pcrson u organizadonwould havc in thc abscnce of mch contractq $rccmont Atltltlonal lmud - gdr,dubd pot,/pt,@ contnwdfurntu@.w7(Rcv.547)Enttuunnl o,gor{z.bn Prgc I EHLJEIEI" Other lnsurane- Primary, Noncontibutry lnsunnce - Scheduled Person Or Organization (contlnued) Condttlone Llebfilty lnewenca I! rou gc 9btig1rc$ pursuant to a contsact or ag€€,mclrt, to provido the pe,roon or organization shoxm fu lhe Schedule with pdoary tnsurarce suc.h u is arooeo ty &G potcy, thc-n in such casc tbis lngurancc ts prifiary aad we will oot s€ek conribution trom ihsuranci ava[ablc o such person or organlzation Uoder Conditione, the following provisloo is addcd to the condidon titlod0&cr lqsuraDcc, Authorlzccl Reprcacnt ttve Addillonal lmund - Scflp/duhd runonatoryanization *hedule Persons or orgauizations that you are obligate( pursuant to a conEact or agrr€mcnt, to provide with such insurance as is affodedby this policy. The City of Burlingame, its officers, officials, employecs and volunteers All othcr tcrms and condidous rcmaiD unchanged. EO@-2907 (Rev.Enclo,Eemant hetlg,o fff rfi?;l ilT,;:ll?,No 7362.2$6s Grcat Nonhsm lnsilrajce Compary (2) Immdldely smd us coptes of anv re-quest, demand, order, nodce, sumrironsor.legat paper recdved concerning theclahr or ,suit',. (3) Coo.perate with rt-s ln the ttvestlga{on orsettlement of the claim or -Gf*"" agalnst the ,bult.. (4) Authorlze us to obtaln medlcal recordsor other pertlnent lnformaflon. (0 SuUnlt lo exadnatlon, at our o(p€nse, by physlclans of our cholce, as oilen as we reasonably requlre. c. If there ls ,loss, to a covered .auto. or ltsequipment ).ou must abo do the followhga (1) Promptty notts the police lf the covered,auro" or any of lls equipment is stolem. (2) Take an reasonable steps to protect thecovered .auro" from itrrthei damace.Also keep a record of vour eroendlo, conslderaflon ln the iedem;nt of the clalnr. (3) Pernrn us to lnspect the covered ,,auto', and records pro!,lng the ,loss', beforc |tsrepaf or disposltlon. (4) Agree to exarnlnallons under oath al ourrequest and glve us a signed stalement oI your answers. 3. r egal Acdon Agdnst Us Ig filfff#:fsf"1ff1ff1"' asarnst us un- a There has been full compllance wlth all the terms of thls Coverage Frirq and b. Under Llabltty Coverace, we acree in wrir_lng that the 'insured,' Ias an dblsatlon ropay or unfll the anount of that obXsaflon has 0nany been determined bv ludsn&rt at_ ter dal. No one has the rlght utider-thls Dol_tcy lo bring us lnro an aidon to dererddne the'Insured's,, llablllty. 4, lss PryrE[ -phdcal Ihrage C(nEmges At our opflon we mry: a, Pay lor, repalr or replace damaged or stolenpropeftyi b. Relurn the solen property, at our expense. We wiu pay for any damage that resuls tothe "auto" from the i.hell; or- c. Take all or any pa of the damaged or sto_ren property al an agreed or -appratsed Yatue. I{ ye pry for the ,Ioss,, our paymenr ylll ln_ ll.r!.",t".,?qqrbple sales tax fbirh; a-#;s&or stoten property. 5. Truls- ftr Of Rghs OfRecovery Agahst OtlEsTo Lb If any person or organizallon to or for whomwe make payment undes thh Coverage Form ll"" rtg.hl. to recover- damages from inorher,tnose gnB ale fansfened to us. That Dersonor organlzatlon must do evsythlns ne.i=";to secure our rights and musiao n-ottrtnp anJ'itccldent' or 'loss. to lrnpalr them. " B C,cremt Cordt{ors l. &nlcuptcy Bankruptcy_ o1 lnsolvency of the ,lnsured,, orlne Insured's,' eshte wlll-not relleve us of anvobllgatlons under thls Coverage Forirr" - -' -" 2. Conceatrtrt, I[srepesenffion G Fraud Thls - Coverage Form ls vold ln any case ofrraud by you at any tlrlE as lt relares to thiscoverage Form. lt ls also voH lf vou or anvoth€r 'lnsured',, at any tLne, lnten{bnalv cori_c@l or ndsrepresent a materlal fafi concdnjng: a, Thls Coverage Form; b, The covered "auto.: c. Your lnterest ln the covered "auto,,; or d. A clalm under thls Coveage Form. 3. Uberalzaflon If we revise thls Coverage Form to provide more coyerage . wlthout additlonal pianlum cnarge, your polley wlll ar[omadcallv' Drovlde the addttlonal coverage .s of rhe day tire rart. ston ls eftbctfue ln your state, {. No Berrcfr To Ballee - pt{^fcal DamgeCoerages We wlll not recognlze any asslgnment or sranlany coverage. for-the beireflt oI any persjn ororgantzdion holdhg, storlng or iransDorflns p.rgp€rty- {o.r a fee regardlesiof any other prolvislon of thls Coverage Form @ ISO Propenles, Inc., 20O5 cA000l ql06 tr Page 8 of 12 5. Other Insurance a. For any covered "auto" you own, thls Cov- erage Form provldes prtmary lnsurance. For any covered "auto" you doh't nwn, fhe ln- suranoe provlded by thls Coverage Form ls excess over any othen collectible lnsurance. However, whlle a covered "arto" whlch ls a "tralletr" ls connected to another vehlcle, the tiabllity Cgveragg this Covenage Form pro- vldes for the "trailen" is: (1) Excess whlle lt b connected to a motor vehlcle you do not own. (2) Prtmary whlle lt ts connected to a cov- ered "zuto" you own. b. For Hlred Auto Physlcal Damage Coverage, any covered 'huton you lease,-hlre, rent or borrow ls deemed to be a covered "auto" you own. Howeven, aly "auto" that ls leased, hlred, rentd or -bonowed wlth a drfuen Ls not a covered "auto". c. Regardless of the provisions of Paragraph a. above, thls Covoage Forms Llablllty Coverage ls prlmary for any llablllty as- sumed under an "lnsured contiact". d. lMren thls Covenage Form and any other Coverrye Forrn or policy covers on thesale basls, dther orcess or prlmary, we wlll pay only our share. Our share ls the proportbn thd the Llrntt of Insurance of our Covenqge Form bears to the total of the [m- its of all the Covenage Forms and pollcles covalng on the same basls. 6. PrerftmAudil a Ttre estlmated prernlum for thls Cover4ge Form ls based on the exposures you told qs you would have rvhen thls polcy began. We wlll compute the flnal premium -due rvhen we determlne your actual exposures. The estftnated total pienrium wlll becredtted agalnst the flnal prendum due and the llrst Named Insured wlll be billed for the bal ance, lf any. The due date for the flnal pr+ rnlum or retrospectlve prenrlum ls the date shown as the due date on the bill. If the es- tlmated total prerdum exceeds the flnal prernium duq the fust Naled Insured wtll get a refund. b. If thls pollry ls lssued for more than one yea, the premlum for this Coverage Form will be computed annually based-on our rates or premiums in effect at the beglnnlng of emh year of the policy. 7. Potcy Pedod, Cor,erage Terrftry Under ttrls Coverage Form, we cover "acci- dents" and "losses" occurdng: a. Durlng the pollcy period shown in the Dec- Iarations; and b. Wthln the covenage terrltory. The coverage terrltory ls: a. The United States of America; b. The terrltories and possessions of the Unlted States of Amerlca c. Puerto Rico; d. Canada; and e. Anywhere in the world if: (1) A covered "auto" of the private passen- ger type is leased, hired, rented or bor- rowed wlthout a drlyer for a period of 30 days or less; and (2) the 'tnsured's" responslbiltty to pay damqges ls determlned ln a "sult" on the merits, in the United States of America. the terrltorles and possesslons of the Unlted States of America, Puerto Rlco, or Canada or in a settlement we agree to. We also cover 'loss" to, or "acctdents' lnvoh- lng, a covered "auto" whlle belng transported between any of these places. 8. Two or l\,Iore Corrcrage Fanrs or Pofldes Issued $ Us If thls Coverage Form and any otha Coverage Form or pollcy lssued to you by us or any company alllltated with us apply to the same "accldent", the qgregate madmum Limit of In- surEmce under all the Coverage Forms or poli- cies shall not exceed the highest applicable Llmlt of Insurance under any one Coverage Form or poltcy. ltris condltlon doe.s not apply to any Covenage Form or policy issued by us or an alllllated company speclftcally to appiy as s(cess lnsurance over this Coverage Form. SECNONV_DEflNUIONS A. 'AccHent" lncludes continuous or repeated er(po- sure to the same conditions resultlngln 'bodlly ln- jury" or "property damage". B. 'Auto" means: 1. A land nrotor vehicle, 'hailer" or semltrailer de- signed for travel on public roads; or cA 00 0l 03 06 @ ISO Properties, Inc., 2005 Page 9of12 tr T'I'ORKERS' COMPENSATION AND EMPLO\ERS' LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY wc e0 03 04 (Ed. 7{ts) WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS ENDORSEMENT- CALIFORNIA lx;:#,'.H[:11,9,ilfi,J: o,'* to which it is attached effective on rhe inceprion date of the policy untess a (The following 'attaching dauw" need be completed only when this endoreemsnt is bsuod subsequent to proparation of the porcy.) we have the right to recover our paymenb from anyone liable for an injury covercd by this policy. we will not enforceour ilght against the person or organization named in tre schedur". rn" iaiirional prernium for the blanket waiveroffered by lhis endorsement shalibe 1,0ff/o of total catrornia pLriurn --' This endorsement, effective on PolicyNo. (18)z17i4g-97 issued to ICF TNTERNATTONAL tNC. Endorsement No, Pelson orOqanization BLANKET WAIVER - ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION FOR WHOM THE NAMED INSURED HAS AGREED BY WRITTEN CONTRACT TO FURN]SH THIS WAIVER The City ofBurlingame, its officers, officers, employcos and volunteers 711117 at 12:014. M. standard time, frcrms a part of(DATE) Ofthe FEDERALINSURANoECoMPANY (NAME OF INSURANCE COMPANY) Reprgsentative Schedule Job Description ALL CALIFORN]A OPERATIONS wc 99 03 04 (Ed. 7-08) General Ltability - poflcy No. 3581-24_09 Great N_orthern Insurance Company July l, 20t7 to July 1, 2018 ICF International, inc, // ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. (continued) Transfer Or Waiver Of Rights Of Recoveru Against Others we witl waive the right of rccovery we wourd otherwise have had against another pcrson ororganization, for loss to which rhis insurance applies, provided tie il;.ir.d;;;;aived rheir rightsofrecovery against such person or organizationin a contract or agreemlnt that is executed beforesuch loss. To the extent that the rnsuredrs rights to recover ail or part ofany paymcnt made under thisinsurance have not been waived, those rights are Eansferred to ,.. ri" toruiJrou.t do nothingafter loss to impair them. At our requost, the lnsured will bring cuit or (ransfer those rights to usand help us enforce them. This condition does not apply to medlcal expenses. Llafiilty lnsunnce A0-02-2000 (Rev. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND ICF JONES & STOKES, INC. FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED VILLAGE AT BURLINGAME AND PUBLIC PARKING STRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT OF LOTS F AND N THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 is by and between ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. ("Consultant"), engaged in providing environmental review services for review of a proposed development project located on City of Burlingame Parking Lot F and Lot N (together referred to as “the Village at Burlingame”), and the City of Burlingame, a public body of the State of California ("City"), amends the Agreement between the parties dated February 15, 2018, hereinafter called the “Agreement”. RECITALS WHEREAS, the City has determined that additional work is required to complete the environmental review of the Village at Burlingame and has requested that the Consultant perform additional services beyond the scope of the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Consultant has prepared a request for additional fees to cover the cost of the requested services as outlined in the attached Contract Amendment Request No. 1 for the Village at Burlingame. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Consultant shall provide the additional services requested by the City as outlined in the attached Contract Amendment Request No 1 to the Agreement for Environmental Review Services dated February 15, 2018. 2. The additional cost shall not exceed $47,418, to be invoiced as the work occurs, for a total compensation not to exceed $161,354. 3. Except as expressly amended in this Amendment No. 1, all other terms and conditions contained in the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement for Professional Services between ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. and the City of Burlingame 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Consultant and City execute this Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement. CITY OF BURLINGAME CONSULTANT 501 Primrose Road ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. Burlingame, CA 94010 620 Folsom Street, 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94107 By: By: Lisa Goldman Trina Prince City Manager Contracts Administrator Date: Date: Attest: Federal Employer ID Number: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer License Number: City Clerk Expiration Date: Approved as to form: Kathleen Kane City Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A Contract Amendment Request Exhibit B Certificate of Liability Insurance March 26, 2018 Kevin Gardiner Planning Manager 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 Subject: Budget Amendment 1 for the Village at Burlingame Project Dear Mr. Gardiner, ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. (“ICF”) submitted a Scope of Work (scope) for the Class 32 Exemption Checklist for the Village at Burlingame Project. As outlined in the attachment, this budget amendment is for ICF’s subconsultant, Hexagon, based on comments from the City’s Department of Public Works, provided on March 8, 2017. The current approved budget for the CEQA Exemption is $113,936. ICF requests $5,500 be added to our contract (including $5,000, plus ICF’s 10% markup), for a total budget of $119,436. ICF proposes to invoice costs monthly, on a time and materials basis. ICF shall provide services, as outlined above, under the terms and conditions of its existing agreement with the City dated February 15, 2018. If you agree to authorize the tasks and costs associated with these items, please indicate your acceptance of this notice to proceed by signing this letter and returning it to me. If you have any questions, please contact Kirsten Chapman at 415-537-1702 or at kirsten.chapman@icfi.com. Sincerely, Trina L. Prince-Fisher Contracts Administrator Name and Title Date Attachment – Hexagon Added Scope of Work 201 Mission Street, Suite 1500, San Francisco, CA 94105 USA +1.415.677.7100 icf.com March 16, 2018 Ms. Erin Efner ICF International 620 Folsom Street, 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94107 Subject: Additional Services Request for the Village at Burlingame Residential Development in Burlingame, CA Dear Ms. Efner: You may recall that the scope of services included in our original proposal did not include analysis of the proposed adjacent parking structure to be constructed on the current City Lot N. It was determined at the project kick-off meeting that since the parking structure is to be constructed as part of the project, the traffic impact as a result of the parking structure must also be analyzed. We are currently working with City of Burlingame staff to determine the percentage of parking stalls that would serve to satisfy an existing unmet parking demand in the downtown area versus the number of stalls that are expected to generate new trips. While the majority of parking stalls provided by the proposed new parking structure would serve to address an existing parking deficit/need and, therefore, would not generate new trips, some additional traffic in the downtown area is likely to be generated by the availability of parking. Accordingly, estimates of new trips to be added to the surrounding roadway network by the parking structure will be determined based on the assumption that a certain percentage (to be determined) of the parking stalls would generate new trips. Based on the City’s parking equivalency to retail square footage (1 stall per 400 square feet) and the retail trip generation rates contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, the additional trips generated by the increase in parking stalls will be estimated and assigned to the parking garage driveway(s). Based on the City’s review of our proposed scope of work, the following additional signalized intersections need to be analyzed in the TIA:  California Drive & Broadway  California Drive & Oak Grove Avenue  Carolan Avenue & Broadway  Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue The cost for the additional work associated with the parking structure analysis and the analysis of four more intersections amounts to $5,000. Approval of this agreement will bring our total contract value for this project to $45,000. We are ready to sign your standard contract amendment. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Brian Jackson Senior Associate 201 Mission Street, Suite 1500, San Francisco, CA 94105 USA +1.415.677.7100 icf.com October 17, 2018 Kevin Gardiner Planning Manager 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 Subject: Budget Amendment 2 for the Village at Burlingame Project Dear Mr. Gardiner, ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. (“ICF”) submitted a Scope of Work (scope) for the Class 32 Exemption Checklist for the Village at Burlingame Project, dated November 13, 2017, for $113,936. Budget Amendment 1 added budget to the Project, resulting in a total approved budget of $119,436. As outlined in the attachment, this budget amendment is for $41,918. ICF requests that this be added to our contract, for a total budget of $161,354. ICF proposes to continue to invoice costs monthly, on a time and materials basis. ICF shall provide services, as outlined above, under the terms and conditions of its existing agreement with the City dated February 15, 2018. If you agree to authorize the tasks and costs associated with these items, please indicate your acceptance of this notice to proceed by signing this letter and returning it to me. If you have any questions, please contact Kirsten Chapman at 415-537-1702 or at kirsten.chapman@icfi.com. Sincerely, Trina L. Fisher Contracts Administrator ____________________________________________ Name and Title ____________________________________________ Date Attachment A – Budget Attachment B – Ramboll Added Scope of Work Attachment C – Ramboll Added Scope of Work 201 Mission Street, Suite 1500, San Francisco, CA 94105 USA +1.415.677.7100 icf.com During the process of completing the Draft 1 CEQA Exemption document, ICF and the subconsultants performed extra tasks, which were not originally included in the scope of work. The additional task are described. Expanded Scope of Work. ICF’s initial research into the level of effort expected for the CEQA documentation revealed examples that were less detailed than the document that was ultimately prepared for the proposed project. The previous projects in Burlingame that utilized Class 32 Exemptions were significantly smaller projects with fewer complex issues. Upon learning the full details and scale of the project, it was clear that a level of analysis beyond what had traditionally been done would be necessary. Ultimately, with the City’s signoff, ICF followed an example from another jurisdiction that was markedly more detailed than what has been done in the past for smaller projects. For comparison, other previous projects that qualified for a Class 32 Exemption in Burlingame were between approximately 15,000 sf to 45,000 sf and size while the proposed project approximately a 130,000 sf building with 132 residential units and a five-level parking garage. Mitigation Measures and Project Description. In order to be eligible for a Class 32 Exemption, new mitigation measures are not permitted. However, Standard Conditions of Approval (SCAs) from a previously approved Specific Plan can be used to reduce the level of significance for potential impacts. To the fullest extent possible, ICF used the SCAs from the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan; however, these SCAs do not cover all CEQA topics (or subtopics) and, in some cases, did not fully reduce the impacts. As a result, ICF worked extensively with the subconsultants and the internal team to determine ways to avoid the need for mitigation measures where SCAs did not fully reduce impacts. In most cases, this meant identifying possible changes to the Project Description and coordination with the City to implement these changes. In addition, ICF updated the Project Description to reflect a number of changes. ICF submitted the first draft of the Project Description to the City/applicant in February 2018. The Project Description has since been edited to include additional data needs responses, construction assumptions from Ramboll, changes to site plans, remediation, and other assumptions to avoid mitigation measures. Historic Buildings. The Project site is currently vacant and contains no existing buildings; however, four buildings adjacent to the Project site are greater than 50 years old and, therefore, are age eligible for consideration as historical resources under CEQA. It was determined that the mere presence of a new adjacent building would not affect these buildings. However, due to the adjacent construction activities, ICF architectural historians utilized the technical analysis provided in the vibration discussion (see below) in order to determine whether the Project has the potential to cause damage to, and lead to a significant impact on, the four adjacent age-eligible buildings. This level of analysis was not assumed in our initial scope of work. Noise and Vibration. ICF’s original scope and budget assumed that the report by Edward L. Pack would be easily incorporated into the document with minimal work by ICF. The report that was received from Edward L. Pack did not meet all of the requirements of a CEQA noise analysis and was not consistent with the level of detail required. Therefore, in order to complete the document, ICF had to perform the following tasks: 201 Mission Street, Suite 1500, San Francisco, CA 94105 USA +1.415.677.7100 icf.com Vibration  ICF conducted vibration modeling for the analysis. ICF also worked with the analysis prepared by Edward L. Pack and transcribed the applicable analysis into the document.  After review of potential vibration impacts, ICF questioned if a 25-foot buffer for vibration- generating equipment and construction activities (such as drilling) could be written into the Project Description. Since the applicant was not able to commit to a 25-foot buffer, ICF needed to revisit vibration impacts. ICF attended additional calls, provided coordination, and remodeled and reworked the vibration section so that mitigation measures would not be required.   Noise  As mentioned above, the original scope and budget did not include reviewing and editing the Edward L Pack noise report and providing extensive feedback. The original report concluded significant impacts, which were not warranted; ICF reviewed, checked the modeling where possible, and provided comments and feedback to reduce these impacts. After submitting the peer review to Edward L Pack, the subconsultant stated that they would not be making any changes to the report.  ICF used the Edward L Pack report, where feasible, to draft the Noise analysis for the Exemption section. However, the majority of the report was not useable due to the continued inclusion of mitigation measures and significance conclusions. ICF wrote the setting to demonstrate which regulations would apply, conducted noise modeling, and provided a new technical analysis for the following: o Rooftop HVAC: Located the source noise levels for the type of HVAC equipment proposed and then conducted HVAC noise modeling. o Emergency Generator: Located the source noise levels for the type of generator proposed and then conducted generator noise modeling. o Parking Structure Noise: Located an appropriate source noise levels for the type of noise and then conducted parking structure noise modeling. o Traffic Noise Modeling: Hexagon provided ICF with turning movement data. ICF converted this data into useable ADT numbers. After converting received values into usable volumes, ICF conducted the ratio analysis and the single-segment traffic noise analysis. o Construction Noise: Conducted an original construction noise evaluation. Subconsultants (Project Management). Budget amendments for Ramboll are included as Attachments A and B. In addition, as discussed above, ICF faced several challenges managing the subconsultant Edward J. Pack. ICF incurred additional costs managing these subconsultants, coordinating data needs for their analysis, and working with budgets. This coordination required more management than the level of effort our budget originally assumed. Attachment A. Budget Amendment 2 for the Village at Burlingame Project Class 32 ExemptionConsulting StaffEfner EriChapman Kir Rusch JonRoberts Dia Sukola KatBuehler Dav Scott EliMathias JohRambollProject DirectorProject Manager Historic Hazards Hydrology Sr Noise NoiseDocument ProductionAir Quality TaskProj DirSr Consult IISr Consult ISr Consult IAssoc Consult II Proj DirAssoc Consult IIIAsst Consult Subtotal Subtotal Labor TotalDirect Expenses Total PriceTask 3. Admin Draft 1 Class 32 Exemption$0 $13,700 $13,700 $13,700 Expanded Scope of Work/Mitigation/Project Description 10 16 4 2 2$5,834 $0 $5,834 Historic Buildings2 10 1 $1,506 $0 $1,506 Noise/Vibration 6 8 6 90 1 $14,784 $0 $14,784Task 5. Project Management/Meetings 8 18$4,724 $0 $4,724Total hours 24 44 10 4 2 6 90 4ICF E&P 2018 Billing Rates$235 $158 $108 $130 $108 $320 $112 $110Subtotals $5,640 $6,952 $1,080 $520 $216 $1,920 $10,080 $440 $26,848 $13,700 $13,700 $40,548Direct ExpensesMark up on all non-labor costs and subcontractors: 10%$1,370Direct expense subtotal$1,370Total price$41,918SubcontractorEmployee NameProject RoleLabor ClassificationDate printed 10/15/2018 4:27 PM Approved by Finance { sh } Burlingame_Amendment2_Cost_101518 Attachment B Attachment B AttachmentC AttachmentC 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9a MEETING DATE: December 3, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: December 3, 2018 From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307 Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253 Subject: Approval of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the New Community Center RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council hold a Public Hearing and approve the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the new community center. BACKGROUND Since 2012, City staff, in collaboration with Group 4 Architecture, the Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC), and community members, has been working on developing plans for a new community center in Washington Park. The work includes development of a Master Plan for the active areas of the park and identifies the site locations of the park amenities (Community Center Master Plan) and conceptual designs of the proposed building within the Master Plan. The City Council approved the Community Center Master Plan on July 7, 2014. Since that time, the City Council has held study sessions, and the City has gathered input through an Advisory Committee, at Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission meetings, as well as at community meetings and public events. Information about the process and public outreach plan can be found at https://www.burlingame.org/parksandrec/facilities/projects/community_center_conceptual_plan.ph p At the July 2, 2018 Council meeting, the City Council chose to move forward with the pavilions style building, a 35,700 square foot community center with parking under and adjacent to the new center. The project also includes a new relocated playground, picnic area, and basketball court, and an indoor and outdoor stage. The tennis courts, Lions Club building, ballfields, and Parking Lot X will remain unchanged. At the September 17, 2018 City Council study session, staff and Group 4 presented a Schematic Design progress update and received input and direction on the project scope and budget, including add alternates, selection of the underground parking option, approval of the early site package, and approval of the exterior material palette. At the September 20, 2018 Parks & Recreation Commission meeting and the September 24, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, City staff and IS/MND for the New Community Center December 3, 2018 2 Group 4 presented a schematic design progress update, including relaying the input that the Council provided at its study session. At the November 5, 2018 City Council meeting, staff and Group 4 provided a progress update and received additional input and direction on the project scope and budget. At the November 19, 2018 City Council meeting, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was presented under the Staff Report section of the agenda. Representatives from Group 4 and LSA Associates, Inc. (environmental consultants for the environmental review) were able to answer initial questions from Councilmembers, but the Council was asked to defer final approval so that a formal Public Hearing could be held on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. DISCUSSION Environmental Review Environmental Review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. on behalf of the City to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, consistent with CEQA. The draft IS/MND has determined that there would be no environmental impacts identified that could not be mitigated to less than significant levels. Since the community center is a municipal facility rather than a development project, City staff is requesting that the City Council take action to adopt the IS/MND and the Mitigated Monitoring Report Program (MMRP). As mandated by State Law, the minimum public review comment period for this document is 20 days. During this public review period for the IS/MND (September 13, 2018 to October 3, 2018), no public comments were received. On the basis of the Initial Study and the whole record, it has been determined that the proposed action, with the incorporation of the mitigation measures described below, will not have a significant impact on the environment. Areas identified with potential environmental impacts that could be mitigated to less than significant levels were in the areas of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, and noise. Mitigation measures for these areas are included in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. The Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-601P) is attached for reference. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been formulated based upon the findings of the IS/MND. The MMRP lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND prepared for the proposed project and identifies mitigation monitoring requirements. State law requires the Lead Agency to adopt an MMRP when mitigation measures are required to avoid significant impacts. The MMRP is intended to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND during implementation of the project. The MMRP is attached for reference. The MMRP is organized in a matrix format. Columns identify the potential impacts and corresponding mitigation measures, the party responsible for implementing each mitigation IS/MND for the New Community Center December 3, 2018 3 measure, the agency and/or department responsible for oversight or ensuring that each mitigation measure is implemented, and the schedule when monitoring will occur. Memorandum to Evaluate the Potential Effects Related to Minor Modifications to the Project The November 5, 2018 City Council staff report included a memorandum that was prepared by LSA to evaluate the potential effects of swapping the locations of the proposed basketball court and playground in the project (refer to Figure 2-6 in the IS/MND). Aside from these different locations, all other aspects of the proposed project would remain the same. (LSA October 25, 2018 memorandum attached for reference). As stated in the memorandum, it is LSA’s professional opinion that swapping the locations of the basketball court and playground would not result in any new or more significant impacts compared with those already analyzed in the IS/MND. Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which requires a pre- construction nesting bird survey to be completed prior to vegetation removal if it occurs between February 1 and October 31, would still be required. Additionally, while the total number of protected trees removed from the project site may be different than what was identified and analyzed in the IS/MND, the City would still be required to provide replacement plantings as part of the proposed project. All other mitigation measures included in the IS/MND would still be required. FISCAL IMPACT In November 2017, the voters of Burlingame approved Measure I, a ¼ cent sales tax measure that will generate an estimated $1.75 million to $2 million annually. At the January 27, 2018 goal-setting session, the City Council discussed the City Manager’s recommended expenditure plan for the Measure I funds, which included an annual pledge of $1 million toward debt service on the issuance of lease revenue bonds. The City Council approved the recommendation on February 20, 2018. An additional $1 million annual General Fund transfer was approved in the 2018-19 fiscal year budget, also intended to fund the debt service, to allow for a lease revenue bond issuance of approximately $30 million for the Community Center project. Staff will return with a recommendation for funding for construction of Package 1 (the playground, multi-court, and picnic area) as part of the mid-year budget review process. As the total costs of the entire project are expected to exceed $50 million, the City will need to rely on an additional combination of Measure I revenues plus ongoing General Fund revenues and/or monies from the Capital Investment Reserve. Exhibits: • Resolution • Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/MND) – Public Review Draft • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) • LSA Memorandum RESOLUTION NO. __________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FINDING THAT APPROVAL OF A COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AS DEFINED IN THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), PURSUANT TO THE FINDINGS STATED AND MITIGATION MEASURES OUTLINED IN MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-601-P THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME finds as follows: Section 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by the City Council, pursuant to Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-601-P the Council finds that the project set forth above will have a less than significant impact upon the environment following application of all mitigation measures outlined in said environmental review document, and therefore, Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-601-P, is approved. Section 2. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3rd day of December, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: _____________________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk September 2018        PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT      INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE  DECLARATION  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA          This page intentionally left blank  September 2018        PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT      INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE  DECLARATION  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA              Submitted to:    Teresa Rom  Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning  211 Linden Avenue  South San Francisco, CA 94080          Prepared by:    LSA  157 Park Place  Pt. Richmond, California  94801  510.236.6810    Project No. GRP1802  This page intentionally left blank  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) i TABLE OF CONTENTS  FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................................................................................. ii  LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................ iii  1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ................................................................................... 1‐1  2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 2‐1  2.1 PROJECT SITE ..................................................................................................................... 2‐1  2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................ 2‐7  2.3 PROPOSED PROJECT .......................................................................................................... 2‐7  2.4 PROJECT APPROVALS ...................................................................................................... 2‐11  3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................ 3‐1  3.1 Determination ................................................................................................................... 3‐1  4.0 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .................................................................. 4‐1  4.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 4‐1  4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................................. 4‐3  4.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 4‐5  4.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 4‐15  4.5 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 4‐18  4.6 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................ 4‐21  4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................. 4‐24  4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................. 4‐29  4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................... 4‐33  4.10 Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................... 4‐38  4.11 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................... 4‐40  4.12 Noise................................................................................................................................ 4‐41  4.13 Population and Housing .................................................................................................. 4‐49  4.14 Public Services ................................................................................................................. 4‐50  4.15 Recreation ....................................................................................................................... 4‐52  4.16 Transportation/Traffic ..................................................................................................... 4‐53  4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 4‐71  4.18 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................... 4‐73  4.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................ 4‐77  5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .......................................................................................... 5‐1  6.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 6‐1    APPENDICES  A: CALEEMOD Output Sheets  B: Transportation Impact Analysis      BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) ii FIGURES AND TABLES  FIGURES  Figure 2‐1: Project Location and Regional Vicinity Map ..................................................................... 2‐2  Figure 2‐2: Aerial Photograph of the Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses .................................. 2‐3  Figure 2‐3: Photos of Existing Site Conditions .................................................................................... 2‐4  Figure 2‐4: Photos of Existing Site Conditions .................................................................................... 2‐5  Figure 2‐5: Photos of Existing Site Conditions .................................................................................... 2‐6  Figure 2‐6: Conceptual Site Plan ......................................................................................................... 2‐9  Figure 4‐1: Project Trip Distribution ................................................................................................. 4‐59  Figure 4‐2: Existing Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................. 4‐60  Figure 4‐3: Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes .............................................................................. 4‐61  Figure 4‐4: Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 4‐62  Figure 4‐5: Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes ........................................................................ 4‐65    TABLES  Table 2.A: Potential Permits and Approvals ..................................................................................... 2‐11  Table 4.A: Project Construction Emissions in Pounds Per Day ......................................................... 4‐10  Table 4.B: Project Operational Emissions ......................................................................................... 4‐12  Table 4.C: GHG Emissions (Metric Tons Per Year) ............................................................................ 4‐26  Table 4.D: Maximum Allowable Noise Levels from Construction Equipment .................................. 4‐42  Table 4.E: Planning Criteria – Maximum Outdoor Noise Levels (dBA) ............................................. 4‐43  Table 4.F: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ................................................................. 4‐44  Table 4.G: Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay .......................... 4‐56  Table 4.H: Project Trip Generation Estimates ................................................................................... 4‐57  Table 4.I: Existing Plus Project Level of Service Summary ................................................................ 4‐58  Table 4.J: Background Plus Project Level of Service Summary ......................................................... 4‐63  Table 4.K: Cumulative Level of Service Summary ............................................................................. 4‐64        PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS   AB 52 California Assembly Bill 52  ACM Asbestos Containing Material  ADA American with Disabilities Act  ADWF average dry weather flow  ALUCP  Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan   APN Assessor’s Parcel Number  AWSC  All‐Way Stop Control  BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District  BART Bay Area Rapid Transit  Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan   BAWSCA Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency  Bay San Francisco Bay  BMP Best Management Practices  BPD Burlingame Police Department  C/CAG City/County Association of Governments   Cal/OSHA  California Occupational Safety and Health Administration  CalEEMod California Emission Estimator Model  CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code   Caltrans California Department of Transportation   CAP City of Burlingame’s Climate Action Plan  CCFD Central County Fire Department  CCR  California Code of Regulations  CEQA California Environmental Quality Act    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) iv CH4 Methane  Clean Air Plan  BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan  CMP San Mateo County Congestion Management Program  CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level  CO Carbon monoxide  CO2 Carbon dioxide  CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent   Construction General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction  General Permit and Land Disturbance Activity   CTP San Mateo Countywide Transportation Plan  CY cubic yards  dB decibel  dBA A‐weighted decibel  DHS California Department of Health Services  DOT Department of Transportation  DTSC  California Department of Toxic Substances Control  FTE full‐time equivalent  GHG Greenhouse Gas  GWP  Global Warming Potential  HCM Highway Capacity Manual  HFCs  Hydrofluorocarbons  I‐280 Interstate 280  IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration   Ldn Day‐night equivalent noise level   LEED  Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) v Leq Continuous equivalent noise level  LID Low Impact Development  Lmax Maximum instantaneous noise level  Lmin Minimum instantaneous noise level  LOS Levels of Service  LUST Leaking underground storage tank  mgd million gallons per day  MLD  Most Likely Descendant  MRP Water Board Municipal Regional Permit  N2O Nitrous oxide  NO2 Nitrogen dioxide  NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System  O3  Ozone  OSHA  United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health  Administration  Pb Lead  PCEP Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project  PFCs  Perfluorocarbons  PG&E  Pacific Gas & Electric Company  PM10 Respirable Particulate Matter  PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter  POTW  publicly owned treatment work   PRC Public Resources Code  proposed project  Burlingame Community Center Master Plan Project   RCRA  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) vi Recology  Recology San Mateo   ROG Reactive organic gases  SamTrans San Mateo County Transit District  SCP Stormwater Control Plan  SDSs  Safety Data Sheets   sec  seconds  SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride  SFO San Francisco International Airport  SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission  SO2 Sulfur dioxide  SQG small‐quantity generator  SSSC  Side‐Street Stop Control  SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan   TAC Toxic air contaminant  TDM Travel Demand Management  TIA Transportation Impact Analysis  UCMP  University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley  US 101 US Highway 101   US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency  UWMP Urban Water Management Plan  VOC Volatile organic compound  Water Board San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board  WWTP Burlingame Wastewater Treatment Plant  μg/m3  Micrograms per cubic meter  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 1‐1 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION  1. Project Title:  Burlingame Community Center Master Plan Project  2. Lead  Agency Name and Address:   City of Burlingame  Parks and Recreation Department  850 Burlingame Avenue  Burlingame, CA 94010    3. Contact Person and Phone Number:   Margaret Glomstad, (650)558‐7307  4. Project Location:   850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010  5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:   City of Burlingame  Parks and Recreation Department  850 Burlingame Avenue  Burlingame, CA 94010    6. General Plan Designation:  Parks ‐ Community  7. Zoning: Unclassified  8. Description of Project: The proposed project would include three components: 1)  redevelopment of the Burlingame Community Center; 2) improvements to the playground,  outdoor basketball court, picnic area, and site; and 3) improvements to allow for more parking  area. The existing Burlingame Community Center would be demolished and the new,  approximately 35,700‐square‐foot Burlingame Community Center would be constructed in  approximately the same location with a different footprint. The existing playground adjacent to  the existing Community Center would be moved north to accommodate the proposed location  for the new Community Center and address the City’s request for the playground to be further  away from the street. A surface parking lot and a below‐ground level parking garage would be  constructed in the eastern corner of the project site.  See Section 2.0, Project Description of this Initial Study, for a full project description.  9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is located in a developed area of the City of  Burlingame and is surrounded primarily by residential and public uses.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 1‐2 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (i.e., permits, financial approval, or  participation agreements): Pacific Gas & Electric  11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project  area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resource Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has  consultation begun? California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with  the project site and area have been notified of the proposed project. No tribes have requested  consultation.      PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 2‐1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION  The following describes the Burlingame Community Center Master Plan Project1 (proposed project)  that is the subject of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared per the  California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project is the redevelopment of the  existing Burlingame Community Center to create the new Burlingame Community Center on  Burlingame Avenue in Burlingame, San Mateo County.  2.1 PROJECT SITE  The following section describes the project location, existing conditions, surrounding land uses, and  the regulatory setting.  2.1.1 Project Location  The project site is located in the southeastern portion of Washington Park in the City of Burlingame  (City), within San Mateo County. The approximately 2.41‐acre project site (a portion of Assessor’s  Parcel Number [APN] 029‐141‐030) is located at 850 Burlingame Avenue and is bound by  Washington Park and the former Gunst Estate grounds to the north, residential uses to the east and  Burlingame Avenue to the south, and the Burlingame Lions Club and Washington Park to the west.  The project’s location and regional vicinity is shown in Figure 2‐1:, and an aerial of the project site  and surrounding land uses are shown in Figure 2‐2.  2.1.2 Existing Conditions  The project site is currently developed with the existing Burlingame Community Center; which  includes the offices of the Burlingame Parks and Recreation Department, an auditorium, social hall, art  room, ceramics room, conference room, and various other community‐oriented uses; and the  Washington Park Playground, which includes a playground and picnic areas. The existing Burlingame  Community Center is approximately 25,000 square feet in total. While originally constructed in the  late 1940s, the existing building has been renovated many times over the years to address the needs  of the community and the City has determined that the building has no historic merit or significance.  Additionally a building survey has determined that the building would need seismic improvements to  meet the current California Building Code.2 Existing conditions are depicted in Photos 1 through 6 in  Figure 2‐3, Figure 2‐4, and Figure 2‐5. The project site is generally level and contains 158 trees.    1  Burlingame, City of, 2014. Burlingame Community Center Master Plan. July 7.  2  Cecil H. Wells, Jr & Associates. 2009. Partial Seismic Evaluation for City of Burlingame Recreation Center.  June.   Airport Blvd B lo o mfi el d R d 9th AveP a lmA v S B S tTiltonAveE u cal yptusAveEBellevueAveVillaTer £¤101 £¤101 ST82 ST82 N A mp h l e t t B l v dBroadwayBayshoreHwyH u m b o l d t R d Airport Bl v d FloribundaAvePeninsula AveW3rdAveC hateau D rE 5th AveOcci dent al AveBurlingame AveE3rdAveCaliforniaDr ForestView A veW 5th A veW S a n t a In e z A v e W P op larA veN H um b o l d t S t El Cerr ito Ave E 4th AveCrystalSpringsRdHillsboroughBlvdOak G rove AveCarmelita AveN S a n M a te o D r Barroi lhet Dr SanRaymundoRdRo l l i ns R d RalstonAveSharonAve HowardAveBurlingam eAveCre s c e n t A v e Ea s t Ln Amphlett Blvd N D e l a w a r e S t D w i g h t R d N B a y s h o r e B l v dMahlerRdCoyotePointD rAnzaBlvd Hurli ng h a mAve RalstonAve Bellevu e Ave2nd Ave R o b l arAv e B rid g e R dEucalyptusAveClark DrPark AvePalmDrLincolnAvePe p p e r Av eB u r lin g a m e C l u b R d DeSab l a Rd N e w P la ce R d Prospect R o wWillowRd Pi nehi l lRd W B e lle vu e A v e Cortez Ave Pal o m a Av e Lin d e n A v e N Cl a r em o n t S t Edgewood RdEl C a m i n o R ea l BarroilhetDrWin c h e s t e r D r W a ln u t A v e Baysw ater AveC ountr y ClubDrE Santa Inez AveN Ra i l r o a d A v e Ra n e l a g hRd Monte Diablo AveConcord W ayRo bi nRdBaldw in AveN ElCa min o Real N I d a h o S tNGr a n t S t C h a n n in g R d A n i t a R d N K i n g s t o n S t Brentw o o d R d Carola n A ve Fall e n L eaf D rBrookvaleRdSan Francisco Bay Burlingame Country Club Poplar Creek Golf Course SouthSouthSanSanFranciscoFranciscoST15 ¨§¦880 ¨§¦280 ST35 ST82 SanSanBrunoBruno AshlandAshland M ST35 PaloPaloAltoAlto EastEastPaloPaloAltoAlto BurlingameBurlingame AlamedaAlameda CountyCounty £¤101 DalyDalyCityCity SanSanFranciscoFrancisco ¨§¦280 £¤101 ST1 San MateoSan Mateo CountyCounty PacificaPacifica ST1 RedwoodRedwoodCityCity SanSan MateoMateo ST82 ST84 ST92 ST84 AlamedaAlameda SanSanLeandroLeandro SanSanLorenzoLorenzo HaywardHayward OaklandOakland ¨§¦580 ST92 Pacific Ocean Project Location rPojectSite 0 1000 2000 FEET FIGURE 2-1 Burlingame Community Center Master Plan Project Project LocaƟon and Regional Vicinity Map I:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Center\figures\Fig_2-1.ai (7/31/18) SOURCE: ESRI STREETMAP NORTH AMERICA (2012). Burlingame AveBurlingam e AveCar o l a n A v e Carolan Ave Concord Way Concord W ayHoward AveH ow ard AveVernon Way Vernon W ayLexington Way Lexington W ayPlymouth Way Plym outh W ayA r u n d e l R o a d A r u n d e l R o a d A n i t a R o a d A n it a R o a d My r t l e R o a dMy r tl e R o a d Eas t L a n e East Lane California Dr Burlingame Ave Car o l a n A v e Concord Way Howard AveVernon WayLexington Way Plymouth Way A r u n d e l R o a d A n i t a R o a d My r t l e R o a d Eas t L a n e California Dr SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOL WASHINGTON PARK BURLINGAME LIONS CLUB FEET 2000 100 Project Site FIGURE 2-2 Burlingame Community Center Master Plan Project Aerial Photograph of the Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses I:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Center\figures\Fig_2-2.ai (7/31/18) SOURCES: GOOGLE EARTH, 9/1/17; LSA 2018. Photo 1: View of the front of the Burlingame Community Center Photo 2: View of the rear of the Burlingame Community Center FIGURE 2-3 SOURCE: LSA, MAY 2018. I:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Center\figures\Figs_2-3_2-5.ai (7/31/18) Burlingame Community Center Master Plan Project Photos of ExisƟng Site CondiƟons Photo 3: View from the west corner of the project site looking east Photo 4: View looking south towards the project site FIGURE 2-4 Burlingame Community Center Master Plan Project Photos of ExisƟng Site CondiƟonsSOURCE: LSA, MAY 2018. I:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Center\figures\Figs_2-3_2-5.ai (7/31/18) Photo 5: View from the project site looking north Photo 6: View from the southern corner of the project site looking north FIGURE 2-5 SOURCE: LSA, MAY 2018. I:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Center\figures\Figs_2-3_2-5.ai (7/31/18) Burlingame Community Center Master Plan Project Photos of ExisƟng Site CondiƟons PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 2‐7 2.1.3 Surrounding Land Uses  As shown in Figure 2‐2, a variety of land uses are located within the vicinity of the project site.  A  portion of Washington Park and the lands of the former Gunst Estate are immediately north of the  project site. Further north of the project site are single‐family residential units and US Highway 101  (US 101). The project site is bounded to the east by single‐family residential uses, which also make  up the land uses further east. Burlingame Avenue bounds the project site to the south, with single‐  and multi‐family residential uses, as well as institutional uses, including Washington Elementary  School. The Burlingame Lions Club and Washington Park bound the project site to the west. Further  west is Burlingame High School, the Burlingame Aquatic Club, and the Burlingame Caltrain Station  and tracks.  2.1.4 Parking, Circulation, and Access  A surface parking lot on the eastern border of the project site provides approximately 22 parking  spaces for staff members at the Burlingame Community Center. Another surface parking lot along  Burlingame Avenue provides two parking spaces compliant with the American with Disabilities Act  (ADA) as well as a drop‐off and pickup loop. Automobiles access both of these parking lots via three  driveways along Burlingame Avenue, one of which provides ingress and egress to the staff parking  lot, one of which provides only ingress to the drop‐off and pickup loop, and the last of which only  provides egress from the loop. Regional access to the project site is provided by the Broadway on‐  and off‐ramp of US 101. Local access to the project site is provided by Rollins Road to the north,  Bloomfield Road to the south, and Carolan Avenue/East Lane to the west. The Burlingame Caltrain  station is located approximately 0.2 miles west of the project site. Pedestrian access to and  throughout the project site is provided by sidewalks and concrete pathways.   2.1.5 Regulatory Setting  The project site is designated as Parks – Community on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map3 and is  within the Unclassified zoning district on the City’s Zoning Map.4  2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES  On March 19, 2018, the Burlingame City Council approved the current scope of the proposed  project. The proposed project would implement the portion of the Master Plan east of the Lion’s  Club Hall through redevelopment of the existing Burlingame Community Center and associated site  work as well as additional parking to meet the needs of the community and to have the flexibility to  meet the ever‐changing needs of future patrons.  2.3 PROPOSED PROJECT  The proposed project would include three components: 1) redevelopment of the Burlingame  Community Center; 2) improvements to the playground, outdoor basketball court, picnic area, and  site; and 3) improvements to and additional parking. Each of these components is described below.  3  Burlingame, City of, 2000. City of Burlingame General Plan Land Use Map. April.  4  Burlingame, City of, 2016. Burlingame General Plan: Zoning – Southeast Areas. Available online:  www.burlingame.org/document_center/Zoning/ZoningMap‐Burlingame‐SE.pdf (accessed June 8, 2018).    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 2‐8 2.3.1 Community Center Redevelopment  The existing Burlingame Community Center would be demolished and the new Burlingame  Community Center would be constructed in approximately the same location with a different  footprint, as shown in Figure 2‐6. The new Community Center building would be two stories in  height and approximately 35,700 square feet in size. The first floor of the new Community Center  building would include space for a community hall with a raised platform and associated storage  space, a kitchen, a large lobby, lounge, meeting room, staff offices, a maker room, kids and teen  spaces, and a creative arts and ceramics space. Additionally, the first floor would include restrooms  for the Community Center and the adjacent park and various storage spaces. The second floor of the  new Community Center would include a large meeting room, active lounge, fine arts space, musical  arts space, an enrichment classroom, and a dance and fitness studio as well as two outdoor decks  and storage spaces.  The new Community Center would allow the City to provide approximately 420 hours of program‐ ming on a weekly basis in the fall, winter, and spring, and 600 hours of weekly programming in the  summer.    2.3.2 Playground, Basketball Court, Picnic Area, and Site Improvements  The existing playground adjacent to the existing Community Center would be moved north to  accommodate the proposed location for the new Community Center and address the City’s request  for the playground to be further away from the street. Additional site improvements would include  a relocated basketball court in the western corner of the project site, relocated picnic tables and a  sculpture planter in the center of the project site, outdoor seating around the new Community  Center, and event lawn seating in the northern corner of the project site. The existing entrance  pillars in the southern corner of the project site along Burlingame Avenue would be retained.  2.3.3 Parking Improvements  A surface parking lot and a below‐ground level parking garage would be constructed in the eastern  corner of the project site. The surface parking lot would include a drop‐off area adjacent to the new  Community Center building. In total, 84 parking spaces would be provided, with approximately 40  parking spaces in the below‐ground level and 44 spaces in the surface parking lot. The parking lot  would also include a vegetated sound wall along its northeastern border.  2.3.4 Construction Schedule  Construction of the proposed project would take 24 months. Construction staging areas would be  determined by the construction manager, but would be contained on the project site. Approximately  41 trees are expected to be removed from the project site, and 36 trees would be replanted.  NOT TO SCALEFIGURE 2-6SOURCES: CITY OF BURLINGAME, 2018.I:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Center\figures\Fig_2-6.ai (7/31/18)Burlingame Community Center Master Plan ProjectConceptual Site Plan   BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 2‐10 This page intentionally left blank     PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 2‐11 2.4 PROJECT APPROVALS  A number of permits and approvals would be required for the proposed project. While the City is  the Lead Agency for the project, other agencies also have discretionary authority related to the  project and approvals. A list of these agencies and potential permits and approvals that may be  required is provided in Table 2.A.  Table 2.A: Potential Permits and Approvals  Lead Agency Potential Permits/Approvals  City of Burlingame  Project approval   IS/MND adoption   Provision of grading, demolition, construction, tree removal, parking, traffic,  erosion, and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan permits and approvals   Approval of water lines, water hookups, wastewater lines, wastewater hookups  Other Agencies  Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E)  Connection/Reconnection of utilities  Source: LSA (2018).      BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 2‐12 This page intentionally left blank     PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 3‐1 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED  The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at  least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist in Chapter 4.0.    Aesthetics  Agriculture and Forestry Resources  Air Quality   Biological Resources   Cultural Resources  Geology/Soils   Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hazards & Hazardous Materials  Hydrology/Water Quality   Land Use/Planning  Mineral Resources  Noise   Population/Housing  Public Services  Recreation   Transportation/Traffic  Tribal Cultural Resources  Utilities/Service Systems    Mandatory Findings of Significance     3.1 DETERMINATION  On the basis of this initial evaluation:   I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE  DECLARATION will be prepared.   I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not  be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the  project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.   I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.   I find that the proposed project MAY have a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Potentially Significant  Unless Mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in  an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation  measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT  REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.   I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all  potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT  REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or  mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,  including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is  required.       September 12, 2018    Date        BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 3‐2 This page intentionally left blank  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐1 4.0 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST  4.1 AESTHETICS    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Incorporated  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:   a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?  b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not  limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings  within a state scenic highway  c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality  of the site and its surroundings?   d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would  adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?    4.1.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project have a substantial effect on a scenic vista? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  A scenic vista is generally defined as a public vantage point with an expansive view of a significant  landscape feature. Scenic vistas within the City include the hillside leading to Skyline Ridge as seen  from the San Francisco Bay (Bay), and the Bay as seen from the hillside.5  The project site is located in an urban area, is surrounded by urban uses, and is currently developed  with the existing community center and Washington Park Playground. The proposed project would  include demolition of the existing community center and Washington Park Playground and the  construction of a new community center and playground, as well as associated site improvements.  The proposed project would not be readily visible from any scenic vista, nor would the project block  existing public views of a scenic vista. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐ significant impact on publicly‐accessible scenic vistas.  b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,  rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Less‐Than‐Significant  Impact)  Interstate 280 (I‐280) is the closest officially designated State scenic highway to the project site. At  its closest, I‐280 is located approximately 2.6 miles west of the project site.6 Therefore, the  proposed project would not be visible from any State designated scenic highway, and this impact  would be less than significant.  5  Burlingame, City of, 2015. General Plan of the City of Burlingame. As amended.   6  California Department of Transportation, 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Website:  www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm (accessed July 6, 2018).  September 7.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐2 c. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its  surroundings? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The proposed project would include the demolition of the existing community center and  Washington Park Playground and the construction of a new community center and playground, as  well as associated site improvements. While the proposed project would be visually different than  the existing structures on the project site, it would not create a degradation of the existing visual  character of the site. The change would be consistent with the existing community uses and park  setting. The proposed project would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the  project site and its surroundings. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant  impact related to visual character.  d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect  day or nighttime views in the area? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  Lighting is currently installed around the existing buildings, parking lots, and in the uses surrounding  the project site. The proposed project would include exterior security lighting for the new  community center, playground, and parking areas. Lighting installed as a part of the proposed  project would result in lighting levels similar to current conditions on the project site and would not  result in a significant increase in light and glare over current conditions. Therefore, the proposed  project would not result in a significant impact to day or nighttime views in the project area, and this  impact would be less than significant.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐3 4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES  In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead  agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)  prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on  agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland,  are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the  California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land,  including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and  the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California  Air Resources Board.    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Incorporated  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:   a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of  Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps  prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring  Program of the California Resources Agency, to non‐ agricultural use?  b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a  Williamson Act contract?  c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest  land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)),  timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section  4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as  defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?  d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land  to non‐forest use?  e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which,  due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of  Farmland, to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest  land to non‐forest use?    4.2.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide  Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and  Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use? (No Impact)  The project site is currently developed with the existing community center and Washington Park  Playground, and is surrounded by residential and other community uses. There are no agricultural  resources located on or near the project site. The project site is classified as “Urban and Built‐Up  Land” by the State Department of Conservation.7 Therefore, the proposed project would not result  7  California Department of Conservation, 2016. Division of Land Use Resource Protection. California  Important Farmland Finder. Website: maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF (accessed July 6, 2018).    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐4 in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, and  would have no impact.  b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?  (No Impact)  The project site is designated as Parks – Community on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map.8 The  project site is not under a Williamson Act contract.9 Therefore, the proposed project would have no  impact.  c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in  Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code  Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code  Section 51104(g))? (No Impact)  The project site is currently developed with the existing community center and Washington Park  Playground, and is surrounded by residential and other community uses, and is designated Parks –  Community. The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,  forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, the proposed  project would have no impact.  d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forestland to non‐forest use?  (No Impact)  Refer to Section 4.2.1.c. The proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or  conversion of forest land to a non‐forest use. Therefore, the proposed project would have no  impact.  e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location  or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest  land to non‐forest use? (No Impact)  Refer to Section 4.2.1.a and 4.2.1.c. The proposed project would not involve any other changes to  the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of  Farmland to a non‐agricultural use, or conversion of forest land to a non‐forest use. Therefore, the  proposed project would have no impact.  8  Burlingame, City of, 2000. City of Burlingame General Plan, Land Use Map. April.  9  California Department of Conservation, 2012. San Mateo County Williamson Act FY 2006/2007 (map).  Available online at: ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/SanMateo_06_07_WA.pdf (accessed July 6, 2018).  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐5 4.3 AIR QUALITY  Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air  pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable  air quality plan?   b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to  an existing or projected air quality violation?   c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any  criteria pollutant for which the project region is non‐  attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air  quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed  quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?  d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant  concentrations?   e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of  people?     4.3.1 Impact Analysis  The proposed project is located in the City of Burlingame, and is within the jurisdiction of the Bay  Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which regulates air quality in the San Francisco  Bay Area. Air quality conditions in the San Francisco Bay Area have improved significantly since the  BAAQMD was created in 1955. Ambient concentrations of air pollutants and the number of days  during which the region exceeds air quality standards have fallen substantially. In Burlingame, and  the rest of the air basin, exceedances of air quality standards occur primarily during meteorological  conditions conducive to high pollution levels, such as cold, windless winter nights or hot, sunny  summer afternoons.   Within the BAAQMD, ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen  dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), and lead (Pb) have been set by  both the State of California and the federal government. The State has also set standards for sulfate  and visibility. The BAAQMD is under State non‐attainment status for ozone and particulate matter  standards. The BAAQMD is classified as non‐attainment for the federal ozone 8‐hour standard and  non‐attainment for the federal PM2.5 24‐hour standard.  a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?  (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The applicable air quality plan is the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan (Clean Air Plan),10 which was  adopted on April 19, 2017. The Clean Air Plan is a comprehensive plan to improve Bay Area air  quality and protect public health. The Clean Air Plan defines control strategies to reduce emissions  10  Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. Clean Air Plan. April 19.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐6 and ambient concentrations of air pollutants; safeguard public health by reducing exposure to air  pollutants that pose the greatest heath risk, with an emphasis on protecting the communities most  heavily affected by air pollution; and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to protect the climate.  Consistency with the Clean Air Plan can be determined if the project: 1) supports the goals of the  Clean Air Plan; 2) includes applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan; and 3) would not  disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan.   Clean Air Plan Goals. The primary goals of the Bay Area Clean Air Plan are to: attain air quality  standards; reduce population exposure and protect public health in the Bay Area; and reduce  greenhouse gas emissions and protect climate.  The BAAQMD has established significance thresholds for project construction and operational  impacts at a level at which the cumulative impact of exceeding these thresholds would have an  adverse impact on the region’s attainment of air quality standards. The health and hazards  thresholds were established to help protect public health. As discussed in Section 3.3.1b,  implementation of the proposed project would result in less‐than‐significant operation‐period  emissions and, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐1, the project would result in less‐ than‐significant construction‐period emissions. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the  Clean Air Plan goals.   Clean Air Plan Control Measures. The control strategies of the Clean Air Plan include measures in  the following categories: Stationary Source Measures, Transportation Measures, Energy Measures,  Building Measures, Agriculture Measures, Natural and Working Lands Measures, Waste  Management Measures, Water Measures, and Super‐Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Pollutants Measures.  Stationary Source Control Measures. The stationary source measures, which are designed to  reduce emissions from stationary sources such as metal melting facilities, cement kilns,  refineries, and glass furnaces, are incorporated into rules adopted by the BAAQMD and then  enforced by the BAAQMD’s Permit and Inspection programs. Since the project would not  include any stationary sources, the Stationary Source Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not  applicable to the project.  Transportation Control Measures. The BAAQMD identifies Transportation Measures as part of  the Clean Air Plan to decrease emissions of criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and  GHGs by reducing demand for motor vehicle travel, promoting efficient vehicles and transit  service, decarbonizing transportation fuels, and electrifying motor vehicles and equipment. The  proposed project would redevelop the Burlingame Community Center which would include  playground and site improvements and parking improvements. The Burlingame Community  Center would be located near Washington Park, Burlingame Lions Club, Burlingame High School,  and single‐family residential land uses, and therefore would provide community, meeting,  fitness, art, and educational uses near existing residential and recreational uses in addition to  public transportation. The overall network of sidewalks and crosswalks in the study area has  adequate connectivity and provides pedestrians with safe routes to school, transit services, and  other points of interest in the vicinity of the project site. In addition, although few of the local  streets within the project study area are designated as bike routes, due to their low speed limits  and traffic volumes, many streets in the vicinity of the project site are conducive to bicycle  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐7 travel. In addition, existing transit service to the study area is provided by the San Mateo County  Transit District (SamTrans), the City of Burlingame, and Caltrain. The project area is served  directly by a limited bus route, an express bus route, and a shuttle route. The nearest bus stop is  located at the Myrtle Road/Burlingame Avenue intersection, which is about 500 feet walking  distance west of the project site. The proposed project is also located within approximately 650  feet to the Burlingame Caltrain station. Additionally, the availability of LimeBikes, a shared  bicycle service, within the City promotes further bicycle use. Therefore, the project would  promote the BAAQMD’s initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled and would  increase the use of alternate means of transportation.  Energy Control Measures. The Clean Air Plan also includes Energy and Climate Control  Measures, which are designed to reduce ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants and  reduce emissions of CO2. Implementation of these measures is intended to promote energy  conservation and efficiency in buildings throughout the community, promote renewable forms  of energy production, reduce the “urban heat island” effect by increasing reflectivity of roofs  and parking lots, and promote the planting of (low‐volatile organic compound [VOC]‐emitting)  trees to reduce biogenic emissions, lower air temperatures, provide shade, and absorb air  pollutants. The measures include voluntary approaches to reduce the heat island effect by  increasing shading in urban and suburban areas through the planting of trees. Implementation  of the proposed project would include paved areas that could result in a heating effect. The  proposed project would include 36 new trees throughout the project site. In addition, the  proposed project would be required to comply with the latest California Green Building  Standards Code (CALGreen) standard building measures and Title 24 standards. Therefore the  proposed project would not conflict with the Energy and Climate Control Measures.   Building Control Measures. The BAAQMD has authority to regulate emissions from certain  sources in buildings such as boilers and water heaters, but has limited authority to regulate  buildings themselves. Therefore, the strategies in the control measures for this sector focus on  working with local governments that do have authority over local building codes, to facilitate  adoption of best GHG control practices and policies. As identified above, the proposed project  would be required to comply with the latest CALGreen standard building measures and Title 24  standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with these measures.  Agriculture Control Measures. The Agriculture Control Measures are designed to primarily  reduce emissions of methane. Since the project does not include any agricultural activities, the  Agriculture Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not applicable to the project.  Natural and Working Lands Control Measures. The Natural and Working Lands Control  Measures focus on increasing carbon sequestration on rangelands and wetlands, as well as  encouraging local governments to ordinances that promote urban‐tree plantings. Since the  project does not include the disturbance of any rangelands or wetlands, the Natural and  Working Lands Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not applicable to the project.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐8 Waste Management Control Measures. The Waste Management Measures focus on reducing  or capturing methane emissions from landfills and composting facilities, diverting organic  materials away from landfills, and increasing waste diversion rates through efforts to reduce,  reuse, and recycle. The project would comply with local requirements for waste management  (e.g., recycling and composting services). Therefore, the project would be consistent with the  Waste Management Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan.  Water Control Measures. The Water Control Measures focus on reducing emissions of criteria  pollutants, TACs, and GHGs by encouraging water conservation, limiting GHG emissions from  publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), and promoting the use of biogas recovery systems.  Since these measures apply to POTWs and local government agencies (and not individual  projects), the Water Control Measures are not applicable to the project.  Super GHG Control Measures. The Super‐GHG Control Measures are designed to facilitate the  adoption of best GHG control practices and policies through the BAAQMD and local government  agencies. Since these measures do not apply to individual projects, the Super‐GHG Control  Measures are not applicable to the project.  Clean Air Plan Implementation. As discussed above, implementation of the proposed project would  generally implement the applicable measures outlined in the Clean Air Plan, including Transportation  Control Measures. Therefore, the project would not disrupt or hinder implementation of a control  measure from the Clean Air Plan and this impact would be less than significant.  b. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or  projected air quality violation? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation)  Both State and federal governments have established health‐based Ambient Air Quality Standards  for six criteria air pollutants: CO, ozone (O3), NO2, SO2, Pb, and suspended particulate matter (PM).  These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable  margin of safety. As identified above, the BAAQMD is under State non‐attainment status for ozone,  PM10, and PM2.5 standards. The Air Basin is also classified as non‐attainment for both the federal  ozone 8‐hour standard and the federal PM2.5 24‐hour standard.  Air quality standards for the proposed project are regulated by the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality  Guidelines. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, to meet air quality standards for  operational‐related criteria air pollutant and air precursor impacts, the project must not:   Contribute to CO concentrations exceeding the State ambient air quality standards;   Generate average daily construction emissions of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), NOx or PM2.5  greater than 54 pounds per day or PM10 exhaust emissions greater than 82 pounds per day; or   Generate average operational emissions of ROG, NOx or PM2.5 of greater than 10 tons per year  or 54 pounds per day or PM10 emissions greater than 15 tons per year or 82 pounds per day.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐9 The following sections describe the proposed project’s construction‐ and operation‐related air  quality impacts and CO impacts.  Construction Emissions. During construction, short‐term degradation of air quality may occur due to  the release of particulate emissions generated by demolition, excavation, grading, hauling, and  other activities. Emissions from construction equipment are also anticipated and would include CO,  NOx, ROG, directly‐emitted particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and TACs such as diesel exhaust  particulate matter.  Site preparation and project construction would involve demolition, grading, paving, and building  activities. Construction‐related effects on air quality from the proposed project would be greatest  during the site preparation phase due to the disturbance of soils. If not properly controlled, these  activities would temporarily generate particulate emissions. Sources of fugitive dust would include  disturbed soils at the construction site. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would  deposit dirt and mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it  dries. PM10 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of  construction activity and local weather conditions. PM10 emissions would depend on soil moisture,  silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of operating equipment. Larger dust particles would  settle near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the  construction site.  Water or other soil stabilizers can be used to control dust, resulting in emission reductions of 50  percent or more. The BAAQMD has established standard measures for reducing fugitive dust  emissions (PM10). With the implementation of these Basic Construction Mitigation Measures,  fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would not result in adverse air quality impacts.   In addition to dust‐related PM10 emissions, heavy trucks and construction equipment powered by  gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, SO2, NOx, VOCs, and some soot particulate (PM2.5  and PM10) in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase traffic congestion in the  area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while those vehicles idle in traffic.  These emissions would be temporary in nature and limited to the immediate area surrounding the  construction site.  Construction emissions were estimated for the project using the California Emissions Estimator  Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2, consistent with BAAQMD recommendations. The project would  include the demolition of approximately 25,000 square feet of building area, which was included as  an input to the CalEEMod analysis. Other construction details are not yet known; therefore, default  assumptions (e.g., construction fleet activities and excavation depths associated with the below‐ ground level parking) from CalEEMod were used. The entire construction duration is expected to  occur for approximately 24 months, commencing in fall 2020. Construction‐related emissions are  presented in Table 4.A. CalEEMod output sheets are included in Appendix A.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐10 Table 4.A: Project Construction Emissions in Pounds Per Day  Project Construction ROG NOx  Exhaust PM10  Exhaust PM2.5   Average Daily Emissions 1.9 11.7 0.6 0.5  BAAQMD Thresholds 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0  Exceed Threshold? No No No No  Source: LSA (July 2018).     As shown in Table 4.A, construction emissions associated with the project would be less than  significant for ROG, NOx, PM2.5, and PM10 exhaust emissions. The BAAQMD requires the implementa‐ tion of the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures to reduce construction fugitive dust  impacts to a less‐than‐significant level as follows:   Mitigation Measure AIR‐1:  Consistent with the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures required  by the BAAQMD, the following actions shall be incorporated into  construction contracts and specifications for the project:   All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles,  graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two  times per day.   All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material  off‐site shall be covered.   All visible mud or dirt tracked‐out onto adjacent public roads  shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at  least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.   All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.   All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be  completed as soon as possible.   Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading  unless seeding or soil binders are used.   Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off  when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5  minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control  measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations  [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers  at all access points.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐11  All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly  tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All  equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and  determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.   A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number  and person to contact at the City of Burlingame regarding dust  complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action  within 48 hours. The BAAQMD phone number shall also be visible  to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.   Operational Air Quality Emissions. Long‐term air pollutant emission impacts are those associated  with area sources and mobile sources related to the proposed project. In addition to the short‐term  construction emissions, the project would also generate long‐term air pollutant emissions, such as  those associated with changes in permanent use of the project site. These long‐term emissions are  primarily mobile source emissions that would result from vehicle trips associated with the proposed  project. Area sources, such as natural gas heaters, landscape equipment, and use of consumer  products, would also result in pollutant emissions.  PM10 emissions result from running exhaust, tire and brake wear, and the entrainment of dust into  the atmosphere from vehicles traveling on paved roadways. Entrainment of PM10 occurs when  vehicle tires pulverize small rocks and pavement and the vehicle wakes generate airborne dust. The  contribution of tire and brake wear is small compared to the other PM emission processes.  Gasoline‐powered engines have small rates of particulate matter emissions compared with diesel‐ powered vehicles.    Energy source emissions result from activities in buildings for which electricity and natural gas are  used. The quantity of emissions is the product of usage intensity (i.e., the amount of electricity or  natural gas) and the emission factor of the fuel source. Major sources of energy demand include  building mechanical systems, such as heating and air conditioning, lighting, and plug‐in electronics,  such as refrigerators or computers. Greater building or appliance efficiency reduces the amount of  energy for a given activity and thus lowers the resultant emissions. The emission factor is  determined by the fuel source, with cleaner energy sources, like renewable energy, producing fewer  emissions than conventional sources. Area source emissions associated with the project would  include emissions from water heating and the use of landscaping equipment.  Emission estimates for operation of the project were calculated using CalEEMod. Model results are  shown in Table 4.B. Trip generation rates for the project were based on the project’s trip generation  estimates, as identified in the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA),11 which estimates that the  proposed project would generate approximately 308 net new average daily trips, with 19 trips  occurring during the AM peak hour and 25 trips occurring during the PM peak hour.  11  Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2018. Burlingame Community Center Draft Transportation  Impact Analysis. June 27.     BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐12 The primary emissions associated with the project are regional in nature, meaning that air pollutants  are rapidly dispersed on release or, in the case of vehicle emissions associated with the project;  emissions are released in other areas of the Air Basin. The daily emissions associated with project  operational trip generation, energy and area sources are identified in Table 4.B for ROG, NOx, PM10,  and PM2.5. The results shown in Table 4.B indicate the project would not exceed the significance  criteria for daily ROG, NO2, PM10 or PM2.5 emissions; therefore, the proposed project would not have  a significant effect on regional air quality and mitigation would not be required. This impact would  be less than significant.   Table 4.B: Project Operational Emissions    ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5  Pounds Per Day  Area Source Emissions 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0  Energy Source Emissions 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0  Mobile Source Emissions 0.4 1.5 1.1 0.3  Total Emissions 1.3 1.7 1.1 0.3  BAAQMD Thresholds 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0  Exceed Threshold? No No No No  Tons Per Year  Area Source Emissions 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0  Energy Source Emissions 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  Mobile Source Emissions 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1  Total Emissions 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1  BAAQMD Thresholds 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0  Exceed Threshold? No No No No  Source: LSA (July 2018).     Localized CO Impacts. The BAAQMD has established a screening methodology that provides a  conservative indication of whether the implementation of a proposed project would result in  significant CO emissions. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, a proposed project would  result in a less‐than‐significant impact to localized CO concentrations if the following screening  criteria are met:    The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the  county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, and the regional  transportation plan and local congestion management agency plans;    Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000  vehicles per hour; and    The project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000  vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel,  parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, or below‐grade roadway).  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐13 Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the San Mateo Countywide  Transportation Plan (CTP) for designated roads and highways, a regional transportation plan, or  other agency plans. The project site is not located in an area where vertical or horizontal mixing of  air is substantially limited. As identified in the TIA, the project’s trip generation would be approxi‐ mately 308 net new average daily trips, with 19 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 25 trips  occurring during the PM peak hour; therefore, the project’s contribution to peak hour traffic  volumes at intersections in the vicinity of the project site would be well below 44,000 vehicles per  hour. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in localized CO concentrations that exceed  State or federal standards and this impact would be less than significant.  c. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for  which the project region is non‐ attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air  quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone  precursors)? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  CEQA defines a cumulative impact as two or more individual effects, which when considered  together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. According  to the BAAQMD, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to,  by itself; result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual  emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. Therefore, if  daily average or annual emissions of operational‐related criteria air pollutants exceed any applicable  threshold established by the BAAQMD, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively  significant impact.   As discussed above, implementation of the proposed project would generate less‐than‐significant  operational emissions. As shown in the project‐specific air quality impacts discussion above, the  proposed project would not result in individually significant impacts and therefore would also not  make a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air quality impacts. This impact would be  considered less than significant.  d. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less‐ Than‐Significant Impact)  Sensitive receptors are defined as residential uses, schools, daycare centers, nursing homes, and  medical centers. Individuals particularly vulnerable to diesel particulate matter are children, whose  lung tissue is still developing, and the elderly, who may have serious health problems that can be  aggravated by exposure to diesel particulate matter. Exposure from diesel exhaust associated with  construction activity contributes to both cancer and chronic non‐cancer health risks.  According to the BAAQMD, a project would result in a significant impact if it would: individually  expose sensitive receptors to TACs resulting in an increased cancer risk greater than 10.0 in one  million, increased non‐cancer risk of greater than 1.0 on the hazard index (chronic or acute), or an  annual average ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). A  significant cumulative impact would occur if the project in combination with other projects located  within a 1,000‐foot radius of the project site would expose sensitive receptors to TACs resulting in  an increased cancer risk greater than 100.0 in one million, an increased non‐cancer risk of greater    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐14 than 10.0 on the hazard index (chronic), or an ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.8 µg/m3 on an  annual average basis. Impacts from substantial pollutant concentrations are discussed below.   As described above, construction of the proposed project may expose surrounding sensitive  receptors to airborne particulates, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants  (i.e., usually diesel‐fueled vehicles and equipment). However, construction contractors would be  required to implement Mitigation Measure AIR‐1 described above. With implementation of this  mitigation measure, project construction pollutant emissions would be below the BAAQMD  significance thresholds. Once the project is constructed, the project would not be a source of  substantial pollutant emissions. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial  pollutant concentrations during project construction or operation, and potential impacts would be  considered less than significant.  e. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Less‐ Than‐Significant Impact)  During project construction, some odors may be present due to diesel exhaust. However, these  odors would be temporary and limited to the construction period. The proposed project would not  include any activities or operations that would generate objectionable odors and once operational,  the project would not be a source of odors. Therefore, the proposed project would not create  objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. This impact would be less than  significant.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐15 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through  habitat modifications, on any species identified as a  candidate, sensitive, or special‐status species in local or  regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California  Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service?   b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or  other sensitive natural community identified in local or  regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California  Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service?   c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected  wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act  (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,  etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological  interruption, or other means?   d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native  resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with  established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or  impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?   e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting  biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or  ordinance?   f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat  Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or  other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation  plan?    4.4.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat  modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special‐status species in  local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game  or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The topography of the City of Burlingame varies from mudflat adjacent to the San Francisco Bay to  hills in the west. However, most of the City, including the project site, is developed and contains  very little suitable habitat available for plant and animal species to exist. Some special‐status species  that have known occurrences in Burlingame include Ridgway’s rail, in coastal salt and brackish  marsh areas, and California red‐legged frog, in riparian corridors.12 The project site does not include  any coastal salt, brackish marsh, or riparian areas. Due to the developed nature of the project site  and the presence of buildings and associated hardscape, it is unlikely that the project site would  12  Burlingame, City of, 2015. Existing Conditions Report. November.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐16 support any special‐status species. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐ significant impact related to special‐status species.  b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive  natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California  Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (No Impact)  The project site is within a developed area and does not support any riparian or other sensitive  natural communities.13 Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to riparian  habitat or other sensitive natural communities.  c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined  by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,  etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (No Impact)  The project site is within a developed area and is not located in an area that supports wetlands,  drainages, or water bodies as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.14 The proposed project  would not result in the direct removal, filling, or hydrological interruption of such wetlands.  Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on federally protected wetlands.  d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory  fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or  impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation)  The project site is a developed, landscaped area that supports wildlife species typically associated  with urban and suburban areas. Because the project site is within a developed area, there are not  major wildlife movement corridors that pass through or are adjacent to the site. Existing trees are  located throughout and around the project site. Trees and other landscape vegetation generally  have the potential to support nests of common native bird species. All native birds, regardless of  their regulatory status, are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish  and Wildlife Code. The proposed project would result in the removal of 41 trees. If conducted during  the breeding season (February through August), vegetation removal and construction activities  could directly impact nesting birds by removing trees or vegetation that support active nests.  Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to nesting  birds to a less‐than‐significant level.  13  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2018. National Wetlands Inventory (Map). Website: www.fws.gov/ wetlands/data/Mapper.html (accessed July 26, 2018). June 25.  14  Ibid.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐17 Mitigation Measure BIO‐1: If feasible, all vegetation removal shall be conducted during the  non‐breeding season (i.e., September 1 to January 31) to avoid  direct impacts to nesting birds. If such work is scheduled during the  breeding season, a qualified biologist or ornithologist shall conduct  a pre‐construction survey to determine if any birds are nesting  within the project sites. The pre‐construction survey shall be  conducted within 15 days prior to the start of work from March  through May (since there is a higher potential for birds to initiate  nesting during this period), and within 30 days prior to the start of  work from June through July. If active nests are found during the  survey, the biologist or ornithologist shall determine an  appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work will be  allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the  buffer shall be determined by the biologist or ornithologist in  consultation with the California department of Fish and Wildlife,  and would be based on the nesting species, its sensitivity to  disturbance, and the expected types of disturbance.  e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,  such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The City of Burlingame requires a permit for tree removals with the following characteristics:   Street trees, which are defined as any woody perennial plant having a single main axis or  stem more than 10 feet in height; or   Any tree with a circumference of 48 inches or more when measured 54 inches above natural  grade; or   A tree or stand of trees so designated by the City Council based upon findings that it is  unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, historical or  other factor; or   A stand of trees in which the director has determined each tree is dependent upon the  others for survival.15  As noted above, 41 of the 158 trees on the project site would be removed as a part of the proposed  project. The City would obtain a tree removal permit prior to the removal of any protected trees.  Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting  biological resources, and this impact would be less than significant.  15  Burlingame, City of, 2018. Burlingame Municipal Code, as amended. May.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐18 f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural  Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation  plan? (No Impact)  The project site is not within any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community  Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore,  the proposed project would have no impact.  4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a  historical resource as defined in §15064.5?   b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an  archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?   c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological  resource or site or unique geologic feature?  d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside  of formal cemeteries?    4.5.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource  as defined in §15064.5? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  For a cultural resource to be considered a historical resource (i.e., eligible for listing in the California  Register of Historical Resources [CRHR]), it generally must be 50 years or older. Under CEQA,  historical resources can include pre‐contact (i.e., Native American) archaeological deposits, historic‐ period archaeological deposits, historic buildings, and historic districts. The project site includes the  existing Community Center, a portion of which was constructed in the late 1940s, and which has  been significantly modified over time.16 However, the existing Community Center is not listed on the  State Office of Historic Preservation Historic Property Directory, which includes listings of the CRHR,  California State Historical Landmarks, California State Points of Historical Interest, and the National  Register of Historic Places. Additionally, there are no known or recorded archaeological resources at  the project site.17 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change  in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5, and this impact would be  less‐than‐significant.  16  Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc., 2018. Burlingame’s New Community Center Conceptual  Design Executive Report. March.  17  Burlingame, City of, 2015. Existing Conditions Report. November.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐19 b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological  resource pursuant to §15064.5? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation)  The project site is currently developed with the existing community center and Washington Park  Playground, and is surrounded by residential and public uses. As noted above, there are no known  or recorded archaeological resources at the project site.18 However, it is possible that a currently  unknown cultural resource, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, could be encountered  during construction activities. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure  that potential impact to archaeological resources that may be encountered during project activities  would be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level.  Mitigation Measure CULT‐1: Should an archaeological resource be encountered during project  construction activities, the construction contractor shall halt  construction within 25 feet of the find and immediately notify the  City. Construction activities shall be redirected and a qualified  archaeologist, in consultation with the City, shall: : 1) evaluate the  archaeological deposit to determine if it meets the CEQA definition  of a historical or unique archaeological resource and 2) make  recommendations about the treatment of the deposit, as  warranted. If the deposit does meet the CEQA definition of a  historical or unique archaeological resource then it shall be avoided  to the extent feasible by project construction activities. If avoidance  is not feasible, then adverse effects to the deposit shall be mitigated  as specified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b) (for historic  resources) or CEQA Section 21083.2 (for unique archaeological  resources). This mitigation may include, but is not limited to, a  thorough recording of the resource on Department of Parks and  Recreation Form 523 records, or archaeological data recovery  excavation. If data recovery excavation is warranted, CEQA  Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), which requires a data recovery  plan prior to data recovery excavation, shall be followed. If the  significant identified resources are unique archaeological resources,  mitigation of these resources shall be subject to the limitations on  mitigation measures for archaeological resources identified in CEQA  Sections 21083.2(c) through 21083.2(f).  18  Burlingame, City of, 2015. Existing Conditions Report. November.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐20 c. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or  unique geologic feature? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation)  Although there is no documentation that suggests paleontological resources are present within the  project site, there is a possibility that construction activities could uncover paleontological resources  beneath the surface. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that  potential impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level.  Mitigation Measure CULT‐2: If paleontological resources are encountered during site preparation  or grading activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be  redirected until a qualified paleontologist has assessed the  discoveries and made recommendations. Paleontological resources  include fossil plants and animals, and evidence of past life such as  trace fossils and tracks.  If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, adverse  effects to such resources shall be avoided by project activities to the  extent feasible. If project activities cannot avoid the resources, the  adverse effects shall be mitigated in accordance with CEQA  Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3). Mitigation may include data  recovery and analysis, preparation of a final report, and the formal  transmission or delivery of any fossil material recovered to a  paleontological repository, such as the University of California  Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). Upon completion of project  activities, the final report shall document methods and findings of  the mitigation and be submitted to the City’s Community  Development Department and a suitable paleontological repository.  d. Would the project disturb any humans remains, including those interred outside of formal  cemeteries? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation)  The potential to uncover Native American human remains exists in locations throughout California.  Although not anticipated, human remains could be identified during site‐preparation and grading  activities and could result in a significant impact to Native American cultural resources.   Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential adverse impacts to  human remains to a less‐than‐significant level.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐21 Mitigation Measure CULT‐3: If human remains are encountered during construction activities,  work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the San  Mateo County Coroner shall be notified immediately. At the same  time, a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the  situation and consult with the appropriate agencies. If the human  remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the  Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this  identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will  identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and  provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains  and associated grace goods.  Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare  a report documenting the methods and results, and provide  recommendations for the treatment of human remains and any  associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination  with the recommendations of the MLD. The City shall follow the  recommendations outlined in the report and the report shall be  submitted to the City’s Community Development Department and  the Northwest Information Center.  4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse  effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:   i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on  the most recent Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning  Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based  on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to  Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.  ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?  iii. Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction?  iv. Landslides?  b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?  c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that  would become unstable as a result of the project, and  potentially result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral  spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?   d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of  the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks  to life or property?   e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of  septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems  where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste  water?     BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐22 4.6.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including  the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:   i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist‐Priolo  Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other  substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special  Publication 42.   ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?   iii. Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction?   iv. Landslides?  Fault Rupture. Fault rupture is generally expected to occur along active fault traces that have  exhibited signs of recent geological movement (i.e., 11,000 years). Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault  Zones delineate areas around active faults with potential surface fault rupture hazards that would  require specific geological investigations prior to approval of certain kinds of development within  the delineated area. The project site is not located within an Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.19  Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to fault rupture.  Seismic Ground Shaking. The project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area, a region of  intense seismic activity, as noted above. Ground shaking is likely to occur within the life of the  proposed project as a result of future earthquakes. The closest known active fault to the project site  is the San Andreas Fault, which is located approximately 3 miles west of the project site. Other  active faults within 15 miles of the project site include the San Gregorio Fault and the Pilarcitos  Fault. Due to the proposed project’s location in a seismically active area, strong seismic ground  shaking at the project site is highly probable during the life of the proposed project. The intensity of  the ground shaking would depend on the characteristic of the fault, distance from the fault, the  earthquake magnitude and duration, and site‐specific geologic conditions. Conformance with the  California Building Code would ensure potential impacts associated with strong seismic ground  shaking would be reduced to less‐than‐significant levels.  Seismic Ground Failure. The potential for different types of ground failure to occur during a seismic  event is discussed below.  Liquefaction. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon primarily associated with saturated soil layers  located close to the ground surface. During ground shaking, these soils lose strength and acquire  “mobility” sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soils that are most  susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, saturated, fine‐grained sands that  lie relatively close to the ground surface. However, loose sands that contain a significant amount  of fines (silt and clay) may also liquefy. The project site is located in an area of low liquefaction  19  California, State of, 1974. Department of Conservation. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation – San  Mateo Quadrangle. July 1.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐23 risk.20 Additionally, compliance with the California Building Code would ensure potential impacts  associated with liquefaction would be less‐than‐significant.  Lateral Spreading. Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which surficial soil displaces along a  shear zone that has formed within an underlying liquefied layer. Upon reaching mobilization,  the surface soils are transported downslope or in the direction of a free face by earthquake and  gravitational forces. The project site is relatively flat and development of the proposed project  would not exacerbate lateral spreading. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐ than‐significant impact related to lateral spreading.  Landslides. A landslide generally occurs on relatively steep slopes and/or on slopes underlain by  weak materials. The project site is located on a relatively flat area and is not located next to any  hills. The project site is considered Flatland, and therefore would not be susceptible to landslides.21  Therefore, the potential for the proposed project to expose people or structures to risk as a result of  landslides would be less than significant.  b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less‐Than‐Significant  Impact)  Topsoil is defined as the upper part of the soil profile that is relatively rich in humus and is  technically known as the A‐horizon of the soil profile.22 Grading and earthmoving during project  construction has the potential to result in erosion and loss of topsoil. Exposed soils could be  entrained in stormwater runoff and transported off the project sites. However, this impact would be  reduced to a less‐than‐significant level through compliance with water quality control measures,  which include preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (refer to Section 4.9,  Hydrology and Water Quality). Although designed primarily to protect stormwater quality, the  SWPPP would incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize erosion. Additional  details regarding the SWPPP are provided in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality of this Initial  Study.  c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become  unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral  spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  As described in Section 4.6.1.a, soils on the project site would not be subject to liquefaction, lateral  spreading, or landslides. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to conform with the  California Building Code, which would reduce risks related to unstable soils. Therefore, the proposed  project would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to unstable soils.  20  Burlingame, City of, 2015. Existing Conditions Report. November.  21  Ibid.  22  California State Mining and Geology Board, 2014. Surface Mining Reclamation Act Regulations. California  Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 2, Chapter 8, Subchapter 1.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐24 d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform  Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Less‐Than‐Significant  Impact)  Expansive soils are characterized by the potential for shrinking and swelling as the moisture content  of the soil decreases and increases, respectively. Shrink‐swell potential is influenced by the amount  and type of clay minerals present and can be measured by the percent change of the soil volume.23  Soils within the Alluvial zone, where the project site is located, contain clay, and therefore have  shrinking and swelling potential.24 However, compliance with California Building Code requirements  would ensure that geotechnical design of the proposed project would reduce potential impacts  related to expansive soils to a less‐than‐significant level. As such, the risk of expansive soil affecting  the proposed project is considered low and would represent a less‐than‐significant impact.  e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or  alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of  waste water? (No Impact)  The proposed project would connect to the City’s wastewater conveyance system. On‐site  treatment and disposal of wastewater is not proposed for the project; therefore, the proposed  project would have no impacts associated with soils incapable of supporting alternative wastewater  disposal systems.  4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or  indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the  environment?  b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted  for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse  gases?    4.7.1 Impact Analysis  Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or  are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The gases that are widely seen  as the principal contributors to human‐induced global climate change are:  23  Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2017. Web Soil Survey. Website: websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/ App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed September 4).  24  Burlingame, City of, 2015. Existing Conditions Report. November.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐25  Carbon dioxide (CO2);   Methane (CH4);   Nitrous oxide (N2O);   Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs);   Perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and   Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6).  Over the last 200 years, humans have caused substantial quantities of GHGs to be released into the  atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and  enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, believed to be causing global warming. While manmade  GHGs include naturally‐occurring GHGs such as CO2, methane, and N2O, some gases, like HFCs, PFCs,  and SF6 are completely new to the atmosphere.  Certain gases, such as water vapor, are short‐lived in the atmosphere. Others remain in the atmos‐ phere for significant periods of time, contributing to climate change in the long term. Water vapor is  excluded from the list of GHGs above because it is short‐lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric  concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.   These gases vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), a concept developed to  compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The GWP is  based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation  and length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”). The GWP of  each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant GHG. The definition of GWP for a particular  GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by one  unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of  pounds or tons of “CO2 equivalents” (CO2e).  a.  Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may  have a significant impact on the environment? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  This section describes the proposed project’s construction‐ and operational‐related GHG emissions  and contribution to global climate change. The BAAQMD has not addressed emission thresholds for  construction in their CEQA Guidelines; however, the BAAQMD encourages quantification and  disclosure. Thus, construction emissions are discussed in this section.   Construction Activities. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would produce  combustion emissions from various sources. During construction, GHGs would be emitted through  the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each  of which typically use fossil‐based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil‐based fuels creates  GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐26 equipment. Exhaust emissions from on‐site construction activities would vary daily as construction  activity levels change.  The BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction‐related GHG  emissions. However, lead agencies are encouraged to quantify and disclose GHG emissions that  would occur during construction. Using CalEEMod, it is estimated that construction of the proposed  project would generate approximately 621.8 metric tons of CO2e. Implementation of Mitigation  Measure AIR‐1 would reduce GHG emissions by reducing the amount of construction vehicle idling  and by requiring the use of properly maintained equipment. Therefore, project construction impacts  associated with GHG emissions would be considered less than significant.  Operational Emissions. Long‐term operation of the proposed project would generate GHG  emissions from area and mobile sources as well as indirect emissions from sources associated with  energy consumption. Mobile‐source GHG emissions would include project‐generated vehicle trips  associated with trips to the proposed project. Area‐source emissions would be associated with  activities such as landscaping and maintenance on the project site, and other sources.  Following guidance from the BAAQMD, GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. Table 4.C  shows the calculated GHG emissions for the proposed project. Motor vehicle emissions are the  largest source of GHG emissions for the project at approximately 64 percent of the total. Energy use  is the next largest category at 30 percent. Solid waste and water are about 5 percent and 1 percent  of the total emissions respectively. Additional calculation details are included in Appendix A.  Table 4.C: GHG Emissions (Metric Tons Per Year)  Emissions Source  Operational Emissions  CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Percent of  Total  Area Source Emissions 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0  Energy Source Emissions 93.0 0.0 0.0 93.6 30  Mobile Source Emissions 198.3 0.0 0.0 198.5 64  Waste Source Emissions 6.7 0.4 0.0 16.5 5  Water Source Emissions 2.2 0.0 0.0 3.3 1  Total Annual Emissions 311.9 100  BAAQMD Threshold 1,100 ‐  Exceed? No ‐  Source: LSA (July 2018).     According to the BAAQMD, a project would result in a less‐than‐significant GHG impact if it would:    Result in operational‐related greenhouse gas emissions of less than 1,100 metric tons of CO2e a  year; or   Result in operational‐related greenhouse gas emissions of less than 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per  service population (residents plus employees).  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐27 Based on the results of the construction and operation analysis, the project would not generate  GHG emissions that would have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed project would  generate 311.9 metric tons of CO2e which would be well below the BAAQMD numeric threshold of  1,100 metric tons CO2e. Operation of the proposed project would not generate significant GHG  emissions and would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to operational GHG emissions.  b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose  of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The City of Burlingame’s Climate Action Plan (CAP),25 adopted in June 2009, serves as a guiding  document to identify methods that the City and community can implement to significantly reduce  GHG emissions toward meeting the requirements mandated by Assembly Bill 32, California’s Global  Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which requires emissions to be reduced 15 percent below current  levels (as measured in 2005) by the year 2020 and to be reduced by 80 percent by the year 2050.  The CAP also provides a baseline of emissions, sets achievable targets as stipulated by AB 32, and  recommends steps to be taken to reduce emissions, increase sustainability, and improve quality of  life. The CAP provides strategies related to energy efficiency and green building, transportation and  land use, waste reduction and recycling, education and promotion, and municipal operations. The  following strategies are applicable to the proposed project:   Research methods to expand and enhance shuttles and public transportation services to  increase shuttle ridership and public transportation alternatives;   Encourage development that is mixed use, infill, and higher density;   Require recycling at major public events in Burlingame (of cardboard, paper, containers and  food/organics);   Adopt a Recycling Policy to achieve a citywide diversion rate of 75 percent measured diversion  by 2015; and   Adopt a Civic Green Building Policy that requires “Leadership in Energy and Environmental  Design” (LEED) a green building standard for new municipal construction and major remodels.  The proposed project would redevelop the Burlingame Community Center which would include  playground and site improvements and parking improvements. In 2016, the City adopted Chapter  18.30 Green Buildings Standards Code as part of the Municipal Code, which encourages projects to  comply with the 2016 CALGreen standard building measures and Title 24 standards. As discussed in  the Project Description, the proposed Burlingame Community Center would be designed to meet  seismic standards and meet the current California Building Code. Therefore, the proposed project  would comply with Chapter 18.30 of the Municipal Code. The City has not adopted a Civic Green  Building Policy, however, compliance with the latest CALGreen and Title 24 building standards, as  required by Chapter 9.35 of the Municipal Code, would result in enhanced energy efficiency over the  current building.   25  Burlingame, City of, 2009. City of Burlingame Climate Action Plan. June.     BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐28 In addition, the Burlingame Community Center would be located near Washington Park, Burlingame  Lions Club, Burlingame High School, and single‐family residential land uses, and therefore would  provide community, meeting, fitness, art, and educational uses near existing residential and  recreational uses in addition to public transportation. The overall network of sidewalks and  crosswalks in the study area has adequate connectivity and provides pedestrians with safe routes to  school, transit services, and other points of interest in the vicinity of the project site. In addition,  although few of the local streets within the project study area are designated as bike routes, due to  their low speed limits and traffic volumes, many streets in the vicinity of the project site are  conducive to bicycle travel. In addition, existing transit service to the study area is provided by  SamTrans, the City of Burlingame, and Caltrain. The project area is served directly by a limited bus  route, an express bus route, and a shuttle route. The nearest bus stop is located at the Myrtle  Road/Burlingame Avenue intersection, which is about 500 feet walking distance west of the project  site. The proposed project is also located approximately 650 feet to the Burlingame Caltrain station.  Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with CAP strategies related to energy  efficiency and green building and transportation and land use.   In addition, as discussed above, the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in  GHG emissions and, therefore, is consistent with the CAP and would not generate emissions that  would exceed the project‐level significance criteria established by the BAAQMD. The project would  also be consistent with the strategies and policies included in the CAP. Therefore, the proposed  project would not conflict with plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing  GHG emissions. This impact would be less than significant.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐29 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment  through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous  materials?   b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment  through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident  conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into  the environment?   c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely  hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐ quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?   d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous  materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code  Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant  hazard to the public or the environment?   e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,  where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a  public airport or public use airport, would the project result  in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the  project area?   f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would  the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or  working in the project area?   g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an  adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation  plan?   h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury  or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands  are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are  intermixed with wildlands?     4.8.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the  routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  Small quantities of commercially‐available hazardous materials (e.g., paint, cleaning supplies) would  be routinely used at the project site and in the new community center during operation. However,  the City would be required to comply with existing government regulations26 in its use and disposal  of these materials, and such materials would not be used in sufficient strength or quantity to create  a substantial risk to human or environmental health. Therefore, the proposed project would have a  less‐than‐significant impact related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.  26  The United States Environmental Protection Agency regulates “small‐quantity generators” (SQGs) of  hazardous wastes, which are defined as facilities that generate more than 100 kg (approximately 220 lbs),  but less than 1,000 kg (2,200 lbs), of hazardous waste per month.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐30 b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through  reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous  materials into the environment? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  As described above, small quantities of common hazardous materials would be used at the project  site during construction and operation of the proposed project. Improper use, storage, or handling  could result in a release of hazardous materials into the environment which could pose a risk to  construction workers and the public. However, the City would be required to comply with existing  government regulations in its use and disposal of these materials, and such materials would not be  used in sufficient strength or quantity to create a substantial risk to human or environmental health.  In July 2017, RestCon Environmental prepared an Asbestos Investigation at the existing Community  Center.27 The investigation found that there were Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) present in  building materials and paints throughout the existing Community Center.  The proposed project would be required to conform to all applicable local, State, and federal  regulations and standards pertaining to treatment and disposal of ACMs. These requirements would  include compliance with regulations set forth by the California State License Board, the Division of  Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US  EPA), and the California Department of Health Services (DHS) for removal of ACMS during  construction. Compliance with all applicable regulations would reduce any significant hazards to the  public or the environment.  Construction of the proposed project would involve the transport, use, and disposal of chemical  agents, solvents, paints, fuel and oil for construction equipment, and other hazardous materials that  are commonly associated with construction activities. The routine handling and use of hazardous  materials by construction workers would be performed in accordance with Occupational Safety and  Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, which include training requirements for construction  workers and a requirement that hazardous materials are accompanied by manufacturer’s Safety  Data Sheets (SDSs). Cal/OSHA regulations include requirements for protective clothing, training, and  limits on exposure to hazardous materials. Compliance with these existing regulations would ensure  that construction workers are protected from exposure to hazardous materials that may be used on  site.  Because the proposed project would result in soil disturbance greater than 1 acre, management of  hazardous materials during construction activities would be subject to the requirements of the  Stormwater Construction General Permit, which requires preparation and implementation of an  SWPPP that includes hazardous materials storage requirements. For example, construction site  operators must store chemicals in watertight containers (with appropriate secondary containment  to prevent any spillage or leakage) or in a storage shed (completely enclosed).  In 1990 and 1994, the federal Hazardous Material Transportation Act was amended to improve the  protection of life, property, and the environment from the inherent risks of transporting hazardous  27  RestCon Environmental, 2017. Asbestos Investigation for 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010.  July 3.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐31 material in all major modes of commerce. The Department of Transportation (DOT) developed  hazardous materials regulations, which govern the classification, packaging, communication,  transportation, and handling of hazardous materials, as well as employee training and incident  reporting. The transportation of hazardous materials is subject to both federal Resource Conservation  and Recovery Act (RCRA) and DOT regulations. The California Highway Patrol, California Department of  Transportation (Caltrans), and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) are responsible for  enforcing federal and State regulations pertaining to the transportation of hazardous materials.  The proposed project would comply with existing government regulations (federal, State, regional,  and local) regarding the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, the  proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to the potential release of  hazardous materials commonly associated with construction activities into the environment.  c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous  materials, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Less‐ Than‐Significant Impact)  Refer to Section 4.8.1.a and 4.8.1.b. The City would be required to comply with all applicable local,  State, and federal regulations and standards related to hazardous emissions and materials. As noted  above, compliance with all applicable regulations would reduce any significant hazards to the public  or the environment related to hazardous materials, and the proposed project would have a less than  significant impact.  d. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites  compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a  significant hazard to the public or the environment? (No Impact)  The project site does not include any active storage sites listed on the San Francisco Bay Regional  Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) Leaking Underground Storage (LUST) database or the  Water Board’s site cleanup program,28 two of the component databases that comprise of the State  Cortese List of known hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.  Active sites are not listed for the project on other components of the Cortese List, including the  DTSC hazardous waste and substance list.29 Therefore, no impacts associated with locating a project  on a site included on a list of hazardous materials is expected to occur.  28  San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2018. GeoTracker. Website:  geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map (accessed July 24, 2018).  29  California, State of, 2018. Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site  List. Website: www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public (accessed July 24, 2018).    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐32 e. Would the project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been  adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a  safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is the closest airport to the project site, located  approximately 2.5 miles to the north. The project site is within the boundary of the SFO Airport  Influence Area B, which requires new projects to demonstrate consistency with the goals and  policies of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The proposed project would be two  stories in height, and would be consistent with existing building heights in the adjacent areas. The  proposed project would not increase the proposed residential density, would not be an  incompatible land use, would not increase the height such that it would create a hazard or  obstruction, and would not result in the addition of a characteristic that would create a hazard to air  navigation. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to  airport safety hazards.  f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard  for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact)  The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the proposed  project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project due to the  proximity of a private airstrip.  g. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency  response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The proposed project would not result in any alterations of existing roadways. Therefore, the  proposed project would not interfere with any emergency evacuation routes within San Mateo  County or an adopted emergency response plan, and this impact would be less‐than‐significant.  h. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death  involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where  residences are intermixed with wildlands? (No Impact)  The project site is located in an urban area and is not located within a very high fire hazard severity  zone.30 Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant loss,  injury or death involving wildland fires and there would be no impact.      30  Cal Fire, 2008. San Mateo County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. November 24.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐33 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge  requirements?   b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere  substantially with groundwater recharge such that there  would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the  local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of  pre‐existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would  not support existing land uses or planned uses for which  permits have been granted)?  c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or  area, including through the alteration of the course of a  stream or river, in a manner which would result in  substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site?   d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or  area, including through the alteration of the course of a  stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount  of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding  on‐ or off‐site?   e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the  capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems  or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?   f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?   g. Place housing within a 100‐year flood hazard area as  mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood  Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?   h. Place within a 100‐year flood hazard area structures which  would impede or redirect flood flows?   i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury  or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of  the failure of a levee or dam?   j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?    4.9.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Less‐ Than‐Significant with Mitigation)  The State Water Resources Control Board and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards regulate  water quality of surface water and groundwater bodies throughout California. In the Bay Area,  including the project site, the Water Board is responsible for implementation the Water Quality  Control Plan (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan establishes beneficial water uses for waterways and water  bodies within the region.  Runoff water quality is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)  Program (established through the federal Clean Water Act). The NPDES program objective is to  control and reduce pollutant discharges to surface water bodies. Compliance with NPDES permits is    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐34 mandated by State and federal statutes and regulations. Locally, the NPDES Program is administered  by the Water Board. According to the water quality control plans of the Water Board, any construc‐ tion activities, including grading, that would result in the disturbance of 1 acre or more would require  compliance with the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and  Land Disturbance Activity (Construction General Permit). The project site is approximately 2.41 acres  and as such, would be required to comply with the Construction General Permit.  The proposed project would be subject to the Water Board Municipal Regional Permit (MRP),  implemented in October 2009 by Order R2‐2009‐0074. Provision C.3 of the MRP requires new  development and redevelopment projects that would replace more than 10,000 square feet of  existing impervious surfaces to include post‐construction stormwater control in project designs.  Under the C.3 requirements, the preparation and submittal of a Stormwater Control Plan (SCP)  would be required for the project site. The purpose of an SCP is to detail the design elements and  implementation measures necessary to meet the post‐construction stormwater control  requirements of the MRP. In particular, SCPs must include Low Impact Development (LID) design  measures, which reduce water quality impacts by preserving and recreating natural landscape  features, minimizing imperviousness, and using stormwater as a resource, rather than a waste  product. The proposed project would also be required to prepare a Stormwater Facility Operation  and Maintenance Plan to ensure that stormwater control measures are inspected, maintained, and  funded for the life of the project.  As previously described, the proposed project would increase the total amount of impervious  surface on the project site. The increase in impervious surface could result in increased stormwater  runoff (both flow rate and volume) from the project site relative to pre‐project conditions, which  may result in hydromodification impacts (i.e., increased potential for erosion of creek beds and  banks, silt pollutant generation, or other adverse impacts on beneficial uses due to increased  erosive force.  Construction activities associated with the proposed project would cause disturbance of soil during  excavation work, which could adversely impact water quality. Contaminants from construction  vehicles and equipment and sediment from soil erosion could increase the pollutant load in runoff  being transported to receiving waters during development. Although surface runoff from the site  would likely decrease with the proposed project (due to the proposed stormwater treatment  measures), runoff from the proposed landscaped areas may contain residual pesticides and  nutrients (associated with landscaping) and sediment and trace metals (associated with atmospheric  deposition) during operation of the project. Operation of the proposed project could incrementally  contribute to the long‐term degradation of runoff water quality and as a result, adversely affect  water quality in the receiving waters and San Francisco Bay. The proposed project would be  considered a “regulated project” under the MRP, indicating that the State Water Resources Control  Board has determined the size and nature of the project has the potential to discharge a significant  pollutant load to stormwater runoff and receiving waters. Therefore, the potential discharges  associated with the proposed project are considered to be a potentially significant impact.  Implementation of the following two mitigation measures would ensure that the proposed project  complies with the Water Board’s water quality standards by reducing the potential construction‐  and operation‐period impacts to water quality to a less‐than‐significant level.   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐35 Mitigation Measure HYD‐1: Prior to construction, the project applicant shall prepare and  implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP),  meeting Construction General Permit requirements (State Water  Resources Control Board Order No. 2009‐000–DWQ, as amended)  designed to reduce potential adverse impacts to surface water  quality through the project construction period. The SWPPP shall be  submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance  of any permits for ground disturbing activities.  The SWPPP shall be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer in  accordance with the requirements of the Construction General  Permit. These include: Best Management Practices (BMPs) for  erosion and sediment control, site management/housekeeping/ waste management, management of non‐stormwater discharges,  run‐on and runoff controls, and BMP inspection/maintenance/ repair activities. BMP implementation shall be consistent with the  BMP requirements in the most recent version of the California  Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management  Handbook‐Construction.  The SWPPP shall include a construction site monitoring program  that identifies requirements for dry weather visual observations of  pollutants at all discharge locations, and as appropriate (depending  on the Risk Level), sampling of the site effluent and receiving  waters. A Qualified SWPPP Practitioner shall be responsible for  implementing the BMPs at the site and performing all required  monitoring and inspection/maintenance/repair activities.  Mitigation Measure HYD‐2: The project applicant shall fully comply with San Francisco Bay  Regional Water Quality Control Board stormwater permit  requirements, including Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional  Permit. The project applicant shall prepare and implement a  Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) for the project. The SCP shall be  submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance  of any permits for ground disturbing activities. The SCP would act as  the overall program document designed to provide measures to  mitigate potential water quality impacts associated with the  operation of the proposed project. At a minimum, the SCP for the  project shall include:    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐36  An inventory and accounting of existing and proposed  impervious areas.   Low Impact Development (LID) design details incorporated into  the project. Specific LID design may include, but is not limited  to: using pervious pavements and green roofs, dispersing runoff  to landscaped areas, and/or routing runoff to rain gardens,  cisterns, swales, and other small‐scale facilities distributed  throughout the site.   Measures to address potential stormwater contaminants. These  may include measures to cover or control potential sources of  stormwater pollutants at the project site.   A Draft Stormwater Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan for  the project site, which will include periodic inspection and  maintenance of the storm drainage system. Persons responsible  for performing and funding the requirements of this plan shall  be identified. This plan must be finalized prior to issuance of  building permits for the project.  b. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with  groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of  the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre‐existing nearby wells would  drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits  have been granted)? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The proposed project would connect to the existing water lines located within Burlingame Avenue  and would not use groundwater at the site. Although no use of groundwater is proposed for the  proposed project, some dewatering may be required during construction. Any dewatering activities  would be expected to be temporary in nature. Therefore, the proposed project would not deplete  groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.  c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including  through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in  substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation)  The proposed project would not result in the alteration of the course of a stream or river. The  project site is located in a developed area and would not substantially alter the existing drainage  patterns in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site.  Furthermore, compliance with construction‐ and operation‐phase stormwater requirements  (Mitigation Measures HYD‐1 and HYD‐2) would further ensure that development of the project  would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site. Therefore, the proposed project  would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to existing drainage patterns.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐37 d. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including  through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or  amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on‐ or off‐site? (Less‐Than‐ Significant with Mitigation)  Refer to Section 4.9.1.c. The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage or  flooding pattern of the project site.  e. Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing  or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted  runoff? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation)  Refer to Section 4.9.1.a and 4.9.1.c. The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff that  would exceed the existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. The proposed project could  potentially provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; however, implementation of  Mitigation Measures HYD‐1 and HYD‐2 would ensure that potential impacts are reduced to less‐ than‐significant levels.  f. Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Less‐Than‐Significant  Impact)  Operation of the proposed project would not result in any substantial changes to on‐site water  quality, with the exception of the potential impacts associated with stormwater runoff described in  Section 4.9.1.a. The proposed project would not adversely affect water quality, and would have a  less‐than‐significant impact.  g. Would the project place housing within a 100‐year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal  Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (No  Impact)  The project site is not located within a 100‐year flood zone as mapped by FEMA.31 In addition, no  housing is included in the proposed project, and therefore no impact related to placement of  housing within a 100‐year flood hazard area would occur.  h. Would the project place within a 100‐year flood hazard area structures which would impede or  redirect flood flows? (No Impact)  The project site is not located within a 100‐year flood hazard area as mapped by FEMA.32 Therefore,  the proposed project would have no impact related to the placement of structures within a  floodplain.  31  Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2015. Flood Insurance Rate Map San Mateo County, California.  July 16.  32  Ibid.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐38 i. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death  involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Less‐Than‐ Significant Impact)  The project site is not located within a mapped dam failure inundation area or within a 100‐year  flood hazard area.33 In addition, there are no levees protecting the site from flooding and as a result,  no risk of failure. Therefore, the potential of the proposed project to be subject to a significant risk  of loss, injury, or death involving flooding is less than significant.  j. Would the project be inundated by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (No Impact)  The project site and surrounding areas are generally level and would not be subject to mudflows.  The project site is located within close proximity to the San Francisco Bay. However, the project site  is not located within a mapped tsunami inundation area for Burlingame,34 and no seismically  induced seiche waves have ever been documented in the San Francisco Bay.35 Therefore, the  proposed project would not expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or  mudflow.  4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  a. Physically divide an established community?   b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or  regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project  (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,  local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the  purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?   c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or  natural community conservation plan?     4.10.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project physically divide an established community? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical  feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a  local road or bridge) that would impair mobility with an existing community, or between a  community and outlying areas. For instance, the construction of an interstate highway through an  33  Ibid.   34  California, State of, 2009. California Emergency Management Agency. Tsunami Inundation Map for  Emergency Planning: San Mateo Quadrangle.   35  Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2017. Plan Bay Area  2040 Final Environmental Impact Report. July 16.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐39 existing community may constrain travel from one side of the community to another; similarly, such  construction may also impair travel to areas outside of the community.  Implementation of the proposed project would result in the demolition of the existing community  center and adjacent park, and the construction of a new community center and park. The proposed  project would not result in the realignment or closure of any existing roads. Therefore, the proposed  project would have a less‐than‐significant impact.  b. Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency  with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,  local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an  environmental effect? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The project site is designated as Parks – Community on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map36 and  has an unclassified zoning district on the City’s Zoning Map.37 Following is an evaluation of the  proposed project’s consistency with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan and Zoning  Ordinance. In reviewing this section, it is important to understand that the determination of  whether a project is consistent with a specific policy can be subjective, and that consistency  determinations are best made with a broad understanding of the often‐competing policy objectives  in a planning document. As a result, policy consistency determinations are ultimately made by the  local decision‐making body. As previously discussed, the City is the lead agency for environmental  review. Therefore, the City Council would determine the proposed project’s consistency with the  City’s applicable plans and policies. The analysis in this chapter is intended to provide decision‐ makers with a list of the goals and policies that are pertinent to the proposed project and the  project site, and a recommendation regarding whether or not the proposed project would directly  conflict with relevant planning directives. These recommendations are intended to supplement  decision‐makers’ own understanding of the various policy considerations. A conflict with an  applicable policy is not itself a significant impact unless it results in a significant environmental  impact, as described below.  Per CEQA Guidelines, policy conflicts do not, in and of themselves, constitute significant environ‐ mental impacts. Policy conflicts are considered to be environmental impacts only when they would  result in direct physical impacts or where those conflicts relate to avoiding or mitigating  environmental impacts. As such, associated physical environmental impacts are discussed in this  Initial Study under specific topical sections.  As the project site has an unclassified zoning district and the proposed project would expand the  existing legally permitted use, a Conditional Use Permit would be required.38 The proposed project  would be consistent with the type and intensity of development assumed for the project site in the  General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and would not require any variances. Therefore, the proposed  36  Burlingame, City of, 2000. City of Burlingame General Plan, Land Use Map. April.  37  Burlingame, City of, 2016. Burlingame General Plan: Zoning – Southeast Areas. Available online:  www.burlingame.org/document_center/Zoning/ZoningMap‐Burlingame‐SE.pdf (accessed June 8, 2018).  38  Burlingame, City of, 2018. op. cit.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐40 project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of  avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect and this impact would be less than significant.  c. Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community  conservation plan? (No Impact)  Refer to Section 4.4.1.f. The proposed project would have no impact related to any applicable  Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan.  4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource  that would be of value to the region and the residents of the  state?   b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally‐important mineral  resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,  specific plan or other land use plan?     4.11.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of  value to the region and the residents of the state? (No Impact)  There are no known mineral resources within or in the vicinity of the project site. The proposed  project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region  or residents of the State.39 Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact.  b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally‐important mineral resource  recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (No Impact)  Refer to Section 4.11.1.a. The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of any  known locally‐important mineral resource recovery sites. Therefore, the proposed project would  have no impact.  39  Burlingame, City of, 2015. City of Burlingame General Plan. As amended.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐41 4.12 NOISE    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project result in:  a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in  excess of standards established in the local general plan or  noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?   b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive  groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?   c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in  the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?  d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient  noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing  without the project?   e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,  where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a  public airport or public use airport, would the project expose  people residing or working in the project area to excessive  noise levels?  f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would  the project expose people residing or working in the project  area to excessive noise levels?     4.12.1 Impact Analysis  Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce  physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation,  or sleep. Several noise measurement scales exist that are used to describe noise in a particular  location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative intensity of a sound.  Sound levels in dB are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a 10‐fold  increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense and 30 dB is 1,000 times more  intense. Each 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness;  and similarly, each 10 dB decrease in sound level is perceived as half as loud. Sound intensity is  normally measured through the A‐weighted sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the  frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The A‐weighted sound level is the  basis for 24‐hour sound measurements that better represent human sensitivity to sound at night.   As noise spreads from a source, it loses energy so that the farther away the noise receiver is from  the noise source, the lower the perceived noise level would be. Geometric spreading causes the  sound level to attenuate or be reduced, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in the noise level for each  doubling of distance from a single point source of noise to the noise sensitive receptor of concern.    There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise  affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. Equivalent continuous sound level  (Leq) is the total sound energy of time varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant  rating scales for human communities in the State of California are the Leq, the community noise  equivalent level (CNEL), and the day‐night average level (Ldn) based on dBA. CNEL is the time varying    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐42 noise over a 24‐hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring  from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noise  occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale, but  without the adjustment for events occurring during the evening relaxation hours. CNEL and Ldn are  within one dBA of each other and are normally exchangeable. The noise adjustments are added to the  noise events occurring during the more sensitive hours.  A project would have a significant noise effect if it would substantially increase the ambient noise  levels for adjoining areas or be in conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of applicable  regulatory agencies, including, as appropriate, the City of Burlingame.  The City of Burlingame addresses noise in the Noise Element of the General Plan40 and in the  Municipal Code. The Noise Element of the General Plan provides goals, policies, and implementation  programs in order to exclude and prohibit all annoying, excessive, and unnecessary noises from all  sources. The Noise Element also identifies maximum noise emission standards for construction  equipment operating within the City, which are summarized in Table 4.D below. The Noise Element  also states that no project shall emit noise past the property line so as to create a noise level  increase of more than 5 dBA over the ambient noise level.   Table 4.D: Maximum Allowable Noise Levels from  Construction Equipment  Equipment Peak Noise Level in dBA at 50 Feet  Earthmoving Front loader 75   Backhoes 75   Dozers  75   Tractors 75   Scrapers 80   Graders 75   Truck 75   Paver  80  Materials Handling Concrete Mixer 75   Concrete Pump 75   Crane 75   Derrick 75  Stationary Pumps 75   Generators 75   Compressors 75  Impact Pile Drivers 95   Jackhammers 75   Rock Drills  80   Pneumatic tools 80  Other Saws 75   Vibrators  75  Source: City of Burlingame (1975).     40  Burlingame, City of, 1975. City of Burlingame General Plan, Noise Element. September 15.   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐43 The Noise Element also sets noise exposure land use compatibility standards, as shown in Table 4.E  below.  Table 4.E: Planning Criteria – Maximum Outdoor Noise Levels (dBA)  Land Use Categories CNEL  Public, Quasi‐Public, and Residential:  Schools, Hospitals, Libraries, Auditoriums, Intensively Used Parks and Playgrounds, Public Buildings, Single  Family Home, Multiple Family Apartments and Condominiums, Mobile Home Parks   60  Passively‐Used Open Space:  Wilderness‐Type Parks, Nature or Contemplation Areas of Public Parks 45  Commercial:  Shopping Centers, Self‐Generative Business, Commercial Districts, Offices, Banks, Clinics, Hotels and Motels 65  Industrial:  Non‐Manufacturing Industry, Transportation, Communications, Utilities, Manufacturing 75  Source: City of Burlingame (1975).   Note: These criteria may be invoked for the following purposes:  a To determine the suitability of development on lands considered as receptors to which the standards apply; and   b To determine the suitability of building types and proposed construction materials to be applied on the site.    The Building Construction Section of the Municipal Code establishes permissible hours for  construction in the City of Burlingame.41 Chapter 18.07.110 states that no person shall erect,  demolish, alter, or repair any building or structure other than between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and  7:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No person shall erect (including  excavation and grading), demolish, alter, or repair any building or structure on Sundays or holidays.  In addition, Chapter 10.40.039 limits loading/unloading activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m.  and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on  Saturdays and Sundays if they would result in a noise disturbance across a residential real property  line.  Certain land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others. Examples of these land uses  include residential areas, educational facilities, hospitals, childcare facilities, and senior housing. A  portion of Washington Park and the lands of the former Gunst Estate are immediately north of the  project site. are Single‐family residential units and US 101 are further north of the project site. The  project site is bounded to the east by single‐family residential uses, which also make up the land  uses further east. Burlingame Avenue bounds the project site to the south, with single‐ and multi‐ family residential uses, as well as institutional uses, including Washington Elementary School. The  Burlingame Lions Club and Washington Park bound the project site to the west. Further west is  Burlingame High School, the Burlingame Aquatic Club, and the Burlingame Caltrain Station and  tracks. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site include the single‐ family residences  located immediately east of the project site, along Burlingame Avenue and Concord Way.  41  Burlingame, City of, 2018. Burlingame Municipal Code. May.     BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐44 a. Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of  standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of  other agencies?  The following section describes how the short‐term construction and long‐term operational noise  impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant.  Short‐Term (Construction) Noise Impacts. Project construction would result in short‐term noise  impacts on the nearby sensitive receptors. Maximum construction noise would be short‐term,  generally intermittent depending on the construction phase, and variable depending on receiver  distance from the active construction zone. The duration of noise impacts generally would be from  one day to several days depending on the phase of construction. The level and types of noise  impacts that would occur during construction are described below.   Short‐term noise impacts would occur during grading and site preparation activities. Table 4.F lists  typical construction equipment noise levels (Lmax) recommended for noise impact assessments,  based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor, obtained from the  FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model. Construction‐related short‐term noise levels would be  higher than existing ambient noise levels currently in the project area but would no longer occur  once construction of the project is completed.  Table 4.F: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels  Equipment Description Acoustical Usage Factor (%) Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) at 50 Feet1  Backhoes 40 80  Compactor (ground) 20 80  Compressor 40 80  Cranes 16 85  Dozers 40 85  Dump Trucks 40 84  Excavators 40 85  Flat Bed Trucks 40 84  Forklift 20 85  Front‐end Loaders 40 80  Graders 40 85  Impact Pile Drivers 20 95  Jackhammers 20 85  Pick‐up Truck 40 55  Pneumatic Tools 50 85  Pumps 50 77  Rock Drills 20 85  Rollers 20 85  Scrapers 40 85  Tractors 40 84  Welder 40 73  Source: Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA 2006).  Note: Noise levels reported in this table are rounded to the nearest whole number.  1 Maximum noise levels were developed based on Spec 721.560 from the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) program to be  consistent with the City of Boston’s Noise Code for the “Big Dig” project.  Lmax = maximum instantaneous sound level  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐45 Two types of short‐term noise impacts could occur during construction of the proposed project. The  first type involves construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and  materials to the site, which would incrementally increase noise levels on roads leading to the site. As  shown in Table 4.F, there would be a relatively high single‐event noise exposure potential at a  maximum level of 84 dBA Lmax with trucks passing at 50 feet.   The second type of short‐term noise impact is related to noise generated during excavation, grading,  and construction on the project site. Construction is performed in discrete steps, or phases, each  with its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various  sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on site. Therefore, the noise  levels vary as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction  equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction‐ related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.  Table 4.F lists maximum noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments for typical  construction equipment, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise  receptor. Typical maximum noise levels range up to 87 dBA Lmax at 50 feet during the noisiest  construction phases. The site preparation phase, including excavation and grading of the site, tends  to generate the highest noise levels because earthmoving machinery is the noisiest construction  equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as backfillers, bulldozers,  draglines, and front loaders. Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors,  scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may  involve 1 or 2 minutes of full‐power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.  Excavation for the below ground level parking levels would take place on the eastern side of the  project site adjacent to the backyards of single‐family homes.   As shown in Table 4.F, typical construction equipment noise levels could exceed the standard  established by the City, which are shown in Table 4.D. However, construction noise would be  intermittent and sporadic as construction occurs over the 2.41‐acre site. Noise levels would  attenuate at sensitive receptors as construction activity moves further into the site due to distance  divergence factors. In addition, construction noise is permitted by the Municipal Code when  activities occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. and 6:00  p.m. on Saturdays.  As discussed above, construction noise would result in a temporary or periodic increase in ambient  noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Implementation of the  following mitigation measure for project construction would reduce potential construction period  noise impacts for the indicated sensitive receptors to less‐than‐significant levels.     BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐46 Mitigation Measure NOI‐1:  The project contractor shall implement the following best  management practice measures during construction of the project:   Equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly  operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufac‐ turers' standards.   Place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted  noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the  active project site.    Locate equipment staging in areas that would create the  greatest possible distance between construction‐related noise  sources and noise‐sensitive receptors nearest the active project  site during all project construction.   Install temporary noise barriers around stationary noise sources  (such as compressors) and locate stationary noise sources as far  from adjacent or nearby sensitive receptors as possible.   Prohibit extended idling time of internal combustion engines.    All construction equipment shall not exceed the noise levels  established in the General Plan (Table 4).    All noise producing construction activities shall be limited to  between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and  9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays.   Designate a "disturbance coordinator" at the City of Burlingame  who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints  about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would  determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too  early, bad muffler) and would determine and implement  reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem.   Operational Noise Impacts. The project would generate long‐term noise impacts from both traffic  and stationary noise sources, as discussed below.    Traffic Noise Impacts. Motor vehicles with their distinctive noise characteristics are the  dominant noise source in the project vicinity. The amount of noise varies according to many  factors, such as volume of traffic, vehicle mix (percentage of cars and trucks), average traffic  speed, and distance from the observer. Implementation of the proposed project would result in  new daily trips on local roadways in the project site vicinity. A characteristic of sound is that a  doubling of a noise source is required in order to result in a perceptible (3 dBA or greater)  increase in the resulting noise level.   PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐47 As identified in the TIA, the proposed project would generate approximately 308 net new  average daily trips, with 19 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 25 trips occurring  during the PM peak hour. The adjacent Burlingame Avenue carries approximately 2,240 average  daily trips. Project trips would represent a small fraction of the overall roadway traffic volumes.  Therefore, project daily trips would not result in a doubling of traffic volumes along any roadway  segment in the project vicinity and would not result in a perceptible increase in traffic noise  levels at receptors in the project vicinity. This impact would be less than significant.   Stationary Noise Impacts. The proposed project would redevelop the Burlingame Community  Center which would include playground and site improvements and parking improvements,  which could result in an increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site with  additional parking and improved and increased outdoor play areas. Outdoor activity typically  generates maximum noise levels of 70 dBA Lmax.    The closest residential receptors are located approximately 390 feet east of the nearest outdoor  activity areas, which would provide a minimum of 38 dBA reduction in noise levels due to  distance. Therefore, maximum noise levels generated by the outdoor activity would be  approximately 32 dBA. The dominant noise source in the project vicinity is from traffic noise.  Vehicle passing on roadways result in approximately 60 dBA Lmax, while truck pass‐bys typically  generate noise levels of 80 dBA Lmax. Therefore, noise levels associated with the project,  including the outdoor active use areas would not be substantially greater than existing noise  sources. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial increases in noise at noise  sensitive land uses due to distance attenuation; therefore, this impact would be less than  significant.   In addition, with the increase in daily vehicle trips, use of the parking lot would intensify.  Implementation of the proposed project would include a surface parking lot and a below‐ground  level parking garage in the eastern corner of the project site. The surface parking lot would  include a drop‐off area adjacent to the new Community Center building.  Representative parking  lot activities, such as visitors conversing and slamming doors, would generate approximately 60  to 70 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. The proposed parking lot area is approximately 15 feet east of the  nearest sensitive receptors. Adjusted for distance, the nearest sensitive receptors would be  exposed to a noise level of 70 to 80 dBA Lmax generated by parking lot activities. Noise levels  associated with the surface parking lot would be higher than the below‐ground level parking  garage as the garage would shield the residences from project‐related parking lot noise. In  addition, as identified in Section 2.0, Project Description, the parking garage would also include  a vegetated sound wall along its norther border, which would reduce parking lot noise at the  nearest sensitive receptors. When averaged over a 24‐hour period, parking lot activities would  not cause an increase in noise levels of more than 3 dBA. Therefore it is not expected that the  proposed project would substantially increase noise levels over existing conditions and impacts  would be less than significant.  However, peak noise levels from loading and unloading would be intermittent and when  averaged over 30 minutes, these sources would not exceed the Municipal Code standard.  Additionally, when averaged over the 24‐hour period, noise would not cause an increase in  noise levels of more than 3 dBA. Therefore it is not expected that the proposed project would    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐48 substantially increase noise levels over existing conditions and impacts would be less than  significant.  b. Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne  vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  Vibration refers to groundborne noise and perceptible motion. Groundborne vibration is almost  exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors. Vibration  energy propagates from a source, through intervening soil and rock layers, to the foundations of  nearby buildings. The vibration then propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of  the structure. Building vibration may be perceived by the occupants as the motion of building  surfaces, rattling of items on shelves or hanging on walls, or as a low‐frequency rumbling noise. The  rumbling noise is caused by the vibrating walls, floors, and ceilings radiating sound waves.  Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration exceeds the threshold of perception by  10 dB or less. This is an order of magnitude below the damage threshold for normal buildings.  Typical sources of groundborne vibration are construction activities (e.g., pavement breaking and  operating heavy‐duty earthmoving equipment), and occasional traffic on rough roads. In general,  groundborne vibration from standard construction practices is only a potential issue when within 25  feet of sensitive uses. Groundborne vibration levels from construction activities very rarely reach  levels that can damage structures; however, these levels are perceptible near the active construc‐ tion site. With the exception of old buildings built prior to the 1950s or buildings of historic  significance, potential structural damage from heavy construction activities rarely occurs. When  roadways are smooth, vibration from traffic (even heavy trucks) is rarely perceptible.  The streets surrounding the project area are paved, smooth, and unlikely to cause significant  groundborne vibration. In addition, the rubber tires and suspension systems of buses and other on‐ road vehicles make it unusual for on‐road vehicles to cause groundborne noise or vibration  problems. It is, therefore, assumed that no such vehicular vibration impacts would occur and,  therefore, no vibration impact analysis of on‐road vehicles is necessary. Additionally, once  constructed, the proposed project would not contain uses that would generate groundborne  vibration. This impact would be less than significant.  c. Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the  project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  As discussed above, audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dB or more, as  this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments.  Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial increases in traffic noise  levels on local roadways in the project vicinity or operational noise at sensitive receptor locations.  Therefore, project‐related noise increases would be less than significant.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐49 d. Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in  the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Less‐Than‐Significant with  Mitigation)  Although there would be temporary high intermittent construction noise at times in the project area  during project construction, construction of the proposed project would not significantly affect land  uses adjacent to the project site. In addition, construction of the project would comply with the  hourly limits specified by the City, as required by Mitigation Measure NOI‐1. Therefore, the project  would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels.  e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,  within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing  or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact)  The project area is not located within an airport land use plan, or within 2 miles of a public airport or  public use airport. The closest airport to the project site is San Francisco International Airport,  located approximately 2.2 miles north of the project site. In addition, the Oakland International  Airport is located approximately 10.8 miles northeast of the project site and the San Jose  International Airport is located approximately 26.3 miles south of the project site. Although aircraft‐ related noise is occasionally audible on the project site, the site does not lie within an airport land  use plan area or within the 60 dBA Ldn noise contours of any of these public airports or private  airfields. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the  project area to excessive noise levels due to the proximity of a public airport.  f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or  working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact)  The project is not located within 2 miles of a public or public use airport and would not expose  future site users to excessive noise levels.   4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either  directly (for example, by proposing new homes and  businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of  roads or other infrastructure)?   b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,  necessitating the construction of replacement housing  elsewhere?   c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the  construction of replacement housing elsewhere?      BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐50 4.13.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example,  by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads  or other infrastructure)? (No Impact)  The proposed project would be undertaken to provide the residents of the City with a new and  updated community center and improved park facilities and parking. The proposed project does not  include residential units and would not directly induce population growth on the project site. The  new community center would include similar staffing levels to the existing community center, and  therefore would not indirectly induce substantial population growth. Therefore, the proposed  project would have no impact related to population growth.  b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the  construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact)  The project site is currently developed with park uses and City buildings, which does not include any  residential units. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the displacement of  existing housing. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to the displacement  of homes.  c. Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of  replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact)  Refer to Section 4.13.1.b. The proposed project would have no impact related to displacement of  people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.  4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated  with the provision of new or physically altered governmental  facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental  facilities, the construction of which could cause significant  environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable  service ratios, response times or other performance  objectives for any of the public services:  i. Fire protection?  ii. Police protection?  iii. Schools?  iv. Parks?  v. Other public facilities?    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐51 4.14.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision  of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered  governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,  in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives  for any of the public services:  i. Fire protection?; ii. Police protection?; iii. Schools?; iv. Parks?; v.  Other public facilities? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The following section addresses the proposed project’s potential effects on: fire service, police  service, schools, parks, and other public facilities. Impacts to public services would occur if the  proposed project increases demand for services such that new or expanded facilities would be  required, and construction or operation of these new facilities would cause environmental impacts.  Fire Protection. The Central County Fire Department (CCFD) provides fire protection and emergency  medical services to the project site. The CCFD continuously operates six fire stations, including six  fire engines and one ladder truck. The CCFD responds to approximately 5,000 calls for service on an  annual basis.42 Primary service to the project site would be provided by Fire Station 34, which is  located at 799 California Drive, approximately 0.7 miles east of the project site. Fire Station 34  houses both an Engine Company and the Truck Company. Currently, the CCFD is staffed with 76  sworn firefighters and 9.95 full‐time equivalent (FTE) civilian staff.  The proposed project would result in an increase in the daytime population of the project site and  incrementally increase the demand for emergency fire service and emergency medical services  compared to existing conditions. However, the proposed project would be required to comply with  all applicable codes for fire safety and emergency access. In addition, the CCFD would also review  the project site plans to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided prior to issuance of  building permits.  The CCFD would continue providing services to the project site and would not require additional  firefighters to serve the proposed project. The construction of a new or expanded fire station would  not be required. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact on the physical  environment due to the incremental increase in demand for fire protection and life safety services,  and the potential increase in demand for services is not expected to adversely affect existing  responses times to the site or within the City. Therefore, construction and operation of the  proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact on fire protection and safety services  and facilities.  Police Protection. The Burlingame Police Department (BPD) provides police protection to the  project site. The BPD headquarters are located at 1111 Trousdale Drive, approximately 2.7 miles  northwest of the project site. BPD currently employs 37 sworn police officers and 25 civilian staff.43  The proposed project would result in an increase in daytime population on the project site and  42  Central County Fire Department, 2018. CCFD Overview. Website: www.ccfdonline.org/about‐ccfd/ccfd‐ overview (accessed June 26, 2018).  43  Burlingame Police Department, 2018. About Us. Website: www.burlingame.org/departments/ police_department/about_us.php (accessed June 26, 2018).    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐52 incrementally increase demand for emergency police services to the project site compared to  existing conditions. However, BPD would continue to provide services to the project site and would  not require additional officers to serve the project site. The construction of new or expanded police  facilities would not be required. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial  adverse impact associated with the provision of additional police facilities or services, and impacts  to police services represent a less‐than‐significant impact.  Schools. The proposed project does not include the construction of any new residential uses. As  described in Section 4.13, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not substantially  induce housing or population growth, either directly or indirectly, within the City. Therefore, the  proposed project would not result in an increase in the number of school‐age children in the area.  As such, the proposed project would not increase demand for schools and no impact would occur.  Parks. The project site is located within the existing Washington Park, which includes tennis courts,  a children’s playground, and baseball facilities, among other amenities. As a part of the proposed  project, improvements would be made to Washington Park, including updating the children’s  playground and moving it further away from Burlingame Avenue, and updating the basketball court.  Portions of Washington Park would be inaccessible during construction of the proposed project,  therefore increasing demand for other nearby parks. However, this impact would be temporary in  nature and would subside after construction of the proposed project is complete. Therefore, the  proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to the provision of park facilities.  Other Public Facilities. The project site includes the existing Burlingame Community Center. During  construction of the proposed project, the existing Community Center would be inaccessible to  residents of the City. However, this impact would be temporary in nature and would subside after  construction of the proposed project is complete. Once complete, the proposed project would result  in a larger community center with more capacity to serve users. Therefore, the proposed project  would reduce demand at other public facilities, and this impact would be less‐than‐significant.  4.15 RECREATION    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood  and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that  substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur  or be accelerated?  b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the  construction or expansion of recreational facilities which  might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐53 4.15.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other  recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be  accelerated?  Refer to Section 4.14.1.a. The proposed project would temporarily increase use at other parks  during the construction period; however, this impact would be temporary in nature and would  subside after construction of the proposed project is complete. Additionally, improvements made to  Washington Park as a part of the proposed project may decrease use at other parks once the project  is completed. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact on existing  parks.   b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of  recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?  Refer to Section 4.14.1.a and 4.15.1.a. The proposed project would have a minor beneficial impact  on existing recreation facilities, and this impact would be less‐than‐significant.  4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy  establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance  of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of  transportation including mass transit and non‐motorized  travel and relevant components of the circulation system,  including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways  and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass  transit?  b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management  program, including, but not limited to level of service  standards and travel demand measures, or other standards  established by the county congestion management agency  for designated roads or highways?  c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an  increase in traffic levels or a change in location which results  in substantial safety risks?  d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,  sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible  uses (e.g., farm equipment)?  e. Result in inadequate emergency access?  f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding  public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise  decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?      BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐54 The following section is based on information provided in the Transportation Impact Analysis44 (TIA)  prepared for the proposed project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, included in Appendix B.  The TIA evaluates the transportation impacts that could result from the proposed project, including  impacts associated with traffic congestion, transit services, and pedestrian and bicycle circulation.   4.16.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of  effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of  transportation including mass transit and non‐motorized travel and relevant components of the  circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,  pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  Overview. The TIA for the proposed project was conducted in accordance with the standards set  forth by the City of Burlingame and the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San  Mateo County. The C/CAG administers the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program  (CMP). Given that the project is expected to add fewer than 100 peak hour trips to nearby CMP  roadways (El Camino Real), a C/CAG trip reduction analysis was not prepared. The traffic study  includes an analysis of AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions for six (6) unsignalized intersections  in the vicinity of the project site.45 The study also includes an analysis of site access and on‐site  circulation, vehicle queuing, and transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access. Based on consultation with  the City as the Lead Agency, the following intersections were analyzed for the proposed project:  1. Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue  2. California Drive and North Lane  3. Carolan Avenue and North Lane  4. Carolan Avenue/East Lane and Burlingame Avenue  5. Myrtle Road and Burlingame Avenue  6. Anita Road and Burlingame Avenue  Traffic conditions at the study intersections were analyzed for both the weekday AM and PM peak  hours of adjacent street traffic. The AM peak hour typically occurs between 7:00 am and 9:00 am  and the PM peak hour typically occurs between 4:00 pm and 6:00 pm on a regular weekday. These  are the peak commute hours during which traffic volume is highest on the roadways in the study  area.   44  Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2018, op. cit.  45  Intersections along Rollins Road and El Camino Real, as well as other intersections in the vicinity of the  project site, were not analyzed due to their distance from the project site and the small number of trips  that would be added to these intersections as a result of the proposed project.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐55 Study intersections were evaluated under five different scenarios to determine the proposed  project’s effects on level of service. These scenarios provide detailed analysis of the incremental  effects of the proposed project on traffic conditions, and allow a comparison of the traffic  anticipated to be generated by the proposed project to the amount of traffic expected to be  generated by future development. Each of the scenarios is described below.   Existing Conditions. Existing traffic volumes at the study intersections were obtained from  traffic counts conducted in May of 2017 and 2018. The study intersections were evaluated with  a level of service analysis using Synchro software in accordance with the 2010 Highway Capacity  Manual methodology.Background Conditions. Background traffic volumes reflect traffic added  by projected volumes from approved but not yet completed developments in the project area.  The approved project trips and/or approved project information were obtained from recent  traffic studies in the City of Burlingame.   Existing plus Project Conditions. Existing traffic volumes with the project were estimated by  adding to existing traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. Existing plus  Project conditions were evaluated relative to Existing Conditions in order to determine the  effects the project would have on the existing roadway network.   Project Conditions. Background traffic volumes with the project (hereafter called project traffic  volumes) were estimated by adding to background traffic volumes the additional traffic  generated by the project. Project Conditions were evaluated relative to background conditions  to determine potential project impacts.   Cumulative Conditions. Cumulative traffic volumes represent traffic growth through the year  2028. Cumulative traffic volumes were estimated by applying an annual growth factor of 1.0  percent to the existing volumes, then adding trips from approved developments, as well as  project‐generated traffic. Cumulative plus Project conditions were evaluated relative to  cumulative no project conditions to determine potential project impacts.    Analysis Methodology. Traffic conditions within the study area are assessed through the evaluation  of intersection Levels of Service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of operating conditions  ranging from LOS A, or free‐flowing conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions  with excessive delays.  Level of service analysis at unsignalized intersections is generally used to determine the need for  modification in the type of intersection control (i.e., all‐way stop or signalization). As part of the  evaluation, traffic volumes, delays and traffic signal warrants are evaluated to determine if the  existing intersection control is appropriate.  The City of Burlingame evaluates intersection level of service based on the Highway Capacity Manual  (HCM) 2010 method using Synchro software.46 This method is applicable for both side‐street and all‐ 46  The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) does not support intersections with three stop or yield‐ controlled approaches and one free‐flowing approach. Intersections with these features were evaluated  as an all‐way stop control intersection to provide a conservative level of service analysis.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐56 way stop‐controlled intersections. At side‐street stop‐controlled intersections (e.g., the Myrtle  Road/Burlingame Avenue and Anita Road/Burlingame Avenue intersections), the levels of service  reported are for the worst stop‐controlled approach delay. For all‐way stop‐controlled intersections  (e.g., the Carolan Avenue/Oak Grove Avenue, Carolan Avenue/North Lane, and the Carolan  Avenue/Burlingame Avenue intersections), a weighted average delay of the entire intersection is  presented.  The City of Burlingame does not have a formally‐adopted level of service standard for unsignalized  intersections. While the City of Burlingame does not have a Council‐adopted level of service  threshold for unsignalized intersections, a standard of LOS D or better has typically been applied in  local traffic studies and EIRs. The correlation between average control delay and LOS for  unsignalized intersections is shown in Table 4.G.  Table 4.G: Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay  Level of Service Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle  (sec.)  A Little or no traffic delay Up to 10.0  B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0  C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0  D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0  E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0  F Extreme traffic delays Greater than 50.0  Source: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2010).  As previously mentioned, the City of Burlingame does not have any Council‐adopted definitions of  significant traffic impacts. Standards that have been typically used in traffic studies and EIRs are  described below. The project is said to create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at an  unsignalized intersection if for any peak‐hour:  1. The level of service at the intersection (or movement/approach at side‐street stop controls)  degrades from an acceptable LOS D to an unacceptable LOS E or F and causes the intersection to  meet the peak hour signal warrant; or  2. The level of service at the intersection is an unacceptable LOS E, or F and the addition of project  trips causes the intersection to meet the peak hour signal warrant and the intersection (or  movement/approach at side‐street stop controls) to increase by five (5) or more seconds.  A significant impact typically is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented  that would restore intersection level of service to insignificant conditions or better.  Project Trip Estimates. The amount of traffic produced by a new development and the locations  where that traffic would appear were estimated using a three‐step process: (1) trip generation;  (2) trip distribution; and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude  of traffic traveling to and from the proposed community center was estimated for the AM and PM  peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, the directions to and from which the project trips  would travel were estimated.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐57 Project trip generation was estimated by applying to the size and uses of the development the  appropriate trip generation rates obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip  Generation Manual, 10th Edition.47 The average trip generation rates for Recreational Community  Center (Land Use 495) were applied to the project. The ITE trip rates reflect between 10 and 13  surveyed recreational community center locations during peak hours and comprise building sizes  ranging from 30,000 square feet to 350,000 square feet. The project as proposed would replace the  existing 25,000‐square‐foot recreation center with a new 35,700‐square‐foot community center.  Based on ITE trip generation rates for Land Use 495, the project would generate 308 new daily  vehicle trips, with 19 new trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 25 new trips occurring during  the PM peak hour, as shown in Table 4.H.   Table 4.H: Project Trip Generation Estimates    Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour  Land Use Size Rate Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total  Proposed Uses             Burlingame Community Center1 35.7 ksf 28.82 1,029 1.76 41 22 63 2.31 39 43 82  Existing Uses             Recreation Center1 25.0 ksf 28.82 (721) 1.76 (29) (15) (44) 2.31 (27) (31) (58)  Net Project Trips    308  12 7 19  12 13 25  Source: Draft Transportation Impact Analysis (Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2018)  1 Recreational Community Center (Land Use 495) average rates published in ITE’s Trip Generation Manual, 106y Edition, 2017.  ksf = 1,000 square feet    The trip distribution pattern, shown in Figure 4‐1, for the project was developed based on existing  travel patterns on the surrounding roadway system and the locations of complementary land uses.  The peak hour vehicle trips generated by the project were assigned to the roadway network in  accordance with the trip distribution pattern.  Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions. Existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4‐2 and  the result of the intersection LOS analysis under Existing Conditions are shown in Table 4.I. As shown  in Table 4.I, all intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS.  47  Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2018. Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. March.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐58 Existing plus Project traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4‐3and the results of the intersection LOS  analysis under Existing plus Project Conditions are shown in Table 4.I. As shown in Table 4.I, all of  the study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak  hours. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on the operations of  any study area intersections under Existing plus Project Conditions.  Table 4.I: Existing Plus Project Level of Service Summary      No Project With Project  Study  Number Intersection Traffic  Control  Peak  Hour  Avg. Delay  (sec) LOS Avg. Delay  (sec) LOS  1 Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue1 AWSC2 AM 14.0 B 14.1 B  PM 12.1 B 12.1 B  2 California Drive and North Lane SSSC3 AM 21.2 C 21.8 C  PM 29.1 D 29.7 D  3 Carolan Avenue and North Lane1 AWSC2 AM 10.2 B 10.2 B  PM 8.9 A 8.9 A  4 Carolan Avenue/East Lane and  Burlingame Avenue1 AWSC2 AM 8.3 A 8.4 A  PM 8.6 A 8.7 A  5 Myrtle Road and Burlingame Avenue SSSC3 AM 10.4 B 10.5 B  PM 10.6 B 10.8 B  6 Anita Road and Burlingame Avenue SSSC3 AM 7.8 A 7.8 A  PM 7.7 A 7.7 A  Source: Draft Transportation Impact Analysis (Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2018)  1 Due to limitations within the Synchro software, three of the intersections along Carolan Avenue (Oak Grove Avenue, North Lane,  and Burlingame Avenue) cannot be evaluated with three stop or yield‐controlled approaches and one free‐flowing approach.  Therefore, the study intersections were evaluated as an all‐way stop control intersection to provide a conservative level of service  analysis.  2 Average delay for an all‐way stop controlled intersection is reported for the entire intersection.  3 Average delay for a side‐street stop controlled intersection is reported for the worst stop‐controlled approach.  AWSC = All‐Way Stop Control  sec = seconds  LOS = level of service+  SSSC = Side‐Street Stop Control  Background and Background Plus Project Conditions. The results of the intersection LOS analysis  under Background Conditions are shown in Table 4.J. As shown in Table 4.J, all intersections  currently operate at an acceptable LOS.  Background plus Project traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4‐4 and the results of the intersection  LOS analysis under Background plus Project Conditions are shown in Table 4.J. As shown in Table 4.J,  all of the study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM  peak hours. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on the  operations of any study area intersections under Background plus Project Conditions.  California DrHoward AveDwight RdBloomfield RdCarolan AveBayswater AveAnita RdBurlingame AveOak Grove AveClarendon RdLorton AveBellevue AveArundel RdStanley RdMyrtle RdPrimrose RdPark RdFloribunda AveHighland AvePlymouth WayChapin AveHatch LnConcord WayDouglas AveDonnelly AveChatham RdEl Camino RealAnsel RdPeninsula AveBurlingame AveNorth LnNorthLnSouth LnSouthLnNorth LnSouth Ln14325625%15%15%15%10%10%10%LEGEND= Study Intersection= Site LocationXNOT TO SCALEFIGURE 4-1SOURCE: HEXAGON, JUNE 2018.I:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Center\figures\Fig_4.16-1.ai (7/17/18)Burlingame Community Center Master Plan ProjectProject Trip DistribuƟon California DrHoward AveDwight RdBloomfield RdCarolan AveBayswater AveAnita RdBurlingame AveOak Grove AveClarendon RdLorton AveBellevue AveArundel RdStanley RdMyrtle RdPrimros e RdPark RdFloribunda AveHighland AvePlymouth WayChapin AveHatch LnConcord WayDouglas AveDonnelly AveChatham RdEl Camino RealAnsel RdPeninsula AveBurlingame AveNorth LnNorth LnSouth LnSouth LnNorth LnSouth Ln143256CarolanAveMyrtleRdEastLnLnNorthAveAveGroveOakCarolanAveBurlingameAnitaRdAveBurlingame432156NorthLnBurlingameAveCarolanAveTennisCourtDwy70(34)69(82)23(41)12(19)101(101)171(179)11(22)146(133)7(20)298(208)144(126)123(46)689(833)164(86)174(111)554(676)33(45)144(94)64(98)127(96)11(8)2(3)118(129)125(68)207(51)28(6)86(121)16(33)9(5)16(13)0(1)1(2)12(5)115(87)12(17)23(28)105(121)19(23)3(2)65(59)107(145)92(107)19(20)125(126)40(23)19(11)31(22)102(85)3(1)92(106)25(32)9(5)15(5)10(11)1(2)2(4)CaliforniaDrLEGEND= Site Location= Study Intersection= AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX)XNOT TO SCALEFIGURE 4-2SOURCE: HEXAGON, JUNE 2018.I:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Center\figures\Fig_4.16-2.ai (7/17/18)Burlingame Community Center Master Plan ProjectExisƟng Traffic Volumes California DrHoward AveDwight RdBloomfield RdCarolan AveBayswater AveAnita RdBurlingame AveOak Grove AveClarendon RdLorton AveBellevue AveArundel RdStanley RdMyrtle RdPrimrose RdPark RdFloribunda AveHighland AvePlymouth WayChapin AveHatch LnConcord WayDouglas AveDonnelly AveChatham RdEl Camino RealAnsel RdPeninsula AveBurlingame AveNorth LnNorthLnSouth LnSouthLnNorth LnSouth Ln143256CarolanAveMyrtleRdEastLnLnNorthAveAveGroveOakCarolanAveBurlingameAnitaRdAveBurlingame432156NorthLnBurlingameAveCarolanAveTennisCourtDwy70(34)70(84)24(43)12(19)103(103)171(179)13(24)146(133)7(20)298(208)144(126)123(46)689(833)165(87)176(113)554(676)34(46)145(96)66(101)129(100)11(8)2(3)122(133)125(68)207(51)28(6)89(124)16(33)10(6)17(14)0(1)0(1)1(2)12(5)115(88)12(17)29(34)105(121)19(23)3(2)65(59)114(152)92(107)19(20)129(133)40(23)20(12)32(23)102(86)3(1)93(107)25(32)9(5)15(5)10(11)1(2)2(4)CaliforniaDrLEGEND= Site Location= Study Intersection= AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX)XNOT TO SCALEFIGURE 4-3SOURCE: HEXAGON, JUNE 2018.I:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Center\figures\Fig_4.16-3.ai (7/17/18)Burlingame Community Center Master Plan ProjectExisƟng Plus Project Traffic Volumes California DrHoward AveDwight RdBloomfield RdCarolan AveBayswater AveAnita RdBurlingame AveOak Grove AveClarendon RdLorton AveBellevue AveArundel RdStanley RdMyrtle RdPrimrose RdPark RdFloribunda AveHighland AvePlymouth WayChapin AveHatch LnConcord WayDouglas AveDonnelly AveChatham RdEl Camino RealAnsel RdPeninsula AveBurlingame AveNorth LnNorthLnSouth LnSouthLnNorth LnSouth Ln143256CarolanAveMyrtleRdEastLnLnNorthAveAveGroveOakCaliforniaDrCarolanAveBurlingameAnitaRdAveBurlingame432156NorthLnBurlingameAveCarolanAveTennisCourtDwy70(34)70(84)24(45)12(19)103(103)176(181)13(24)146(133)7(20)299(211)144(126)123(46)695(861)165(87)176(113)581(683)34(46)145(96)66(101)129(100)11(8)2(3)122(133)125(68)207(51)28(6)89(124)16(33)10(6)17(14)0(1)0(1)1(2)12(5)115(88)12(17)29(34)105(121)19(23)3(2)65(59)114(152)92(107)19(20)129(133)40(23)20(12)32(23)102(86)3(1)93(107)25(32)9(5)15(5)10(11)1(2)2(4)LEGEND= Site Location= Study Intersection= AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX)XNOT TO SCALEFIGURE 4-4SOURCE: HEXAGON, JUNE 2018.I:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Center\figures\Fig_4.16-4.ai (7/17/18)Burlingame Community Center Master Plan ProjectBackground Plus Project Traffic Volumes PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐63 Table 4.J: Background Plus Project Level of Service Summary      No Project With Project  Study  Number Intersection Traffic  Control  Peak  Hour  Avg. Delay  (sec) LOS Avg. Delay  (sec) LOS  1 Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue1 AWSC2 AM 14.1 B 14.2 B  PM 12.1 B 12.2 B  2 California Drive and North Lane SSSC3 AM 21.8 C 22.3 C  PM 30.7 D 31.5 D  3 Carolan Avenue and North Lane1 AWSC2 AM 10.2 B 10.2 B  PM 8.9 A 8.9 A  4 Carolan Avenue/East Lane and  Burlingame Avenue1 AWSC2 AM 8.3 A 8.4 A  PM 8.6 A 8.7 A  5 Myrtle Road and Burlingame Avenue SSSC3 AM 10.4 B 10.5 B  PM 10.6 B 10.8 B  6 Anita Road and Burlingame Avenue SSSC3 AM 7.8 A 7.8 A  PM 7.7 A 7.7 A  Source: Draft Transportation Impact Analysis (Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2018)  1 Due to limitations within the Synchro software, three of the intersections along Carolan Avenue (Oak Grove Avenue, North Lane,  and Burlingame Avenue) cannot be evaluated with three stop or yield‐controlled approaches and one free‐flowing approach.  Therefore, the study intersections were evaluated as an all‐way stop control intersection to provide a conservative level of service  analysis.  2 Average delay for an all‐way stop controlled intersection is reported for the entire intersection.  3 Average delay for a side‐street stop controlled intersection is reported for the worst stop‐controlled approach.  AWSC = All‐Way Stop Control  sec = seconds  LOS = level of service+  SSSC = Side‐Street Stop Control    Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. The results of the intersection LOS analysis  under Cumulative Conditions are shown in Table 4.K. As shown in Table 4.K, all intersections  currently operate at an acceptable LOS, with the exception of California Drive and North Lane, which  would operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour.  Cumulative plus Project traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4‐5 and the results of the intersection  LOS analysis under Cumulative plus Project Conditions are shown in Table 4.K. As shown in Table  4.K, all of the study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and  PM peak hours, with the exception of California Drive and North Lane, which would continue to  operate at LOS E. However, the addition of project traffic would not create a significant impact at  this intersection because the increase to the stop‐controlled delay per vehicle would be less than  the standard threshold of 5 seconds. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a  significant impact on the operations of any study area intersections under Cumulative plus Project  Conditions.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐64 Table 4.K: Cumulative Level of Service Summary      No Project With Project  Study  Number Intersection Traffic  Control  Peak  Hour  Avg. Delay  (sec) LOS Avg. Delay  (sec) LOS  1 Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue1 AWSC2 AM 16.4 C 16.5 C  PM 13.2 B 13.3 B  2 California Drive and North Lane SSSC3 AM 28.3 D 29.6 D  PM 46.5 E 49.2 E  3 Carolan Avenue and North Lane1 AWSC2 AM 10.8 B 10.9 B  PM 9.1 A 9.2 A  4 Carolan Avenue/East Lane and  Burlingame Avenue1 AWSC2 AM 8.5 A 8.6 A  PM 9.0 A 9.0 A  5 Myrtle Road and Burlingame Avenue SSSC3 AM 10.6 B 10.7 B  PM 11.0 B 11.1 B  6 Anita Road and Burlingame Avenue SSSC3 AM 7.9 A 8.0 A  PM 7.8 A 7.8 A  Source: Draft Transportation Impact Analysis (Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2018)  1 Due to limitations within the Synchro software, three of the intersections along Carolan Avenue (Oak Grove Avenue, North Lane, and  Burlingame Avenue) cannot be evaluated with three stop or yield‐controlled approaches and one free‐flowing approach. Therefore,  the study intersections were evaluated as an all‐way stop control intersection to provide a conservative level of service analysis.  2 Average delay for an all‐way stop controlled intersection is reported for the entire intersection.  3 Average delay for a side‐street stop controlled intersection is reported for the worst stop‐controlled approach.  AWSC = All‐Way Stop Control  sec = seconds  LOS = level of service+  SSSC = Side‐Street Stop Control  BOLD indicates a substandard level of service.    b. Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but  not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards  established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?  (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The C/CAG administers the CMP of San Mateo County. Per CMP technical guidelines, all new  developments estimated to add at least 100 net peak hour trips to the CMP roadway network are  required to implement Travel Demand Management (TDM) measures in accordance with the C/CAG  CMP checklist. The proposed project is expected to add fewer than 100 net peak hour vehicle trips  to the CMP roadway network. Additionally, there are no CMP intersections located within the  vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable  CMP or other standards set forth by the C/CAG, and this impact would be less than significant.  c. Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic  levels or a change in location which results in substantial safety risks? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The San Francisco International Airport is the closest airport to the project site, located approxi‐ mately 2.5 miles to the north. As noted in Section 4.8.1.e, the proposed project would not result in a  change in air traffic levels or a change in location which result in substantial risks, and there would  be a less‐than‐significant impact.  California DrHoward AveDwight RdBloomfield RdCarolan AveBayswater AveAnita RdBurlingame AveOak Grove AveClarendon RdLorton AveBellevue AveArundel RdStanley RdMyrtle RdPrimrose RdPark RdFloribunda AveHighland AvePlymouth WayChapin AveHatch LnConcord WayDouglas AveDonnelly AveChatham RdEl Camino RealAnsel RdPeninsula AveBurlingame AveNorth LnNorthLnSouth LnSouthLnNorth LnSouth Ln143256CaliforniaDrLEGEND= Site Location= Study Intersection= AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX)XNOT TO SCALEFIGURE 4-5SOURCE: HEXAGON, JUNE 2018.I:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Center\figures\Fig_4.16-5.ai (7/17/18)Burlingame Community Center Master Plan ProjectCumulaƟve Plus Project Traffic Volumes   BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐66 This page intentionally left blank     PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐67 d. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or  dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Less‐Than‐Significant  Impact)  Vehicle queuing, site access, and on‐site circulation issues that could contribute to hazardous  conditions are discussed below. As discussed, these impacts would be less than significant.  Site Access and Vehicle Queuing. The proposed project would replace two of the existing partial‐ access driveways, east of the Anita Road/Burlingame Avenue intersection, with a single full‐access  driveway. The project as proposed would provide a width of 18 feet for the proposed driveway that  would provide access to the surface parking area and the subterranean parking garage adjacent to  the building. The City of Burlingame Zoning Code requires a minimum of either two 12‐foot  driveways or one 18‐foot driveway for parking areas of more than 30 vehicle spaces. Therefore, the  project site plan would conform to the City’s minimum width requirement for a two‐way driveway.  The location of the project driveway was also reviewed with respect to other driveways in the  vicinity of the project site. Nearby driveways are located across from and approximately 50 feet  west of the exit‐only driveway of the City‐owned parking Lot X on Burlingame Avenue. Similarly,  nearby residential driveways and an alleyway are located across from the proposed driveway  leading to the parking area adjacent to the community center building. While both project  driveways would be close in proximity to the neighboring driveways, vehicles are still expected to be  able to make turns in and out of the project driveway without affecting similar operations at the  adjacent driveways due to the low traffic volumes and speed along Burlingame Avenue. Therefore,  the driveway location as proposed was found to be adequate.  There are no existing trees or visual obstructions along the project frontage that could obscure sight  distance at the project driveway. The project access points should be free and clear of any  obstructions to provide adequate sight distance, thereby ensuring that exiting vehicles can see  pedestrians on the sidewalk and vehicles and bicycles traveling on Burlingame Avenue. Any  landscaping and signage should be located in such a way to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers  exiting the site.  Adequate sight distance (sight distance triangles) should be provided at the project driveway in  accordance with Caltrans standards. Sight distance triangles should be measured approximately 10  feet back from the traveled way. Providing the appropriate sight distance reduces the likelihood of a  collision at a driveway or intersection and provides drivers with the ability to exit a driveway or  locate sufficient gaps in traffic. The minimum acceptable sight distance is often considered the  Caltrans stopping sight distance. Sight distance requirements vary depending on the roadway  speeds. For driveways on Burlingame Avenue, which has a posted speed limit of 25 mph, the  Caltrans stopping sight distance is 200 feet (based on a design speed of 30 mph). Thus, a driver must  be able to see 200 feet in both directions along Burlingame Avenue in order to stop and avoid a  collision. Based on the project site plan, it can be concluded that the project driveways would meet  the Caltrans stopping sight distance standards.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐68 The project‐generated gross trips that are estimated to occur at the project driveway are 41  inbound trips and 22 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and 39 inbound trips and 43  outbound trips during the PM peak hour. Based on the relatively low traffic volumes near the  project site and observations of existing traffic operations along Burlingame Avenue, vehicle queues  should rarely exceed 1 or 2 vehicles in length during the peak hours.  The project driveway adjacent to the community center building would provide full‐access, allowing  right and left inbound and outbound turns to and from Burlingame Avenue. Outbound left turns  from the project driveway would require vehicles to wait for gaps in traffic in both the eastbound  and westbound directions, while inbound left turns would require vehicles to wait for a gap in the  westbound traffic flow only. Given that Burlingame Avenue consists of only one lane in each  direction with no left‐turn pockets, inbound left turns at the project driveway would be made from  the through lane. Thus, there would be interruptions to the through traffic flow while left‐turn  vehicles wait for a gap in the on‐coming traffic flow, albeit momentary. Driveways at the City‐owned  parking lot would operate similarly, except the partial‐access driveway, which only allows right and  left outbound turns.  A level of service analysis was conducted for left turns at the project driveways to ensure that  vehicles would operate without excessive delays or queues. Under all scenarios with project traffic,  the project driveways would operate at LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours. This  indicates that left‐turning vehicles at the project driveway would experience minor delays and are  expected to have a minimal effect on operations at the adjacent intersections.  Site Circulation. On‐site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with the City of  Burlingame Zoning Code and generally accepted traffic engineering standards. In general, the  proposed site plan would provide vehicle traffic with adequate connectivity through the parking  areas. The project would provide 90‐degree parking stalls throughout surface level parking area as  well as the parking garage. The City’s standard minimum width for two‐way drive aisles is 18 feet  wide and 24 feet wide where 90‐degree parking is provided. This allows sufficient room for vehicles  to back out of the parking spaces. Currently, the project site plan does not show the width of the  drive aisles. The project as proposed would provide 24‐foot drive aisles, which would conform to the  City’s minimum width requirement for drive aisles adjacent to 90‐degree parking.  Typical engineering standards require garage ramps to have no greater than a 20 percent grade with  transition grades of 10 percent. The garage ramp slope and transition grade are not noted on the  project plans. The proposed project would conform to typical engineering standards.  A single‐level parking structure would occupy the eastern half of the project site. Access to the  parking garage would be provided via an entrance/exit ramp located at the center of the surface  parking lot. Circulation through the surface level of the surface parking lot would allow vehicles to  adequately access the pick‐up/drop‐off area adjacent to the building entrance.  Pedestrian access between the parking structure and on‐site uses are typically provided via  elevators and stairways on each parking level. Elevators and stairways would be located along the  western edge of the lower level of the garage, providing access to the building’s main lobby. A  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐69 stairway would also be located in the southeast corner of the garage and would provide access to an  exit corridor leading to Burlingame Avenue.  The site plan shows adequate pedestrian circulation throughout the site, as well as between the site  and the surrounding pedestrian facilities. The site plan shows continuous walkways along the  northern and southern edges of the site, including a pedestrian connection that would stretch from  the western side of the project building to the existing park promenade and bike path that bisects  Washington Park. The pedestrian connection would also provide access to the community center  terraces, the proposed picnic tables, the proposed playground, and the proposed new basketball  court, adjacent to the Lions Club Hall building. In addition, the project would provide a pedestrian  plaza adjacent to the building entrance. As previously mentioned, the parking garage also includes a  few areas with elevators and stairs so that pedestrians would have convenient access to them from  any part of the garage.  Bicycle parking would be located adjacent to the designated drop‐off/pick‐up area near the building  entrance, as well as near the western building entrance on the park‐side of the building. This would  allow bicyclists to enter and leave the project site using either the existing park promenade or the  pedestrian plaza and connect to Burlingame Avenue. Providing convenient bike parking would help  create a pedestrian‐ and bicycle‐friendly environment and encourage bicycling by patrons. In  addition, the inclusion of convenient bike parking would complement the bicycle facilities in the  vicinity of the project site.  Therefore, given the reasons above, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact  related to design hazards and incompatible uses.   e. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The design, construction, and maintenance of project site access locations and on‐site roads would  be in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and would be required to meet all emergency  access standards. The CCFD would also review the proposed site plan and would provide input on  final design in relation to emergency access prior to issuance of a building permit. Also, as noted in  Section 4.16.1.am implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant increase  in the amount of traffic volume or delay experienced on the local roadway network. Therefore, the  proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact on emergency access.  f. Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit,  bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such  facilities? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The following includes a discussion of potential impacts to bicycle, pedestrian, and transit systems  within the vicinity of the project site. The proposed project would have a significant impact related  to adopted programs, plans, or policies regarding these facilities if it generated pedestrian, bicycle,  or transit travel related demand that could not be accommodated by existing facilities, or those  proposed by the project. Additionally, parking related impacts, such as insufficient parking supply to  meet demand, are not considered environmental impacts under CEQA. Therefore, the discussion of  parking demand and supply is provided for informational purposes only.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐70 Pedestrian Facilities. Pedestrian facilities in the study area consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and  pedestrian signals at signalized intersections. The project is expected to increase the number of  pedestrians using the sidewalks and crosswalks. The project plans show existing sidewalks of  approximately 5 feet in width along the Burlingame Avenue frontage, with a 9‐foot landscaped  setback from the curb and landscaping in between the sidewalk and building facade. The overall  network of sidewalks and crosswalks in the vicinity of the project site has adequate connectivity and  provides pedestrians with safe routes to nearby destinations. The project would not remove any  pedestrian facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or policies for new pedestrian  facilities.  As previously mentioned, the project proposes to develop a pedestrian plaza adjacent to the  building entrance, as well as picnic tables, a new playground, and a new basketball court on the  park‐side of the building and adjacent to the Lions Club Hall and Washington Park. Comprised of  landscaping and benches, both the pedestrian‐centric areas would connect to the existing  pedestrian facilities along Burlingame Avenue as well as within Washington Park.  Bicycle Facilities. There are some bike facilities in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Bicycles  are also allowed on Caltrain and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). The Burlingame Station is served by  Caltrain (approximately a quarter‐mile north of the project site), while the Millbrae Station is served  by Caltrain and BART (located about 3 miles from the project site). There are bicycle racks and  bicycle lockers available at both transit stations.  Bicyclists north of the Burlingame Station could take California Drive and Carolan Avenue to  Burlingame Avenue, while cyclists traveling to the site from the Burlingame Caltrain station could  use Burlingame Avenue as a direct route to the project site. Although Burlingame Avenue is not a  designated bike route, due to its low speed limit and traffic volumes, it is conducive to bicycle travel.  The proposed project would not remove any bicycle facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted  plans or policies for new bicycle facilities.  Public Transit. The project study area is well‐served by SamTrans, Caltrain, and the Burlingame  Trolley. The study area is served directly by one limited bus route, one express bus route, and two  shuttle routes. The proposed project would generate about 63 person‐trips during the AM peak  hour and 82 person‐trips during the PM peak hour. Given the project site’s proximity to transit  services, it could be expected that a portion (10 percent) of patrons’ trips would be made by transit.  Assuming up to 10 percent of the total trips are made by transit, which translates into a maximum of  about eight new transit riders during the peak hours. There are four buses and a trolley that serve  the transit stop and Burlingame Caltrain station near the site during peak hours. This calculates to an  average of about two new transit riders per bus or trolley. It is assumed that the buses have  sufficient capacity to accommodate this minor increase in ridership.  The project would not remove any transit facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or  policies associated with new transit facilities.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐71 The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) is expected to increase service by up to six  Caltrain trains per peak hour per direction by 2020. With the proposed electrification project, it is  expected that the transit ridership at the Burlingame Station will increase. Given the nearby Caltrain  station, development of this community center project would potentially result in new transit riders,  thus reducing vehicle trips. The Burlingame Station is within walking distance (approximately 0.25  miles west of the project site). Bicycling to the site would also be a suitable option, given that  Burlingame Avenue between the Burlingame Station and the project site consists of low speed limits  and traffic volumes, which makes it conducive to bicycle travel.  Parking Supply. The project site would be required to provide a total of 143 off‐street parking  spaces. Of the required 143 parking spaces, 59 spaces are currently provided in the City‐owned  public parking Lot X, adjacent to the Lions Club Hall. Therefore, the proposed project would be  required to provide 84 new parking spaces. Per CBC Table 11B‐6, five ADA accessible spaces are  required for projects with 101 to 150 parking spaces, one of which would need to be van accessible.  The proposed project would provide a total of 84 parking spaces, with 44 spaces located within the  surface parking lot and 40 spaces located within the subterranean parking garage. The existing Lot X  contains three accessible spaces, and the proposed project would include four accessible spaces, of  which two would be van accessible. Therefore, the proposed project would meet the City’s parking  supply and adhere to the CBC accessible parking provisions.  4.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a  tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code  Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural  landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size  and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with  cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that  is:  i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of  Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical  resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section  5020.1(k)? Or  ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its  discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be  significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision  (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying  the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public  Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall  consider the significance of the resource to a California  Native American tribe.      BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐72 4.17.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural  resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural  landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred  place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:  i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local  register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? Or  ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial  evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources  Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource  Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a  California Native American tribe. (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), which became law on January 1, 2015, provides for consultation with  California Native American tribes during the CEQA environmental review process, and equates  significant impacts to “tribal cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts. Public  Resources Code (PRC) Section 21074 states that “tribal cultural resources” are:   Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a  California Native American tribe and are one of the following:   Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical  Resources.   Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of PRC Section  5020.1.   A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial  evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1.  In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall  consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.  A “historical resource” (PRC Section 21084.1), a “unique archaeological resource” (PRC Section  21083.2(g)), or a “nonunique archaeological resource” (PRC Section 21083.2 (h)) may also be a tribal  cultural resource if it is included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register.   The consultation provisions of the law require that a public agency consult with local Native  American tribes that have requested placement on that agency’s notification list for CEQA projects.  Within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete, or a decision by a public  agency to undertake a project, the lead agency must notify tribes of the opportunity to consult on  the project, should a tribe have previously requested to be on the agency’s notification list.  California Native American tribes must be recognized by the California Native American Heritage  Commission as traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site, and must have previously  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐73 requested that the lead agency notify them of projects. Tribes have 30 days following notification of  a project to request consultation with the lead agency.  The purpose of consultation is to inform the lead agency in its identification and determination of  the significance of tribal cultural resources. If a project is determined to result in a significant impact  on an identified tribal cultural resource, the consultation process must occur and conclude prior to  adoption of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, or certification of an  Environmental Impact Report (PRC Sections 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3).  Tribal Outreach and Consultation. The City sent letters describing the project and maps depicting  the project site via certified mail on August 2, 2018, to Native American contacts that had previously  requested to be contacted by the City for potential consultation pursuant to AB 52. The City did not  receive any requests for consultation during the 30‐day notification period. Therefore, the City  considers the AB 52 consultation process to be concluded.  4.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:  a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the  applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?  b. Require or result in the construction of new water or  wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing  facilities, the construction of which could cause significant  environmental effects?  c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water  drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the  construction of which could cause significant environmental  effects?  d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project  from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or  expanded entitlements needed?  e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment  provider which serves or may serve the project that it has  adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand  in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?  f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to  accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?  g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and  regulations related to solid waste?    4.18.1 Impact Analysis  a. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water  Quality Control Board? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  Wastewater service for the project site is provided by the City. The City operates and maintains the  wastewater collection system that conveys wastewater from the users to the Burlingame    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐74 Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The City’s wastewater collection system includes gravity  pipelines, lift stations, and force mains.48  Burlingame’s WWTP treatment process includes four treatment steps: 1) primary sedimentation; 2)  secondary biological treatment; 3) sodium hypochlorite disinfection, and 4) contact time in a plug  flow detention facility. Recycled wastewater undergoes an additional flocculation and clarification  treatment step. Following treatment at the Burlingame WWTP, the effluent is sent to South San  Francisco through the Burlingame‐Millbrae Central Bay Outfall system and discharged after  dechlorination into the South San Francisco Outfall.  The average dry weather flow (ADWF) of wastewater treated at the Burlingame WWTP is  approximately 3.5 million gallons per day (mgd), about 63 percent of its 5.5 mgd capacity, which  includes service to the project site.49 The proposed project would include the demolition and  redevelopment of the project site with a new community center. In total, the proposed project  would add approximately 10,700 square feet of new buildings to the project site. The proposed  project would generate additional domestic wastewater, which would be treated by the Burlingame  WWTP. Wastewater generated by the proposed project would be minimal when compared to the  average daily flow for the Burlingame WWTP and would not exceed the capacity of the Burlingame  WWTP. The increase in daytime population during operation hours that would result from the  proposed project would incrementally increase the amount of wastewater generated on the project  site. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to  wastewater treatment requirements.  b. Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment  facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant  environmental effects? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  Wastewater. Refer to Section 4.18.1.a for a discussion of wastewater treatment within the City. The  proposed project would not have a substantial effect on the Burlingame WWTP’s capacity.  Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater  treatment facilities or the expansion of existing ones.  Water Service. Burlingame’s Public Works Department operates the water distribution system,  providing water service to approximately 30,000 people through 9,000 connections. The majority of  the water supply is provided by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) via the Hetch  Hetchy reservoir. The City is represented in wholesale transactions by the Bay Area Water Supply  and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). Burlingame has a water supply assurance agreement to receive  an allotment of 5.23 mgd on annual average, or 1,909 million gallons per year. By 2035, the City is  projected to use approximately 5.22 mgd.50  48  Burlingame, City of, 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the City of Burlingame. June.  49  Burlingame, City of, 2018. Wastewater Treatment. Website: www.burlingame.org/departments/ sustainability/wastewater_treatment.php (accessed July 30, 2018).  50  Burlingame, City of, 2015. Existing Conditions Report. November.  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐75 As discussed in Section 4.18.1.d, the proposed project would not substantially increase demand for  water and would therefore not exceed the capacity of the existing water treatment facilities. The  proposed project would not require the construction of new water treatment facilities, or the  expansion of existing facilities, other than those already planned. The proposed project would  connect with the existing water service lines located within Burlingame Avenue, which are currently  being upgraded and would provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project.  Therefore, the impact of the proposed project on water infrastructure would be less‐than‐ significant.   c. Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or  expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental  effects? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The proposed project would include new connections and upgrades to existing stormwater  infrastructure on the project site. Development of the proposed project would increase impervious  surfaces on the project site. As such, the proposed project would result in an increase in stormwater  runoff. Refer to Section 4.9.1.a and 4.9.1.d for a complete discussion of stormwater drainage  facilities. Bio‐retention areas and permeable paving would be incorporated into the landscape  design to provide appropriate vegetation and water quality treatment in vegetated areas, terraces,  and parking lots. As previously noted, an SWPPP and SCP would both be required for the proposed  project, which would ensure that stormwater drainage facilities would not need to be expanded as a  result of the proposed project.  d. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing  entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Less‐Than‐ Significant Impact)  As stated above, the majority of the water supply is provided by the SFPUC via the Hetch Hetchy  reservoir. The City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) describes the existing and  planned sources of water available in the water system service area over the next 20 years, in 5‐year  increments.  The City has determined that existing water supply entitlements are sufficient to serve the City at  least through 2040 and no additional water supply entitlements are necessary. Over this time  period, the City projects population to increase by 27 percent and jobs are expected to increase by  approximately 30 percent.51 The proposed project’s incremental increase in water demand would be  included in the anticipated growth within the City. Therefore, existing water entitlements are  sufficient to serve the proposed project, and impacts related to water supply would be less‐than‐ significant.  51  Burlingame, City of, 2016, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, op. cit.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐76 e. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves  or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in  addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  Please refer to Section 4.18.1.a for a discussion of the project’s impacts to wastewater treatment.  The proposed project would result in a very minor contribution to the daily permitted capacity of  the wastewater treatment plant and would not exceed the plant’s capacity. Therefore, impacts  related to the capacity of the existing wastewater treatment plant would be less than significant.  f. Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the  project’s solid waste disposal needs? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  Solid Waste and recycling pickup and disposal in the City of Burlingame is provided by Recology San  Mateo (Recology). Solid waste, recycling, and organics collected by Recology are transported to the  Shoreway Environmental Center, which includes a transfer station and materials recovery facility.52  The Shoreway Environmental Center has a maximum daily permitted throughput of 3,000 tons per  day.53 Solid waste is then transported to the Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mountain). Ox  Mountain has a maximum daily permitted throughput of 3,598 tons per day and a remaining  capacity of 22.18 million cubic yards (CY). Ox Mountain’s estimated closure date is currently January  2034.54  On average, public/institutional uses generate 0.007 pounds per square foot of garbage per day.55  Therefore, because the proposed project would result in the addition of 10,700 square feet of  building space, the new Community Center would generate approximately 75 pounds of garbage per  day, or 0.04 tons. Therefore, the proposed project would reduce the maximum daily permitted  throughput of the Shoreway Environmental Center and Ox Mountain by 0.001 percent, each. As  noted above, Ox Mountain has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. As such the  proposed project would be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity to accommodate the project’s  waste disposal needs, and impacts associated with the disposition of solid waste would be less than  significant.   g. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid  waste? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)  The proposed project would comply with all federal, State, and local solid waste statutes and/or  regulations related to solid waste. Also refer to Section 4.18.1.f. Therefore, the proposed project  would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to solid waste regulations.  52  South Bay Recycling, n.d. Shoreway Environmental Center. Using the Facility. Website: www.sbrecycling.net/ about (accessed July 30, 2018).   53  CalRecyle, 2018. Facility/Site Summary Details: Shoreway Environmental Center (41‐AA‐0016). Website:  www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/41‐AA‐0016/Detail (accessed July 30, 2018).  54  CalRecycle, 2018. Facility/Site Summary Details: Corinda Los Trancos Landfill ( Ox Mtn) (41‐AA‐0002).  Website: www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/41‐AA‐0002/Detail (accessed July 30, 2018).  55  CalRecyle, 2018. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Website: www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Waste Characterization/General/Rates (accessed July 30, 2018).  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐77 4.19 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE    Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant with  Mitigation  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of  the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or  wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop  below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or  animal community, substantially reduce the number or  restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or  eliminate important examples of the major periods of  California history or prehistory?  b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,  but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"  means that the incremental effects of a project are  considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of  past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the  effects of probable future projects.)  c. Does the project have environmental effects which will  cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either  directly or indirectly?    4.19.1 Impact Analysis  a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially  reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below  self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce  the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important  examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Less‐Than‐Significant with  Mitigation)  Implementation of Mitigation Measures CULT‐1 through CULT‐3 would ensure that potential  impacts to cultural resources that could be uncovered during construction activities would be  reduced to a less‐than‐significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO‐1 would ensure  that potential impacts to special‐status species are reduced to a less‐than‐significant level.  Therefore, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, development of the proposed project  would not: 1) degrade the quality of the environment; 2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or  wildlife species; 3) cause a fish or wildlife species population to drop below self‐sustaining levels; 4)  threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; 5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a  rare or endangered plant or animal; or 6) eliminate important examples of the major periods of  California history.    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 4‐78 b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?  ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable  when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,  and the effects of probable future projects)? (Less‐Than‐Significant with Mitigation)  The proposed project’s impacts would be individually limited and not cumulatively considerable. The  potentially significant impacts that can be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level with implementa‐ tion of recommended mitigation measures include the topics of air quality, biological resources,  cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, and noise. For the topic of air quality, potentially  significant impacts to air quality standards would be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level with  implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐1. For the topic of biological resources, implementation  of Mitigation Measure BIO‐1 would ensure that impacts to special status‐species are reduced to a  less‐than‐significant level. For the topic of cultural resources, potentially significant impacts to  archaeological resources and paleontological resources would be reduced to less‐than‐significant  levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures CULT‐1, CULT‐2 and CULT‐3. For the topic of  hydrology and water quality, implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD‐1 and HYD‐2 would  ensure that potential water quality impacts are reduced to a less‐than‐significant level. For the topic  of noise, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI‐1 would ensure that potentially significant  impacts associated with construction noise are reduced to a less‐than‐significant level.  For the topics of aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, geology and soils, hazards and  hazardous materials, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public  services, recreation, traffic, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems, the project  would have no impacts or less‐than‐significant impacts, and therefore, the project would not  substantially contribute to any potential cumulative impacts for these topics. All environmental  impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less‐than‐ significant level through the implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this  document.  Implementation of these measures would ensure that the impacts of the project would be below  established thresholds of significance and that these impacts would not combine with the impacts of  other cumulative projects to result in a cumulatively considerable impact on the environment as a  result of project development. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.  c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on  human beings, either directly or indirectly? (No Impact)  The proposed project would not result in any environmental effects that would cause substantial  direct or indirect adverse effects to human beings.    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 5‐1 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS  LSA  Prime Consultants: Project Management and Report Production; Aesthetics; Agricultural Resources;  Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Geology and Soils; Hazards and Hazardous Materials;  Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning; Mineral Resources; Population and Housing;  Public Services; Recreation; Transportation and Circulation; Tribal Cultural Resources; Utilities and  Service Systems  157 Park Place  Pt. Richmond, CA 94801  Judith H. Malamut, AICP, Principal in Charge  Laura Lafler, Principal  Matthew Wiswell, Project Manager  Patty Linder, Graphics/Document Production  Charis Hanshaw, Document Management    Air Quality; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Noise   7086 N. Maple, Suite 104  Fresno, CA 93720  Amy Fischer, Principal, Air Quality and Noise Specialist  Cara Carlucci, Planner      BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 5‐2 This page intentionally left blank    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 6‐1 6.0 REFERENCES  Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2017. Plan Bay  Area 2040 Final Environmental Impact Report. July 16.  Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. Clean Air Plan. April 19.  Burlingame Police Department, 2018. About Us. Website: www.burlingame.org/departments/ police_department/about_us.php (accessed June 26, 2018).  Burlingame, City of, 1975. City of Burlingame General Plan, Noise Element. September 15.   Burlingame, City of, 2000. City of Burlingame General Plan Land Use Map. April.  Burlingame, City of, 2009. City of Burlingame Climate Action Plan. June.   Burlingame, City of, 2014. Burlingame Community Center Master Plan. July 7.  Burlingame, City of, 2015. City of Burlingame General Plan. As amended.  Burlingame, City of, 2015. Existing Conditions Report. November.  Burlingame, City of, 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the City of Burlingame. June.  Burlingame, City of, 2016. Burlingame General Plan: Zoning – Southeast Areas. Available online:  www.burlingame.org/document_center/Zoning/ZoningMap‐Burlingame‐SE.pdf (accessed  June 8, 2018).  Burlingame, City of, 2016. Burlingame General Plan: Zoning – Southeast Areas. Available online:  www.burlingame.org/document_center/Zoning/ZoningMap‐Burlingame‐SE.pdf (accessed  June 8, 2018).  Burlingame, City of, 2018. Burlingame Municipal Code, as amended. May.  Burlingame, City of, 2018. Wastewater Treatment. Website: www.burlingame.org/departments/ sustainability/wastewater_treatment.php (accessed July 30, 2018).  Cal Fire, 2008. San Mateo County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. November 24.  California Department of Conservation, 2012. San Mateo County Williamson Act FY 2006/2007  (map). Available online at: ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/SanMateo_06_07_WA.pdf  (accessed July 6, 2018).  California Department of Conservation, 2016. Division of Land Use Resource Protection. California  Important Farmland Finder. Website: maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF (accessed July 6,  2018).    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 6‐2 California Department of Transportation, 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Website:  www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm (accessed July 6,  2018). September 7.  California State Mining and Geology Board, 2014. Surface Mining Reclamation Act Regulations.  California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 2, Chapter 8, Subchapter 1.  California, State of, 1974. Department of Conservation. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation  – San Mateo Quadrangle. July 1.  California, State of, 2009. California Emergency Management Agency. Tsunami Inundation Map for  Emergency Planning: San Mateo Quadrangle.   California, State of, 2018. Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and  Substances Site List. Website: www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public (accessed July 24, 2018).  CalRecycle, 2018. Facility/Site Summary Details: Corinda Los Trancos Landfill ( Ox Mtn) (41‐AA‐ 0002). Website: www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/41‐AA‐0002/Detail (accessed  July 30, 2018).  CalRecyle, 2018. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Website: www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Waste Characterization/General/Rates (accessed July 30, 2018).  CalRecyle, 2018. Facility/Site Summary Details: Shoreway Environmental Center (41‐AA‐0016).  Website: www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/41‐AA‐0016/Detail (accessed July  30, 2018).  Cecil H. Wells, Jr & Associates. 2009. Partial Seismic Evaluation for City of Burlingame Recreation  Center. June.   Central County Fire Department, 2018. CCFD Overview. Website: www.ccfdonline.org/about‐ ccfd/ccfd‐overview (accessed June 26, 2018).  Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2015. Flood Insurance Rate Map San Mateo County,  California. July 16.  Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc., 2018. Burlingame’s New Community Center  Conceptual Design Executive Report. March.  Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2018. Burlingame Community Center Draft Transportation  Impact Analysis. June 27.   Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2018. Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. March.  Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2017. Web Soil Survey. Website:  websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed September 4).  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 6‐3 Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2018. GeoTracker. Website: geotracker.waterboards.ca. gov/map (accessed July 24, 2018).  RestCon Environmental, 2017. Asbestos Investigation for 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA  94010. July 3.  South Bay Recycling, n.d. Shoreway Environmental Center. Using the Facility. Website: www. sbrecycling.net/about (accessed July 30, 2018).   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2018. National Wetlands Inventory (Map). Website: www.fws.gov/ wetlands/data/Mapper.html (accessed July 26, 2018). June 25.        BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) 6‐4 This page intentionally left blank    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) A‐1 APPENDIX A    CALEEMOD OUTPUT SHEETS      BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) A‐2 This page intentionally left blank  Project Characteristics - CO2 intensity based on 5-year average (2016-2020), PG&E 2015 Land Use - Project would develop a Community Center, however Library was chosen as the closest representative land use type Construction Phase - Approximately 24-month construction schedule Demolition - The existing 25,000-square-foot community center would be demolished as part of the proposed project Vehicle Trips - Trip generation based on Burlingame Community Center Draft Transportation Impact Analysis, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., June 27, 2018 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Library 35.70 1000sqft 1.41 35,700.00 0 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 40.00 Space 0.50 16,000.00 0 Parking Lot 44.00 Space 0.50 17,600.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 5 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 64 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2024Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 328.8 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Burlingame Community Center Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 1 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 400.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 40.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 6.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 3.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/14/2021 9/28/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/16/2021 8/4/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/30/2020 11/27/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/12/2020 1/22/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/30/2021 8/31/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/4/2020 12/25/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/1/2021 9/1/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/13/2020 1/22/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/5/2020 12/26/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 9/17/2021 8/4/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/31/2020 11/28/2020 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 10.00 3.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 30.00 4.50 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.82 1.41 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.36 0.50 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.40 0.50 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 328.8 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 46.55 8.60 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.49 8.60 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 56.24 8.60 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 2 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 3 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2020 0.0646 0.6783 0.4379 8.4000e- 004 0.0321 0.0329 0.0650 9.9300e- 003 0.0306 0.0405 0.0000 74.1447 74.1447 0.0193 0.0000 74.6260 2021 0.2817 2.2821 1.9864 3.8800e- 003 0.0875 0.1083 0.1958 0.0369 0.1035 0.1404 0.0000 329.3419 329.3419 0.0572 0.0000 330.7720 2022 0.3576 1.3203 1.3114 2.5300e- 003 0.0249 0.0601 0.0849 6.7400e- 003 0.0574 0.0642 0.0000 215.4487 215.4487 0.0373 0.0000 216.3811 Maximum 0.3576 2.2821 1.9864 3.8800e- 003 0.0875 0.1083 0.1958 0.0369 0.1035 0.1404 0.0000 329.3419 329.3419 0.0572 0.0000 330.7720 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2020 0.0646 0.6783 0.4379 8.4000e- 004 0.0321 0.0329 0.0650 9.9300e- 003 0.0306 0.0405 0.0000 74.1447 74.1447 0.0193 0.0000 74.6259 2021 0.2817 2.2821 1.9864 3.8800e- 003 0.0875 0.1083 0.1958 0.0369 0.1035 0.1404 0.0000 329.3416 329.3416 0.0572 0.0000 330.7717 2022 0.3576 1.3203 1.3114 2.5300e- 003 0.0249 0.0601 0.0849 6.7400e- 003 0.0574 0.0642 0.0000 215.4485 215.4485 0.0373 0.0000 216.3809 Maximum 0.3576 2.2821 1.9864 3.8800e- 003 0.0875 0.1083 0.1958 0.0369 0.1035 0.1404 0.0000 329.3416 329.3416 0.0572 0.0000 330.7717 Mitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 4 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 10-5-2020 1-4-2021 0.7609 0.7609 2 1-5-2021 4-4-2021 0.6484 0.6484 3 4-5-2021 7-4-2021 0.6302 0.6302 4 7-5-2021 10-4-2021 0.6372 0.6372 5 10-5-2021 1-4-2022 0.6357 0.6357 6 1-5-2022 4-4-2022 0.5699 0.5699 7 4-5-2022 7-4-2022 0.5754 0.5754 8 7-5-2022 9-30-2022 0.5097 0.5097 Highest 0.7609 0.7609 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 5 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.1610 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1400e- 003 2.1400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2800e- 003 Energy 4.7600e- 003 0.0433 0.0364 2.6000e- 004 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 0.0000 92.9510 92.9510 4.9400e- 003 1.7000e- 003 93.5812 Mobile 0.0594 0.2612 0.5966 2.1600e- 003 0.1936 1.7900e- 003 0.1954 0.0520 1.6700e- 003 0.0536 0.0000 198.2914 198.2914 7.2200e- 003 0.0000 198.4718 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.6743 0.0000 6.6743 0.3944 0.0000 16.5354 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3544 1.8134 2.1678 0.0366 8.9000e- 004 3.3477 Total 0.2252 0.3045 0.6340 2.4200e- 003 0.1936 5.0800e- 003 0.1987 0.0520 4.9600e- 003 0.0569 7.0287 293.0579 300.0866 0.4432 2.5900e- 003 311.9385 Unmitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 6 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.1610 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1400e- 003 2.1400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2800e- 003 Energy 4.7600e- 003 0.0433 0.0364 2.6000e- 004 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 0.0000 92.9510 92.9510 4.9400e- 003 1.7000e- 003 93.5812 Mobile 0.0594 0.2612 0.5966 2.1600e- 003 0.1936 1.7900e- 003 0.1954 0.0520 1.6700e- 003 0.0536 0.0000 198.2914 198.2914 7.2200e- 003 0.0000 198.4718 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.6743 0.0000 6.6743 0.3944 0.0000 16.5354 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3544 1.8134 2.1678 0.0366 8.9000e- 004 3.3477 Total 0.2252 0.3045 0.6340 2.4200e- 003 0.1936 5.0800e- 003 0.1987 0.0520 4.9600e- 003 0.0569 7.0287 293.0579 300.0866 0.4432 2.5900e- 003 311.9385 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 7 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 10/5/2020 11/27/2020 5 40 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 11/28/2020 12/25/2020 5 20 3 Grading Grading 12/26/2020 1/22/2021 5 20 4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/22/2021 8/4/2022 5 400 5 Paving Paving 8/4/2022 8/31/2022 5 20 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 9/1/2022 9/28/2022 5 20 OffRoad Equipment Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 53,550; Non-Residential Outdoor: 17,850; Striped Parking Area: 2,016 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3 Acres of Paving: 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 8 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56 Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 9 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0123 0.0000 0.0123 1.8600e- 003 0.0000 1.8600e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0425 0.4189 0.2932 4.8000e- 004 0.0231 0.0231 0.0215 0.0215 0.0000 42.1353 42.1353 0.0108 0.0000 42.4061 Total 0.0425 0.4189 0.2932 4.8000e- 004 0.0123 0.0231 0.0354 1.8600e- 003 0.0215 0.0234 0.0000 42.1353 42.1353 0.0108 0.0000 42.4061 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 114.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 8 29.00 11.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 6.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 10 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4.8000e- 004 0.0167 3.3500e- 003 5.0000e- 005 9.6000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 1.0200e- 003 2.6000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 4.3683 4.3683 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 4.3740 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 8.6000e- 004 6.2000e- 004 6.3900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.0500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.0700e- 003 5.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.7999 1.7999 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.8010 Total 1.3400e- 003 0.0173 9.7400e- 003 7.0000e- 005 3.0100e- 003 6.0000e- 005 3.0900e- 003 8.1000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 8.8000e- 004 0.0000 6.1683 6.1683 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 6.1750 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0123 0.0000 0.0123 1.8600e- 003 0.0000 1.8600e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0425 0.4189 0.2931 4.8000e- 004 0.0231 0.0231 0.0215 0.0215 0.0000 42.1353 42.1353 0.0108 0.0000 42.4061 Total 0.0425 0.4189 0.2931 4.8000e- 004 0.0123 0.0231 0.0354 1.8600e- 003 0.0215 0.0234 0.0000 42.1353 42.1353 0.0108 0.0000 42.4061 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 11 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4.8000e- 004 0.0167 3.3500e- 003 5.0000e- 005 9.6000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 1.0200e- 003 2.6000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 4.3683 4.3683 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 4.3740 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 8.6000e- 004 6.2000e- 004 6.3900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.0500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.0700e- 003 5.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.7999 1.7999 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.8010 Total 1.3400e- 003 0.0173 9.7400e- 003 7.0000e- 005 3.0100e- 003 6.0000e- 005 3.0900e- 003 8.1000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 8.8000e- 004 0.0000 6.1683 6.1683 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 6.1750 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 2.3900e- 003 0.0000 2.3900e- 003 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0165 0.1992 0.1127 2.4000e- 004 7.7700e- 003 7.7700e- 003 7.1500e- 003 7.1500e- 003 0.0000 21.5266 21.5266 6.9600e- 003 0.0000 21.7007 Total 0.0165 0.1992 0.1127 2.4000e- 004 2.3900e- 003 7.7700e- 003 0.0102 2.6000e- 004 7.1500e- 003 7.4100e- 003 0.0000 21.5266 21.5266 6.9600e- 003 0.0000 21.7007 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 12 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.7000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 1.9600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 6.4000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.5538 0.5538 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5542 Total 2.7000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 1.9600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 6.4000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.5538 0.5538 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5542 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 2.3900e- 003 0.0000 2.3900e- 003 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0165 0.1992 0.1127 2.4000e- 004 7.7700e- 003 7.7700e- 003 7.1500e- 003 7.1500e- 003 0.0000 21.5266 21.5266 6.9600e- 003 0.0000 21.7007 Total 0.0165 0.1992 0.1127 2.4000e- 004 2.3900e- 003 7.7700e- 003 0.0102 2.6000e- 004 7.1500e- 003 7.4100e- 003 0.0000 21.5266 21.5266 6.9600e- 003 0.0000 21.7007 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 13 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.7000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 1.9600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 6.4000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.5538 0.5538 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5542 Total 2.7000e- 004 1.9000e- 004 1.9600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 6.4000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.5538 0.5538 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5542 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0136 0.0000 0.0136 6.7900e- 003 0.0000 6.7900e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8400e- 003 0.0427 0.0199 4.0000e- 005 1.9800e- 003 1.9800e- 003 1.8200e- 003 1.8200e- 003 0.0000 3.6222 3.6222 1.1700e- 003 0.0000 3.6515 Total 3.8400e- 003 0.0427 0.0199 4.0000e- 005 0.0136 1.9800e- 003 0.0156 6.7900e- 003 1.8200e- 003 8.6100e- 003 0.0000 3.6222 3.6222 1.1700e- 003 0.0000 3.6515 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 14 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1385 0.1385 0.0000 0.0000 0.1385 Total 7.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1385 0.1385 0.0000 0.0000 0.1385 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0136 0.0000 0.0136 6.7900e- 003 0.0000 6.7900e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8400e- 003 0.0427 0.0199 4.0000e- 005 1.9800e- 003 1.9800e- 003 1.8200e- 003 1.8200e- 003 0.0000 3.6222 3.6222 1.1700e- 003 0.0000 3.6515 Total 3.8400e- 003 0.0427 0.0199 4.0000e- 005 0.0136 1.9800e- 003 0.0156 6.7900e- 003 1.8200e- 003 8.6100e- 003 0.0000 3.6222 3.6222 1.1700e- 003 0.0000 3.6515 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 15 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1385 0.1385 0.0000 0.0000 0.1385 Total 7.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 4.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1385 0.1385 0.0000 0.0000 0.1385 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0498 0.0000 0.0498 0.0267 0.0000 0.0267 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0146 0.1617 0.0781 1.6000e- 004 7.3300e- 003 7.3300e- 003 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 0.0000 14.4831 14.4831 4.6800e- 003 0.0000 14.6002 Total 0.0146 0.1617 0.0781 1.6000e- 004 0.0498 7.3300e- 003 0.0571 0.0267 6.7400e- 003 0.0334 0.0000 14.4831 14.4831 4.6800e- 003 0.0000 14.6002 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 16 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.5000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 1.7900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 6.4000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.5344 0.5344 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5347 Total 2.5000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 1.7900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 6.4000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.5344 0.5344 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5347 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0498 0.0000 0.0498 0.0267 0.0000 0.0267 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0146 0.1617 0.0781 1.6000e- 004 7.3300e- 003 7.3300e- 003 6.7400e- 003 6.7400e- 003 0.0000 14.4831 14.4831 4.6800e- 003 0.0000 14.6002 Total 0.0146 0.1617 0.0781 1.6000e- 004 0.0498 7.3300e- 003 0.0571 0.0267 6.7400e- 003 0.0334 0.0000 14.4831 14.4831 4.6800e- 003 0.0000 14.6002 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 17 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.5000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 1.7900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 6.4000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.5344 0.5344 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5347 Total 2.5000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 1.7900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 6.4000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.5344 0.5344 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5347 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.2515 1.9714 1.7912 3.0800e- 003 0.1005 0.1005 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 255.4080 255.4080 0.0503 0.0000 256.6642 Total 0.2515 1.9714 1.7912 3.0800e- 003 0.1005 0.1005 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 255.4080 255.4080 0.0503 0.0000 256.6642 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 18 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 4.3000e- 003 0.1413 0.0353 3.7000e- 004 8.8700e- 003 3.1000e- 004 9.1800e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.9000e- 004 2.8600e- 003 0.0000 35.0892 35.0892 1.7300e- 003 0.0000 35.1324 Worker 0.0110 7.5500e- 003 0.0800 2.6000e- 004 0.0282 1.8000e- 004 0.0284 7.5000e- 003 1.7000e- 004 7.6700e- 003 0.0000 23.8272 23.8272 5.3000e- 004 0.0000 23.8406 Total 0.0153 0.1489 0.1153 6.3000e- 004 0.0371 4.9000e- 004 0.0376 0.0101 4.6000e- 004 0.0105 0.0000 58.9164 58.9164 2.2600e- 003 0.0000 58.9729 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.2515 1.9714 1.7912 3.0800e- 003 0.1005 0.1005 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 255.4076 255.4076 0.0503 0.0000 256.6639 Total 0.2515 1.9714 1.7912 3.0800e- 003 0.1005 0.1005 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 255.4076 255.4076 0.0503 0.0000 256.6639 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 19 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 4.3000e- 003 0.1413 0.0353 3.7000e- 004 8.8700e- 003 3.1000e- 004 9.1800e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.9000e- 004 2.8600e- 003 0.0000 35.0892 35.0892 1.7300e- 003 0.0000 35.1324 Worker 0.0110 7.5500e- 003 0.0800 2.6000e- 004 0.0282 1.8000e- 004 0.0284 7.5000e- 003 1.7000e- 004 7.6700e- 003 0.0000 23.8272 23.8272 5.3000e- 004 0.0000 23.8406 Total 0.0153 0.1489 0.1153 6.3000e- 004 0.0371 4.9000e- 004 0.0376 0.0101 4.6000e- 004 0.0105 0.0000 58.9164 58.9164 2.2600e- 003 0.0000 58.9729 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1429 1.1245 1.1052 1.9300e- 003 0.0541 0.0541 0.0518 0.0518 0.0000 159.9137 159.9137 0.0309 0.0000 160.6850 Total 0.1429 1.1245 1.1052 1.9300e- 003 0.0541 0.0541 0.0518 0.0518 0.0000 159.9137 159.9137 0.0309 0.0000 160.6850 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 20 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.5100e- 003 0.0838 0.0208 2.3000e- 004 5.5500e- 003 1.7000e- 004 5.7200e- 003 1.6100e- 003 1.6000e- 004 1.7700e- 003 0.0000 21.7510 21.7510 1.0300e- 003 0.0000 21.7768 Worker 6.3900e- 003 4.2400e- 003 0.0460 1.6000e- 004 0.0176 1.1000e- 004 0.0178 4.6900e- 003 1.0000e- 004 4.8000e- 003 0.0000 14.3694 14.3694 3.0000e- 004 0.0000 14.3769 Total 8.9000e- 003 0.0880 0.0668 3.9000e- 004 0.0232 2.8000e- 004 0.0235 6.3000e- 003 2.6000e- 004 6.5700e- 003 0.0000 36.1204 36.1204 1.3300e- 003 0.0000 36.1537 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1429 1.1245 1.1052 1.9300e- 003 0.0541 0.0541 0.0518 0.0518 0.0000 159.9135 159.9135 0.0309 0.0000 160.6848 Total 0.1429 1.1245 1.1052 1.9300e- 003 0.0541 0.0541 0.0518 0.0518 0.0000 159.9135 159.9135 0.0309 0.0000 160.6848 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 21 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.5100e- 003 0.0838 0.0208 2.3000e- 004 5.5500e- 003 1.7000e- 004 5.7200e- 003 1.6100e- 003 1.6000e- 004 1.7700e- 003 0.0000 21.7510 21.7510 1.0300e- 003 0.0000 21.7768 Worker 6.3900e- 003 4.2400e- 003 0.0460 1.6000e- 004 0.0176 1.1000e- 004 0.0178 4.6900e- 003 1.0000e- 004 4.8000e- 003 0.0000 14.3694 14.3694 3.0000e- 004 0.0000 14.3769 Total 8.9000e- 003 0.0880 0.0668 3.9000e- 004 0.0232 2.8000e- 004 0.0235 6.3000e- 003 2.6000e- 004 6.5700e- 003 0.0000 36.1204 36.1204 1.3300e- 003 0.0000 36.1537 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 9.4100e- 003 0.0933 0.1170 1.8000e- 004 4.8800e- 003 4.8800e- 003 4.5000e- 003 4.5000e- 003 0.0000 15.5100 15.5100 4.9200e- 003 0.0000 15.6329 Paving 6.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0101 0.0933 0.1170 1.8000e- 004 4.8800e- 003 4.8800e- 003 4.5000e- 003 4.5000e- 003 0.0000 15.5100 15.5100 4.9200e- 003 0.0000 15.6329 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 22 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.3000e- 004 2.8000e- 004 3.0900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 3.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.9653 0.9653 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.9658 Total 4.3000e- 004 2.8000e- 004 3.0900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 3.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.9653 0.9653 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.9658 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 9.4100e- 003 0.0933 0.1170 1.8000e- 004 4.8800e- 003 4.8800e- 003 4.5000e- 003 4.5000e- 003 0.0000 15.5100 15.5100 4.9200e- 003 0.0000 15.6329 Paving 6.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0101 0.0933 0.1170 1.8000e- 004 4.8800e- 003 4.8800e- 003 4.5000e- 003 4.5000e- 003 0.0000 15.5100 15.5100 4.9200e- 003 0.0000 15.6329 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 23 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.3000e- 004 2.8000e- 004 3.0900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 3.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.9653 0.9653 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.9658 Total 4.3000e- 004 2.8000e- 004 3.0900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1900e- 003 3.2000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.9653 0.9653 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.9658 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.1932 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.0500e- 003 0.0141 0.0181 3.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.5574 Total 0.1952 0.0141 0.0181 3.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.5574 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 24 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.7000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.2400e- 003 0.0000 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.8000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 0.3861 0.3861 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3863 Total 1.7000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.2400e- 003 0.0000 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.8000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 0.3861 0.3861 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3863 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.1932 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.0500e- 003 0.0141 0.0181 3.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.5574 Total 0.1952 0.0141 0.0181 3.0000e- 005 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.5574 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 25 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.7000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.2400e- 003 0.0000 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.8000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 0.3861 0.3861 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3863 Total 1.7000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.2400e- 003 0.0000 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.8000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 0.3861 0.3861 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3863 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 26 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.0594 0.2612 0.5966 2.1600e- 003 0.1936 1.7900e- 003 0.1954 0.0520 1.6700e- 003 0.0536 0.0000 198.2914 198.2914 7.2200e- 003 0.0000 198.4718 Unmitigated 0.0594 0.2612 0.5966 2.1600e- 003 0.1936 1.7900e- 003 0.1954 0.0520 1.6700e- 003 0.0536 0.0000 198.2914 198.2914 7.2200e- 003 0.0000 198.4718 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Library 307.02 307.02 307.02 520,355 520,355 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 307.02 307.02 307.02 520,355 520,355 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Library 9.50 7.30 7.30 52.00 43.00 5.00 44 44 12 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 27 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 5.0 Energy Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 45.8001 45.8001 4.0400e- 003 8.4000e- 004 46.1501 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 45.8001 45.8001 4.0400e- 003 8.4000e- 004 46.1501 NaturalGas Mitigated 4.7600e- 003 0.0433 0.0364 2.6000e- 004 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 0.0000 47.1509 47.1509 9.0000e- 004 8.6000e- 004 47.4311 NaturalGas Unmitigated 4.7600e- 003 0.0433 0.0364 2.6000e- 004 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 0.0000 47.1509 47.1509 9.0000e- 004 8.6000e- 004 47.4311 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Library 0.580272 0.038274 0.193741 0.109917 0.015100 0.005324 0.018491 0.026678 0.002649 0.002134 0.005793 0.000896 0.000732 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0.580272 0.038274 0.193741 0.109917 0.015100 0.005324 0.018491 0.026678 0.002649 0.002134 0.005793 0.000896 0.000732 Parking Lot 0.580272 0.038274 0.193741 0.109917 0.015100 0.005324 0.018491 0.026678 0.002649 0.002134 0.005793 0.000896 0.000732 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 28 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Library 883575 4.7600e- 003 0.0433 0.0364 2.6000e- 004 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 0.0000 47.1509 47.1509 9.0000e- 004 8.6000e- 004 47.4311 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 4.7600e- 003 0.0433 0.0364 2.6000e- 004 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 0.0000 47.1509 47.1509 9.0000e- 004 8.6000e- 004 47.4311 Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Library 883575 4.7600e- 003 0.0433 0.0364 2.6000e- 004 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 0.0000 47.1509 47.1509 9.0000e- 004 8.6000e- 004 47.4311 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 4.7600e- 003 0.0433 0.0364 2.6000e- 004 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 3.2900e- 003 0.0000 47.1509 47.1509 9.0000e- 004 8.6000e- 004 47.4311 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 29 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Library 269892 40.2520 3.5500e- 003 7.3000e- 004 40.5597 Parking Lot 6160 0.9187 8.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.9257 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 31040 4.6293 4.1000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 4.6647 Total 45.8001 4.0400e- 003 8.3000e- 004 46.1501 Unmitigated Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Library 269892 40.2520 3.5500e- 003 7.3000e- 004 40.5597 Parking Lot 6160 0.9187 8.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.9257 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 31040 4.6293 4.1000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 4.6647 Total 45.8001 4.0400e- 003 8.3000e- 004 46.1501 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 30 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.1610 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1400e- 003 2.1400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2800e- 003 Unmitigated 0.1610 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1400e- 003 2.1400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2800e- 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 31 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.0193 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.1416 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1400e- 003 2.1400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2800e- 003 Total 0.1610 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1400e- 003 2.1400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2800e- 003 Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.0193 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.1416 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1400e- 003 2.1400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2800e- 003 Total 0.1610 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1400e- 003 2.1400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2800e- 003 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 32 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 2.1678 0.0366 8.9000e- 004 3.3477 Unmitigated 2.1678 0.0366 8.9000e- 004 3.3477 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Library 1.11701 / 1.74712 2.1678 0.0366 8.9000e- 004 3.3477 Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.1678 0.0366 8.9000e- 004 3.3477 Unmitigated 7.0 Water Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 33 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Library 1.11701 / 1.74712 2.1678 0.0366 8.9000e- 004 3.3477 Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.1678 0.0366 8.9000e- 004 3.3477 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 34 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 6.6743 0.3944 0.0000 16.5354 Unmitigated 6.6743 0.3944 0.0000 16.5354 Category/Year 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Library 32.88 6.6743 0.3944 0.0000 16.5354 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.6743 0.3944 0.0000 16.5354 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 35 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Library 32.88 6.6743 0.3944 0.0000 16.5354 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.6743 0.3944 0.0000 16.5354 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 36 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:45 PMPage 37 of 37 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual Project Characteristics - CO2 intensity based on 5-year average (2016-2020), PG&E 2015 Land Use - Project would develop a Community Center, however Library was chosen as the closest representative land use type Construction Phase - Approximately 24-month construction schedule Demolition - The existing 25,000-square-foot community center would be demolished as part of the proposed project Vehicle Trips - Trip generation based on Burlingame Community Center Draft Transportation Impact Analysis, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., June 27, 2018 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Library 35.70 1000sqft 1.41 35,700.00 0 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 40.00 Space 0.50 16,000.00 0 Parking Lot 44.00 Space 0.50 17,600.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 5 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 64 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2024Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 328.8 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Burlingame Community Center Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 1 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 400.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 40.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 6.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 3.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/14/2021 9/28/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/16/2021 8/4/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/30/2020 11/27/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/12/2020 1/22/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/30/2021 8/31/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/4/2020 12/25/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/1/2021 9/1/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/13/2020 1/22/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/5/2020 12/26/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 9/17/2021 8/4/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/31/2020 11/28/2020 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 10.00 3.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 30.00 4.50 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.82 1.41 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.36 0.50 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.40 0.50 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 328.8 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 46.55 8.60 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.49 8.60 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 56.24 8.60 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 2 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 3 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2020 2.1949 21.7900 15.1683 0.0274 6.2633 1.1558 7.2540 3.3492 1.0793 4.2606 0.0000 2,671.486 9 2,671.486 9 0.7690 0.0000 2,686.778 1 2021 4.0316 37.4511 25.5493 0.0517 6.5760 1.7375 8.3135 3.4338 1.6298 5.0636 0.0000 4,911.265 6 4,911.265 6 1.1176 0.0000 4,939.204 7 2022 19.5386 25.0877 27.2982 0.0492 0.4359 1.1944 1.6303 0.1173 1.1272 1.2445 0.0000 4,649.403 4 4,649.403 4 1.0048 0.0000 4,674.523 0 Maximum 19.5386 37.4511 27.2982 0.0517 6.5760 1.7375 8.3135 3.4338 1.6298 5.0636 0.0000 4,911.265 6 4,911.265 6 1.1176 0.0000 4,939.204 7 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2020 2.1949 21.7900 15.1683 0.0274 6.2633 1.1558 7.2540 3.3492 1.0793 4.2606 0.0000 2,671.486 9 2,671.486 9 0.7690 0.0000 2,686.778 1 2021 4.0316 37.4511 25.5493 0.0517 6.5760 1.7375 8.3135 3.4338 1.6298 5.0636 0.0000 4,911.265 6 4,911.265 6 1.1176 0.0000 4,939.204 7 2022 19.5386 25.0877 27.2982 0.0492 0.4359 1.1944 1.6303 0.1173 1.1272 1.2445 0.0000 4,649.403 4 4,649.403 4 1.0048 0.0000 4,674.523 0 Maximum 19.5386 37.4511 27.2982 0.0517 6.5760 1.7375 8.3135 3.4338 1.6298 5.0636 0.0000 4,911.265 6 4,911.265 6 1.1176 0.0000 4,939.204 7 Mitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 4 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 5 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 0.8829 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Energy 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 Mobile 0.3803 1.4005 3.3492 0.0125 1.1053 9.8200e- 003 1.1151 0.2957 9.1600e- 003 0.3048 1,269.079 0 1,269.079 0 0.0436 1,270.168 2 Total 1.2893 1.6380 3.5608 0.0139 1.1053 0.0279 1.1332 0.2957 0.0272 0.3229 1,553.899 7 1,553.899 7 0.0491 5.2200e- 003 1,556.683 0 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 0.8829 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Energy 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 Mobile 0.3803 1.4005 3.3492 0.0125 1.1053 9.8200e- 003 1.1151 0.2957 9.1600e- 003 0.3048 1,269.079 0 1,269.079 0 0.0436 1,270.168 2 Total 1.2893 1.6380 3.5608 0.0139 1.1053 0.0279 1.1332 0.2957 0.0272 0.3229 1,553.899 7 1,553.899 7 0.0491 5.2200e- 003 1,556.683 0 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 6 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 10/5/2020 11/27/2020 5 40 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 11/28/2020 12/25/2020 5 20 3 Grading Grading 12/26/2020 1/22/2021 5 20 4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/22/2021 8/4/2022 5 400 5 Paving Paving 8/4/2022 8/31/2022 5 20 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 9/1/2022 9/28/2022 5 20 OffRoad Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 53,550; Non-Residential Outdoor: 17,850; Striped Parking Area: 2,016 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3 Acres of Paving: 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 7 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56 Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 8 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.6152 0.0000 0.6152 0.0932 0.0000 0.0932 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.1262 20.9463 14.6573 0.0241 1.1525 1.1525 1.0761 1.0761 2,322.312 7 2,322.312 7 0.5970 2,337.236 3 Total 2.1262 20.9463 14.6573 0.0241 0.6152 1.1525 1.7677 0.0932 1.0761 1.1693 2,322.312 7 2,322.312 7 0.5970 2,337.236 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 114.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 8 29.00 11.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 6.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 9 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0235 0.8164 0.1623 2.2700e- 003 0.0498 2.6700e- 003 0.0525 0.0136 2.5500e- 003 0.0162 242.4733 242.4733 0.0121 242.7766 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0452 0.0274 0.3488 1.0700e- 003 0.1068 6.9000e- 004 0.1075 0.0283 6.4000e- 004 0.0290 106.7010 106.7010 2.5700e- 003 106.7652 Total 0.0687 0.8437 0.5111 3.3400e- 003 0.1566 3.3600e- 003 0.1599 0.0420 3.1900e- 003 0.0452 349.1743 349.1743 0.0147 349.5418 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.6152 0.0000 0.6152 0.0932 0.0000 0.0932 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.1262 20.9463 14.6573 0.0241 1.1525 1.1525 1.0761 1.0761 0.0000 2,322.312 7 2,322.312 7 0.5970 2,337.236 3 Total 2.1262 20.9463 14.6573 0.0241 0.6152 1.1525 1.7677 0.0932 1.0761 1.1693 0.0000 2,322.312 7 2,322.312 7 0.5970 2,337.236 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 10 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0235 0.8164 0.1623 2.2700e- 003 0.0498 2.6700e- 003 0.0525 0.0136 2.5500e- 003 0.0162 242.4733 242.4733 0.0121 242.7766 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0452 0.0274 0.3488 1.0700e- 003 0.1068 6.9000e- 004 0.1075 0.0283 6.4000e- 004 0.0290 106.7010 106.7010 2.5700e- 003 106.7652 Total 0.0687 0.8437 0.5111 3.3400e- 003 0.1566 3.3600e- 003 0.1599 0.0420 3.1900e- 003 0.0452 349.1743 349.1743 0.0147 349.5418 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.2386 0.0000 0.2386 0.0258 0.0000 0.0258 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6521 19.9196 11.2678 0.0245 0.7771 0.7771 0.7149 0.7149 2,372.906 2 2,372.906 2 0.7675 2,392.092 4 Total 1.6521 19.9196 11.2678 0.0245 0.2386 0.7771 1.0157 0.0258 0.7149 0.7407 2,372.906 2 2,372.906 2 0.7675 2,392.092 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 11 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0278 0.0168 0.2146 6.6000e- 004 0.0657 4.3000e- 004 0.0661 0.0174 3.9000e- 004 0.0178 65.6621 65.6621 1.5800e- 003 65.7017 Total 0.0278 0.0168 0.2146 6.6000e- 004 0.0657 4.3000e- 004 0.0661 0.0174 3.9000e- 004 0.0178 65.6621 65.6621 1.5800e- 003 65.7017 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.2386 0.0000 0.2386 0.0258 0.0000 0.0258 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6521 19.9196 11.2678 0.0245 0.7771 0.7771 0.7149 0.7149 0.0000 2,372.906 2 2,372.906 2 0.7675 2,392.092 4 Total 1.6521 19.9196 11.2678 0.0245 0.2386 0.7771 1.0157 0.0258 0.7149 0.7407 0.0000 2,372.906 2 2,372.906 2 0.7675 2,392.092 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 12 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0278 0.0168 0.2146 6.6000e- 004 0.0657 4.3000e- 004 0.0661 0.0174 3.9000e- 004 0.0178 65.6621 65.6621 1.5800e- 003 65.7017 Total 0.0278 0.0168 0.2146 6.6000e- 004 0.0657 4.3000e- 004 0.0661 0.0174 3.9000e- 004 0.0178 65.6621 65.6621 1.5800e- 003 65.7017 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.1812 0.0000 6.1812 3.3274 0.0000 3.3274 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.9219 21.3418 9.9355 0.0206 0.9902 0.9902 0.9110 0.9110 1,996.406 1 1,996.406 1 0.6457 2,012.548 0 Total 1.9219 21.3418 9.9355 0.0206 6.1812 0.9902 7.1713 3.3274 0.9110 4.2384 1,996.406 1 1,996.406 1 0.6457 2,012.548 0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 13 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0348 0.0210 0.2683 8.2000e- 004 0.0822 5.3000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.9000e- 004 0.0223 82.0777 82.0777 1.9800e- 003 82.1271 Total 0.0348 0.0210 0.2683 8.2000e- 004 0.0822 5.3000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.9000e- 004 0.0223 82.0777 82.0777 1.9800e- 003 82.1271 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.1812 0.0000 6.1812 3.3274 0.0000 3.3274 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.9219 21.3418 9.9355 0.0206 0.9902 0.9902 0.9110 0.9110 0.0000 1,996.406 1 1,996.406 1 0.6457 2,012.548 0 Total 1.9219 21.3418 9.9355 0.0206 6.1812 0.9902 7.1713 3.3274 0.9110 4.2384 0.0000 1,996.406 1 1,996.406 1 0.6457 2,012.548 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 14 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0348 0.0210 0.2683 8.2000e- 004 0.0822 5.3000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.9000e- 004 0.0223 82.0777 82.0777 1.9800e- 003 82.1271 Total 0.0348 0.0210 0.2683 8.2000e- 004 0.0822 5.3000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.9000e- 004 0.0223 82.0777 82.0777 1.9800e- 003 82.1271 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.1812 0.0000 6.1812 3.3274 0.0000 3.3274 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 0.9158 0.9158 0.8425 0.8425 1,995.611 4 1,995.611 4 0.6454 2,011.747 0 Total 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 6.1812 0.9158 7.0969 3.3274 0.8425 4.1699 1,995.611 4 1,995.611 4 0.6454 2,011.747 0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 15 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0322 0.0188 0.2456 7.9000e- 004 0.0822 5.2000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.8000e- 004 0.0223 79.1960 79.1960 1.7700e- 003 79.2402 Total 0.0322 0.0188 0.2456 7.9000e- 004 0.0822 5.2000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.8000e- 004 0.0223 79.1960 79.1960 1.7700e- 003 79.2402 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.1812 0.0000 6.1812 3.3274 0.0000 3.3274 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 0.9158 0.9158 0.8425 0.8425 0.0000 1,995.611 4 1,995.611 4 0.6454 2,011.747 0 Total 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 6.1812 0.9158 7.0969 3.3274 0.8425 4.1699 0.0000 1,995.611 4 1,995.611 4 0.6454 2,011.747 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 16 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0322 0.0188 0.2456 7.9000e- 004 0.0822 5.2000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.8000e- 004 0.0223 79.1960 79.1960 1.7700e- 003 79.2402 Total 0.0322 0.0188 0.2456 7.9000e- 004 0.0822 5.2000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.8000e- 004 0.0223 79.1960 79.1960 1.7700e- 003 79.2402 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 2,288.935 5 2,288.935 5 0.4503 2,300.193 5 Total 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 2,288.935 5 2,288.935 5 0.4503 2,300.193 5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 17 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0341 1.1368 0.2681 3.0000e- 003 0.0745 2.4600e- 003 0.0769 0.0214 2.3600e- 003 0.0238 317.8544 317.8544 0.0149 318.2274 Worker 0.0933 0.0545 0.7123 2.3000e- 003 0.2382 1.5000e- 003 0.2397 0.0632 1.3800e- 003 0.0646 229.6683 229.6683 5.1300e- 003 229.7966 Total 0.1274 1.1913 0.9804 5.3000e- 003 0.3127 3.9600e- 003 0.3167 0.0846 3.7400e- 003 0.0884 547.5227 547.5227 0.0201 548.0240 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 0.0000 2,288.935 5 2,288.935 5 0.4503 2,300.193 5 Total 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 0.0000 2,288.935 5 2,288.935 5 0.4503 2,300.193 5 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 18 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0341 1.1368 0.2681 3.0000e- 003 0.0745 2.4600e- 003 0.0769 0.0214 2.3600e- 003 0.0238 317.8544 317.8544 0.0149 318.2274 Worker 0.0933 0.0545 0.7123 2.3000e- 003 0.2382 1.5000e- 003 0.2397 0.0632 1.3800e- 003 0.0646 229.6683 229.6683 5.1300e- 003 229.7966 Total 0.1274 1.1913 0.9804 5.3000e- 003 0.3127 3.9600e- 003 0.3167 0.0846 3.7400e- 003 0.0884 547.5227 547.5227 0.0201 548.0240 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 19 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0318 1.0773 0.2521 2.9700e- 003 0.0745 2.1300e- 003 0.0766 0.0214 2.0400e- 003 0.0235 314.7590 314.7590 0.0143 315.1156 Worker 0.0868 0.0489 0.6564 2.2200e- 003 0.2382 1.4600e- 003 0.2397 0.0632 1.3500e- 003 0.0645 221.2397 221.2397 4.6100e- 003 221.3549 Total 0.1186 1.1262 0.9085 5.1900e- 003 0.3127 3.5900e- 003 0.3163 0.0846 3.3900e- 003 0.0880 535.9986 535.9986 0.0189 536.4705 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 20 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0318 1.0773 0.2521 2.9700e- 003 0.0745 2.1300e- 003 0.0766 0.0214 2.0400e- 003 0.0235 314.7590 314.7590 0.0143 315.1156 Worker 0.0868 0.0489 0.6564 2.2200e- 003 0.2382 1.4600e- 003 0.2397 0.0632 1.3500e- 003 0.0645 221.2397 221.2397 4.6100e- 003 221.3549 Total 0.1186 1.1262 0.9085 5.1900e- 003 0.3127 3.5900e- 003 0.3163 0.0846 3.3900e- 003 0.0880 535.9986 535.9986 0.0189 536.4705 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 1,709.689 2 1,709.689 2 0.5419 1,723.235 6 Paving 0.0655 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0067 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 1,709.689 2 1,709.689 2 0.5419 1,723.235 6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 21 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0449 0.0253 0.3395 1.1500e- 003 0.1232 7.6000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.0000e- 004 0.0334 114.4343 114.4343 2.3800e- 003 114.4939 Total 0.0449 0.0253 0.3395 1.1500e- 003 0.1232 7.6000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.0000e- 004 0.0334 114.4343 114.4343 2.3800e- 003 114.4939 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 0.0000 1,709.689 2 1,709.689 2 0.5419 1,723.235 6 Paving 0.0655 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0067 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 0.0000 1,709.689 2 1,709.689 2 0.5419 1,723.235 6 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 22 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.6 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0449 0.0253 0.3395 1.1500e- 003 0.1232 7.6000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.0000e- 004 0.0334 114.4343 114.4343 2.3800e- 003 114.4939 Total 0.0449 0.0253 0.3395 1.1500e- 003 0.1232 7.6000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.0000e- 004 0.0334 114.4343 114.4343 2.3800e- 003 114.4939 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 19.3161 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 19.5207 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 23 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0180 0.0101 0.1358 4.6000e- 004 0.0493 3.0000e- 004 0.0496 0.0131 2.8000e- 004 0.0134 45.7737 45.7737 9.5000e- 004 45.7976 Total 0.0180 0.0101 0.1358 4.6000e- 004 0.0493 3.0000e- 004 0.0496 0.0131 2.8000e- 004 0.0134 45.7737 45.7737 9.5000e- 004 45.7976 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 19.3161 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 19.5207 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 24 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0180 0.0101 0.1358 4.6000e- 004 0.0493 3.0000e- 004 0.0496 0.0131 2.8000e- 004 0.0134 45.7737 45.7737 9.5000e- 004 45.7976 Total 0.0180 0.0101 0.1358 4.6000e- 004 0.0493 3.0000e- 004 0.0496 0.0131 2.8000e- 004 0.0134 45.7737 45.7737 9.5000e- 004 45.7976 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 25 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 0.3803 1.4005 3.3492 0.0125 1.1053 9.8200e- 003 1.1151 0.2957 9.1600e- 003 0.3048 1,269.079 0 1,269.079 0 0.0436 1,270.168 2 Unmitigated 0.3803 1.4005 3.3492 0.0125 1.1053 9.8200e- 003 1.1151 0.2957 9.1600e- 003 0.3048 1,269.079 0 1,269.079 0 0.0436 1,270.168 2 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Library 307.02 307.02 307.02 520,355 520,355 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 307.02 307.02 307.02 520,355 520,355 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Library 9.50 7.30 7.30 52.00 43.00 5.00 44 44 12 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 26 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 5.0 Energy Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Library 0.580272 0.038274 0.193741 0.109917 0.015100 0.005324 0.018491 0.026678 0.002649 0.002134 0.005793 0.000896 0.000732 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0.580272 0.038274 0.193741 0.109917 0.015100 0.005324 0.018491 0.026678 0.002649 0.002134 0.005793 0.000896 0.000732 Parking Lot 0.580272 0.038274 0.193741 0.109917 0.015100 0.005324 0.018491 0.026678 0.002649 0.002134 0.005793 0.000896 0.000732 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 27 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Library 2420.75 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Library 2.42075 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 28 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 0.8829 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Unmitigated 0.8829 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 29 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.1058 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.7759 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.1300e- 003 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Total 0.8829 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.1058 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.7759 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.1300e- 003 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Total 0.8829 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 30 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 11.0 Vegetation 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:46 PMPage 31 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer Project Characteristics - CO2 intensity based on 5-year average (2016-2020), PG&E 2015 Land Use - Project would develop a Community Center, however Library was chosen as the closest representative land use type Construction Phase - Approximately 24-month construction schedule Demolition - The existing 25,000-square-foot community center would be demolished as part of the proposed project Vehicle Trips - Trip generation based on Burlingame Community Center Draft Transportation Impact Analysis, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., June 27, 2018 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Library 35.70 1000sqft 1.41 35,700.00 0 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 40.00 Space 0.50 16,000.00 0 Parking Lot 44.00 Space 0.50 17,600.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 5 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 64 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2024Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 328.8 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Burlingame Community Center Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 1 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 400.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 40.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 6.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 3.00 20.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/14/2021 9/28/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/16/2021 8/4/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/30/2020 11/27/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/12/2020 1/22/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 9/30/2021 8/31/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/4/2020 12/25/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/1/2021 9/1/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/13/2020 1/22/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/5/2020 12/26/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 9/17/2021 8/4/2022 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/31/2020 11/28/2020 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 10.00 3.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 30.00 4.50 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.82 1.41 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.36 0.50 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.40 0.50 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 328.8 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 46.55 8.60 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.49 8.60 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 56.24 8.60 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 2 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 3 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2020 2.1981 21.8165 15.1595 0.0273 6.2633 1.1559 7.2540 3.3492 1.0794 4.2606 0.0000 2,659.001 8 2,659.001 8 0.7689 0.0000 2,674.304 1 2021 4.0411 37.4781 25.5277 0.0514 6.5760 1.7376 8.3136 3.4338 1.6299 5.0637 0.0000 4,878.856 1 4,878.856 1 1.1183 0.0000 4,906.814 1 2022 19.5398 25.1132 27.2678 0.0489 0.4359 1.1945 1.6304 0.1173 1.1272 1.2445 0.0000 4,614.921 8 4,614.921 8 1.0055 0.0000 4,640.057 9 Maximum 19.5398 37.4781 27.2678 0.0514 6.5760 1.7376 8.3136 3.4338 1.6299 5.0637 0.0000 4,878.856 1 4,878.856 1 1.1183 0.0000 4,906.814 1 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2020 2.1981 21.8165 15.1595 0.0273 6.2633 1.1559 7.2540 3.3492 1.0794 4.2606 0.0000 2,659.001 8 2,659.001 8 0.7689 0.0000 2,674.304 1 2021 4.0411 37.4781 25.5277 0.0514 6.5760 1.7376 8.3136 3.4338 1.6299 5.0637 0.0000 4,878.856 1 4,878.856 1 1.1183 0.0000 4,906.814 1 2022 19.5398 25.1132 27.2678 0.0489 0.4359 1.1945 1.6304 0.1173 1.1272 1.2445 0.0000 4,614.921 8 4,614.921 8 1.0055 0.0000 4,640.057 9 Maximum 19.5398 37.4781 27.2678 0.0514 6.5760 1.7376 8.3136 3.4338 1.6299 5.0637 0.0000 4,878.856 1 4,878.856 1 1.1183 0.0000 4,906.814 1 Mitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 4 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 5 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 0.8829 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Energy 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 Mobile 0.3222 1.4553 3.4596 0.0117 1.1053 9.8800e- 003 1.1152 0.2957 9.2100e- 003 0.3049 1,188.210 1 1,188.210 1 0.0451 1,189.336 6 Total 1.2311 1.6928 3.6711 0.0131 1.1053 0.0280 1.1333 0.2957 0.0273 0.3230 1,473.030 8 1,473.030 8 0.0506 5.2200e- 003 1,475.851 4 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 0.8829 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Energy 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 Mobile 0.3222 1.4553 3.4596 0.0117 1.1053 9.8800e- 003 1.1152 0.2957 9.2100e- 003 0.3049 1,188.210 1 1,188.210 1 0.0451 1,189.336 6 Total 1.2311 1.6928 3.6711 0.0131 1.1053 0.0280 1.1333 0.2957 0.0273 0.3230 1,473.030 8 1,473.030 8 0.0506 5.2200e- 003 1,475.851 4 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 6 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 10/5/2020 11/27/2020 5 40 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 11/28/2020 12/25/2020 5 20 3 Grading Grading 12/26/2020 1/22/2021 5 20 4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/22/2021 8/4/2022 5 400 5 Paving Paving 8/4/2022 8/31/2022 5 20 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 9/1/2022 9/28/2022 5 20 OffRoad Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 53,550; Non-Residential Outdoor: 17,850; Striped Parking Area: 2,016 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3 Acres of Paving: 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 7 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56 Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 8 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.6152 0.0000 0.6152 0.0932 0.0000 0.0932 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.1262 20.9463 14.6573 0.0241 1.1525 1.1525 1.0761 1.0761 2,322.312 7 2,322.312 7 0.5970 2,337.236 3 Total 2.1262 20.9463 14.6573 0.0241 0.6152 1.1525 1.7677 0.0932 1.0761 1.1693 2,322.312 7 2,322.312 7 0.5970 2,337.236 3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 114.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 8 29.00 11.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 6.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 9 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0242 0.8364 0.1747 2.2300e- 003 0.0498 2.7200e- 003 0.0525 0.0136 2.6000e- 003 0.0162 238.4007 238.4007 0.0127 238.7192 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0478 0.0338 0.3276 9.9000e- 004 0.1068 6.9000e- 004 0.1075 0.0283 6.4000e- 004 0.0290 98.2885 98.2885 2.4000e- 003 98.3486 Total 0.0720 0.8702 0.5023 3.2200e- 003 0.1566 3.4100e- 003 0.1600 0.0420 3.2400e- 003 0.0452 336.6892 336.6892 0.0151 337.0678 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.6152 0.0000 0.6152 0.0932 0.0000 0.0932 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.1262 20.9463 14.6573 0.0241 1.1525 1.1525 1.0761 1.0761 0.0000 2,322.312 7 2,322.312 7 0.5970 2,337.236 3 Total 2.1262 20.9463 14.6573 0.0241 0.6152 1.1525 1.7677 0.0932 1.0761 1.1693 0.0000 2,322.312 7 2,322.312 7 0.5970 2,337.236 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 10 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0242 0.8364 0.1747 2.2300e- 003 0.0498 2.7200e- 003 0.0525 0.0136 2.6000e- 003 0.0162 238.4007 238.4007 0.0127 238.7192 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0478 0.0338 0.3276 9.9000e- 004 0.1068 6.9000e- 004 0.1075 0.0283 6.4000e- 004 0.0290 98.2885 98.2885 2.4000e- 003 98.3486 Total 0.0720 0.8702 0.5023 3.2200e- 003 0.1566 3.4100e- 003 0.1600 0.0420 3.2400e- 003 0.0452 336.6892 336.6892 0.0151 337.0678 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.2386 0.0000 0.2386 0.0258 0.0000 0.0258 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6521 19.9196 11.2678 0.0245 0.7771 0.7771 0.7149 0.7149 2,372.906 2 2,372.906 2 0.7675 2,392.092 4 Total 1.6521 19.9196 11.2678 0.0245 0.2386 0.7771 1.0157 0.0258 0.7149 0.7407 2,372.906 2 2,372.906 2 0.7675 2,392.092 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 11 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0294 0.0208 0.2016 6.1000e- 004 0.0657 4.3000e- 004 0.0661 0.0174 3.9000e- 004 0.0178 60.4852 60.4852 1.4800e- 003 60.5222 Total 0.0294 0.0208 0.2016 6.1000e- 004 0.0657 4.3000e- 004 0.0661 0.0174 3.9000e- 004 0.0178 60.4852 60.4852 1.4800e- 003 60.5222 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.2386 0.0000 0.2386 0.0258 0.0000 0.0258 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6521 19.9196 11.2678 0.0245 0.7771 0.7771 0.7149 0.7149 0.0000 2,372.906 2 2,372.906 2 0.7675 2,392.092 4 Total 1.6521 19.9196 11.2678 0.0245 0.2386 0.7771 1.0157 0.0258 0.7149 0.7407 0.0000 2,372.906 2 2,372.906 2 0.7675 2,392.092 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 12 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0294 0.0208 0.2016 6.1000e- 004 0.0657 4.3000e- 004 0.0661 0.0174 3.9000e- 004 0.0178 60.4852 60.4852 1.4800e- 003 60.5222 Total 0.0294 0.0208 0.2016 6.1000e- 004 0.0657 4.3000e- 004 0.0661 0.0174 3.9000e- 004 0.0178 60.4852 60.4852 1.4800e- 003 60.5222 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.1812 0.0000 6.1812 3.3274 0.0000 3.3274 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.9219 21.3418 9.9355 0.0206 0.9902 0.9902 0.9110 0.9110 1,996.406 1 1,996.406 1 0.6457 2,012.548 0 Total 1.9219 21.3418 9.9355 0.0206 6.1812 0.9902 7.1713 3.3274 0.9110 4.2384 1,996.406 1 1,996.406 1 0.6457 2,012.548 0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 13 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0368 0.0260 0.2520 7.6000e- 004 0.0822 5.3000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.9000e- 004 0.0223 75.6065 75.6065 1.8500e- 003 75.6528 Total 0.0368 0.0260 0.2520 7.6000e- 004 0.0822 5.3000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.9000e- 004 0.0223 75.6065 75.6065 1.8500e- 003 75.6528 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.1812 0.0000 6.1812 3.3274 0.0000 3.3274 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.9219 21.3418 9.9355 0.0206 0.9902 0.9902 0.9110 0.9110 0.0000 1,996.406 1 1,996.406 1 0.6457 2,012.548 0 Total 1.9219 21.3418 9.9355 0.0206 6.1812 0.9902 7.1713 3.3274 0.9110 4.2384 0.0000 1,996.406 1 1,996.406 1 0.6457 2,012.548 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 14 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0368 0.0260 0.2520 7.6000e- 004 0.0822 5.3000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.9000e- 004 0.0223 75.6065 75.6065 1.8500e- 003 75.6528 Total 0.0368 0.0260 0.2520 7.6000e- 004 0.0822 5.3000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.9000e- 004 0.0223 75.6065 75.6065 1.8500e- 003 75.6528 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.1812 0.0000 6.1812 3.3274 0.0000 3.3274 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 0.9158 0.9158 0.8425 0.8425 1,995.611 4 1,995.611 4 0.6454 2,011.747 0 Total 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 6.1812 0.9158 7.0969 3.3274 0.8425 4.1699 1,995.611 4 1,995.611 4 0.6454 2,011.747 0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 15 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0341 0.0232 0.2298 7.3000e- 004 0.0822 5.2000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.8000e- 004 0.0223 72.9537 72.9537 1.6500e- 003 72.9949 Total 0.0341 0.0232 0.2298 7.3000e- 004 0.0822 5.2000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.8000e- 004 0.0223 72.9537 72.9537 1.6500e- 003 72.9949 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.1812 0.0000 6.1812 3.3274 0.0000 3.3274 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 0.9158 0.9158 0.8425 0.8425 0.0000 1,995.611 4 1,995.611 4 0.6454 2,011.747 0 Total 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 6.1812 0.9158 7.0969 3.3274 0.8425 4.1699 0.0000 1,995.611 4 1,995.611 4 0.6454 2,011.747 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 16 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.4 Grading - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0341 0.0232 0.2298 7.3000e- 004 0.0822 5.2000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.8000e- 004 0.0223 72.9537 72.9537 1.6500e- 003 72.9949 Total 0.0341 0.0232 0.2298 7.3000e- 004 0.0822 5.2000e- 004 0.0827 0.0218 4.8000e- 004 0.0223 72.9537 72.9537 1.6500e- 003 72.9949 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 2,288.935 5 2,288.935 5 0.4503 2,300.193 5 Total 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 2,288.935 5 2,288.935 5 0.4503 2,300.193 5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 17 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0361 1.1465 0.3081 2.9200e- 003 0.0745 2.5500e- 003 0.0770 0.0214 2.4400e- 003 0.0239 309.7899 309.7899 0.0161 310.1934 Worker 0.0988 0.0673 0.6665 2.1200e- 003 0.2382 1.5000e- 003 0.2397 0.0632 1.3800e- 003 0.0646 211.5656 211.5656 4.7900e- 003 211.6853 Total 0.1349 1.2138 0.9746 5.0400e- 003 0.3127 4.0500e- 003 0.3167 0.0846 3.8200e- 003 0.0884 521.3555 521.3555 0.0209 521.8787 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 0.0000 2,288.935 5 2,288.935 5 0.4503 2,300.193 5 Total 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 0.0000 2,288.935 5 2,288.935 5 0.4503 2,300.193 5 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 18 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0361 1.1465 0.3081 2.9200e- 003 0.0745 2.5500e- 003 0.0770 0.0214 2.4400e- 003 0.0239 309.7899 309.7899 0.0161 310.1934 Worker 0.0988 0.0673 0.6665 2.1200e- 003 0.2382 1.5000e- 003 0.2397 0.0632 1.3800e- 003 0.0646 211.5656 211.5656 4.7900e- 003 211.6853 Total 0.1349 1.2138 0.9746 5.0400e- 003 0.3127 4.0500e- 003 0.3167 0.0846 3.8200e- 003 0.0884 521.3555 521.3555 0.0209 521.8787 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 19 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0337 1.0855 0.2896 2.8900e- 003 0.0745 2.2100e- 003 0.0767 0.0214 2.1200e- 003 0.0236 306.7228 306.7228 0.0154 307.1082 Worker 0.0922 0.0604 0.6116 2.0400e- 003 0.2382 1.4600e- 003 0.2397 0.0632 1.3500e- 003 0.0645 203.8097 203.8097 4.2900e- 003 203.9168 Total 0.1259 1.1458 0.9012 4.9300e- 003 0.3127 3.6700e- 003 0.3164 0.0846 3.4700e- 003 0.0881 510.5325 510.5325 0.0197 511.0251 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281 3 2,289.281 3 0.4417 2,300.323 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 20 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0337 1.0855 0.2896 2.8900e- 003 0.0745 2.2100e- 003 0.0767 0.0214 2.1200e- 003 0.0236 306.7228 306.7228 0.0154 307.1082 Worker 0.0922 0.0604 0.6116 2.0400e- 003 0.2382 1.4600e- 003 0.2397 0.0632 1.3500e- 003 0.0645 203.8097 203.8097 4.2900e- 003 203.9168 Total 0.1259 1.1458 0.9012 4.9300e- 003 0.3127 3.6700e- 003 0.3164 0.0846 3.4700e- 003 0.0881 510.5325 510.5325 0.0197 511.0251 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 1,709.689 2 1,709.689 2 0.5419 1,723.235 6 Paving 0.0655 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0067 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 1,709.689 2 1,709.689 2 0.5419 1,723.235 6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 21 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0477 0.0312 0.3163 1.0600e- 003 0.1232 7.6000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.0000e- 004 0.0334 105.4188 105.4188 2.2200e- 003 105.4742 Total 0.0477 0.0312 0.3163 1.0600e- 003 0.1232 7.6000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.0000e- 004 0.0334 105.4188 105.4188 2.2200e- 003 105.4742 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 0.0000 1,709.689 2 1,709.689 2 0.5419 1,723.235 6 Paving 0.0655 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0067 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 0.0000 1,709.689 2 1,709.689 2 0.5419 1,723.235 6 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 22 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.6 Paving - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0477 0.0312 0.3163 1.0600e- 003 0.1232 7.6000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.0000e- 004 0.0334 105.4188 105.4188 2.2200e- 003 105.4742 Total 0.0477 0.0312 0.3163 1.0600e- 003 0.1232 7.6000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.0000e- 004 0.0334 105.4188 105.4188 2.2200e- 003 105.4742 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 19.3161 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 19.5207 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 23 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0191 0.0125 0.1265 4.2000e- 004 0.0493 3.0000e- 004 0.0496 0.0131 2.8000e- 004 0.0134 42.1675 42.1675 8.9000e- 004 42.1897 Total 0.0191 0.0125 0.1265 4.2000e- 004 0.0493 3.0000e- 004 0.0496 0.0131 2.8000e- 004 0.0134 42.1675 42.1675 8.9000e- 004 42.1897 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 19.3161 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 19.5207 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e- 003 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 24 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0191 0.0125 0.1265 4.2000e- 004 0.0493 3.0000e- 004 0.0496 0.0131 2.8000e- 004 0.0134 42.1675 42.1675 8.9000e- 004 42.1897 Total 0.0191 0.0125 0.1265 4.2000e- 004 0.0493 3.0000e- 004 0.0496 0.0131 2.8000e- 004 0.0134 42.1675 42.1675 8.9000e- 004 42.1897 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 25 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 0.3222 1.4553 3.4596 0.0117 1.1053 9.8800e- 003 1.1152 0.2957 9.2100e- 003 0.3049 1,188.210 1 1,188.210 1 0.0451 1,189.336 6 Unmitigated 0.3222 1.4553 3.4596 0.0117 1.1053 9.8800e- 003 1.1152 0.2957 9.2100e- 003 0.3049 1,188.210 1 1,188.210 1 0.0451 1,189.336 6 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Library 307.02 307.02 307.02 520,355 520,355 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 307.02 307.02 307.02 520,355 520,355 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Library 9.50 7.30 7.30 52.00 43.00 5.00 44 44 12 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 26 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 5.0 Energy Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Library 0.580272 0.038274 0.193741 0.109917 0.015100 0.005324 0.018491 0.026678 0.002649 0.002134 0.005793 0.000896 0.000732 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0.580272 0.038274 0.193741 0.109917 0.015100 0.005324 0.018491 0.026678 0.002649 0.002134 0.005793 0.000896 0.000732 Parking Lot 0.580272 0.038274 0.193741 0.109917 0.015100 0.005324 0.018491 0.026678 0.002649 0.002134 0.005793 0.000896 0.000732 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 27 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Library 2420.75 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Library 2.42075 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0261 0.2373 0.1994 1.4200e- 003 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 0.0180 284.7945 284.7945 5.4600e- 003 5.2200e- 003 286.4869 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 28 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 0.8829 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Unmitigated 0.8829 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 29 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.1058 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.7759 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.1300e- 003 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Total 0.8829 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.1058 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.7759 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.1300e- 003 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Total 0.8829 1.1000e- 004 0.0122 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0262 0.0262 7.0000e- 005 0.0279 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 30 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 11.0 Vegetation 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 8/1/2018 3:47 PMPage 31 of 31 Burlingame Community Center - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter This page intentionally left blank     PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT  INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION  SEPTEMBER 2018  BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) B‐1 APPENDIX B    TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS    BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT  BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2018   P:\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\IS‐MND\Public\Burlingame CC Initial Study Final.docx (09/12/18) B‐2 This page intentionally left blank  Burlingame Community Center Draft Transportation Impact Analysis Prepared for: Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. June 27, 2018 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Hexagon Office: 4 North Second Street, Suite 400 San Jose, CA 95113 Hexagon Job Number: 17LK08 Phone: 408.971.6100 Client Name: Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................i 1.Introduction ...................................................................................................................................1 2.Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................8 3.Background Conditions ...............................................................................................................17 4.Project Conditions .......................................................................................................................20 5.Cumulative Conditions.................................................................................................................28 6.Other Transportation Issues ........................................................................................................32 Appendices Appendix A Traffic Counts Appendix B Levels of Service Calculations Appendix C List of Approved Projects Appendix D Signal Warrant Analysis List of Tables Table ES-1 Intersection Level of Service Summary ........................................................................iii Table 1 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay ...............................6 Table 2 Existing Transit Services ...................................................................................................12 Table 3 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ..............................................................................15 Table 4 Background Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................................18 Table 5 Project Trip Generation Estimates .....................................................................................21 Table 6 Existing Plus Project Level of Service Summary................................................................25 Table 7 Background Plus Project Level of Service Summary .........................................................27 Table 8 Cumulative Level of Service Summary ..............................................................................30 Table 9 Project Driveway Levels of Service Summary....................................................................34 Table 10 Queuing Analysis Summary ..............................................................................................37 List of Figures Figure 1 Site Location and Study Intersections..................................................................................2 Figure 2 Project Site Plan ..................................................................................................................3 Figure 3 Existing Bicycle Facilities...................................................................................................10 Figure 4 Existing Transit Services ...................................................................................................11 Figure 5 Existing Lane Configurations .............................................................................................13 Figure 6 Existing Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................................14 Figure 7 Background Traffic Volumes..............................................................................................19 Figure 8 Project Trip Distribution .....................................................................................................22 Figure 9 Project Trip Assignment ....................................................................................................23 Figure 10 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes.............................................................................24 Figure 11 Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes ......................................................................26 Figure 12 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes .......................................................................29 Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | i Executive Summary This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying the potential transportation impacts related to the proposed redevelopment of the City of Burlingame Recreation Center in Washington Park. The project site is located northeast of downtown Burlingame at 850 Burlingame Avenue, adjacent to Burlingame High School. The project would replace the existing single-story Burlingame Recreation Center that currently occupies the site with a new two-story 35,700 square-foot community center. The associated site work includes a playground, basketball court, pedestrian plaza, and surface and underground parking. While the project proposes to increase the overall building square footage on the site, the building footprint is anticipated to remain approximately the same size. The increase in building size will accommodate an increase in daily programs at the recreation center. The existing recreation center can program about 300 hours per week, while the proposed community center would increase the programming capacity to 510 hours per week.Parking would be provided via a subterranean parking garage and two surface parking lots. Access to the project site would be provided via a proposed full-access driveway adjacent to the building,and the existing driveways associated with the City-owned parking Lot X along Burlingame Avenue will remain. The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the City of Burlingame and the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The study includes an analysis of AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions during weekdays for six (6) unsignalized study intersections in the vicinity of the project site. Potential impacts to pedestrians, bikes, and transit services were also considered. Based on the project description and trip generation rates recommended by the Institute of Transportation Engineers for Recreational Community Center (Land Use 495), it is estimated that the proposed project would generate 308 new daily vehicle trips, with 19 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 25 occurring during the PM peak hour. The City of Burlingame does not have a Council-adopted level of service threshold, thus significance standards (such as LOS D or better) that have typically been applied in traffic studies and EIRs were used. The results of the intersection level of service analysis under all scenarios with and without the project are summarized in Table ES-1. The results determined that under all scenarios with and without the project, all but one of the study intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours.The California Drive/North Lane intersection would operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS E)during the PM peak hour under cumulative traffic conditions. In addition, a signal warrant analysis conducted at the California Drive/North Lane intersection indicates that the warrant would be met under cumulative conditions with and without project traffic during the AM and PM peak hours. However, the addition of project-generated traffic would increase the average delay by less than 5 seconds, so the project impact would be considered less than significant. Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | i i This report has also provided the following conclusions and recommendations for the project: Based on a signal warrant analysis, the California Drive/North Lane intersection would warrant a traffic signal under all scenarios with and without the project.While the addition of project- generated traffic is not expected to create a significant impact, the City of Burlingame should continue to monitor the California Drive/North Lane intersection and its potential conflict with the Caltrain railroad tracks, including evaluating the need for signalization of this intersection. Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | i i i Table ES-1 Intersection Level of Service Summary Peak Count Traffic Avg. Delay Avg. Delay Avg. Delay Avg. Delay Avg. Delay Avg. Delay Intersection Hour Date Control (sec.)LOS (sec.)LOS (sec.)LOS (sec.)LOS (sec.)LOS (sec.)LOS AM 05/23/17 14.0 B 14.1 B 14.1 B 14.2 B 16.4 C 16.5 C PM 05/23/17 12.1 B 12.1 B 12.1 B 12.2 B 13.2 B 13.3 B AM 05/01/18 21.2 C 21.8 C 21.8 C 22.3 C 28.3 D 29.6 D PM 05/01/18 29.1 D 29.7 D 30.7 D 31.5 D 46.5 E 49.2 E AM 05/01/18 10.2 B 10.2 B 10.2 B 10.2 B 10.8 B 10.9 B PM 05/01/18 8.9 A 8.9 A 8.9 A 8.9 A 9.1 A 9.2 A AM 05/01/18 8.3 A 8.4 A 8.3 A 8.4 A 8.5 A 8.6 A PM 05/01/18 8.6 A 8.7 A 8.6 A 8.7 A 9.0 A 9.0 A AM 05/01/18 10.4 B 10.5 B 10.4 B 10.5 B 10.6 B 10.7 B PM 05/01/18 10.6 B 10.8 B 10.6 B 10.8 B 11.0 B 11.1 B AM 05/01/18 7.8 A 7.8 A 7.8 A 7.8 A 7.9 A 8.0 A PM 05/01/18 7.7 A 7.7 A 7.7 A 7.7 A 7.8 A 7.8 A AWSC = All-Way Stop Control SSSC = Side-Street Stop Control * 1 Average delay for an all-way stop controlled intersection is reported for the entire intersection. 2 Average delay for a side-street stop controlled intersection is reported for the worst stop-controlled approach. 3 Due to limitations within the Synchro software, three of the intersections along Carolan Avenue (Oak Grove Avenue, North Lane, and Burlingame Avenue) cannot be evaluated with three stop or yield-controlled approaches and one free-flowing approach.Therefore, the study intersections were evaluated as an all-way stop control intersection to provide a conservative level of service analysis. Carolan Avenue and North Lane * 4 Carolan Avenue/East Lane and Burlingame Avenue * Anita Road and Burlingame Avenue Cumulative No Projectwith Project with Project with Project Existing Background No ProjectNo Project Study Number 6 1 Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue * Note: 5 Myrtle Road and Burlingame Avenue 2 Calfiornia Drive and North Lane AWSC 1 SSSC 2 AWSC 1 AWSC 1 SSSC 2 AWSC 1 Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 1 1.Introduction This report presents the results of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) conducted for the proposed redevelopment of the City of Burlingame Recreation Center in Washington Park. The project site is located northeast of downtown Burlingame at 850 Burlingame Avenue, adjacent to Burlingame High School (see Figure 1). The project would replace the existing single-story Burlingame Recreation Center that currently occupies the site with a new two-story 35,700 square-foot community center. The associated site work includes a playground, basketball court, pedestrian plaza, and surface and underground parking (see Figure 2).While the project proposes to increase the overall building square footage on the site, the building footprint is anticipated to remain approximately the same size.The increase in building size will accommodate an increase in daily programs at the recreation center. The existing recreation center can program about 300 hours per week, while the proposed community center would increase the programming capacity up to 510 hours per week.Parking would be provided via a subterranean parking garage and two surface parking lots. Access to the project site would be provided via a proposed full-access driveway adjacent to the building,and the existing driveways associated with the City-owned parking Lot X along Burlingame Avenue will remain. Scope of Study This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying the potential transportation impacts related to the proposed development. The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the City of Burlingame and the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County. The C/CAG administers the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Given that the project is expected to add fewer than 100 peak hour trips to nearby CMP roadways (El Camino Real), a C/CAG trip reduction analysis was not prepared. The traffic study includes an analysis of AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions for six (6) unsignalized intersections in the vicinity of the project site. The study also includes an analysis of site access and on-site circulation, vehicle queuing, and transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access. Study Intersections 1.Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue 2.California Drive and North Lane 3.Carolan Avenue and North Lane 4.Carolan Avenue/East Lane and Burlingame Avenue 5.Myrtle Road and Burlingame Avenue 6.Anita Road and Burlingame Avenue Burlingame Community Center Figure 1 Site Location and Study Intersections Cali f o r n i a D r Howard AveD w i g h t R d B l o om f i e l d R d Car o l a n A v e Bayswater AveA n i t a R dBurlingame Ave Oak Grove Ave C l a r e n d o n R d L o r t o n A v eBellevue AveA r u n d e l R d S t a n l e y R d Myr t l e R d P r im r o s e R d P a r k R dFloribunda AveH i g h l a n d A v ePlymouth Way Chapin AveH a t c h L n Concord Way Douglas AveDonnelly AveC h a t h am R d El Ca m i n o R e a l Ans e l R d Peninsula AveBurlingame Ave North LnN orth LnSouth LnSouth LnNorth LnSouth LnX = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND 1 4 3 2 5 6 Burlingame Community Center Figure 2 Project Site Plan Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 4 Traffic conditions at the study intersections were analyzed for both the weekday AM and PM peak hours of adjacent street traffic. The AM peak hour typically occurs between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and the PM peak hour typically occurs between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM on a regular weekday. These are the peak commute hours during which traffic volume is highest on the roadways in the study area Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios: Scenario 1:Existing Conditions.Existing traffic volumes at the study intersections were obtained from traffic counts conducted in May of 2017 and 2018. The study intersections were evaluated with a level of service analysis using Synchro software in accordance with the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. Scenario 2:Background Conditions.Background traffic volumes reflect traffic added by projected volumes from approved but not yet completed developments in the project area. The approved project trips and/or approved project information were obtained from recent traffic studies in the City of Burlingame. Scenario 3:Existing plus Project Conditions.Existing traffic volumes with the project were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. Existing plus project conditions were evaluated relative to existing conditions in order to determine the effects the project would have on the existing roadway network. Scenario 4:Project Conditions.Background traffic volumes with the project (hereafter called project traffic volumes) were estimated by adding to background traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. Project Conditions were evaluated relative to background conditions to determine potential project impacts. Scenario 5:Cumulative Conditions.Cumulative traffic volumes represent traffic growth through the year 2028. Cumulative traffic volumes were estimated by applying an annual growth factor of 1.0 percent to the existing volumes, then adding trips from approved developments, as well as project-generated traffic. Cumulative conditions were evaluated relative to cumulative no project conditions to determine potential project impacts. Methodology This section presents the methods used to determine the traffic conditions for each scenario described above. It includes descriptions of the data requirements, the analysis methodologies, and the applicable level of service standards. Data Requirements The data required for the analysis were obtained from new traffic counts, the City of Burlingame, local traffic studies and EIRs, and field observations. The following data were collected from these sources: existing peak-hour intersection turning-movement volumes lane configurations intersection signal timing and phasing approved project information Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 5 Level of Service Standards and Analysis Methodologies Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. The various analysis methods are described below. Unsignalized Intersections Level of service analysis at unsignalized intersections is generally used to determine the need for modification in the type of intersection control (i.e., all-way stop or signalization). As part of the evaluation, traffic volumes, delays and traffic signal warrants are evaluated to determine if the existing intersection control is appropriate. The City of Burlingame evaluates intersection level of service based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)2010 method using Synchro software1. This method is applicable for both side-street and all- way stop-controlled intersections. At side-street stop-controlled intersections (e.g., the Myrtle Road/Burlingame Avenue and Anita Road/Burlingame Avenue intersections), the levels of service reported are for the worst stop-controlled approach delay. For all-way stop-controlled intersections (e.g., the Carolan Avenue/Oak Grove Avenue, Carolan Avenue/North Lane, and the Carolan Avenue/Burlingame Avenue intersections), a weighted average delay of the entire intersection is presented. The City of Burlingame does not have a formally-adopted level of service standard for unsignalized intersections. While the City of Burlingame does not have a Council-adopted level of service threshold for unsignalized intersections, a standard of LOS D or better has typically been applied in local traffic studies and EIRs. The correlation between average control delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections is shown in Table 1. Traffic Signal Warrant The level of service calculations at the unsignalized intersections was supplemented with an assessment of the need for installation of a traffic signal, known as a signal warrant analysis. The need for signalization of unsignalized intersections in an urban or suburban context is typically assessed based on the Peak Hour Volume Warrant (Warrant 3)described in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (CA MUTCD), Part 4, Highway Traffic Signals. This method makes no evaluation of intersection level of service,but simply provides an indication whether vehicular peak hour volumes are, or would be, sufficiently high to justify installation of a traffic signal. The decision to install a traffic signal should not be based purely on the warrants alone. Instead, the decision should be considered when one or more of the warrants are met, which triggers further feasibility analysis.Engineering judgment should be exercised to determine how a traffic signal could affect collision rates and traffic conditions at the subject intersection,as well as at adjacent intersections. Other options besides a traffic signal should also be considered, such as all-way stop control, new or enhanced signage, or roadway geometry changes; these measures may be more appropriate than a new traffic signal. 1 The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)does not support intersections with three stop or yield-controlled approaches and one free-flowing approach. Intersections with these features were evaluated as an all-way stop control intersection to provide a conservative level of service analysis. Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 6 Table 1 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay Significant Impact Criteria Significance criteria are used to establish what constitutes an impact. For this analysis, the criteria used to determine significant impacts on intersections are based on City of Burlingame past practices. Intersection Impact Criteria As previously mentioned, the City of Burlingame does not have any Council-adopted definitions of significant traffic impacts. Standards that have been typically used in traffic studies and EIRs are described below. The project is said to create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at an unsignalized intersection if for any peak-hour: 1.The level of service at the intersection (or movement/approach at side-street stop controls) degrades from an acceptable LOS D to an unacceptable LOS E or F and causes the intersection to meet the peak hour signal warrant; or 2.The level of service at the intersection is an unacceptable LOS E, or F and the addition of project trips causes the intersection to meet the peak hour signal warrant and the intersection (or movement/approach at side-street stop controls) to increase by five (5) or more seconds. A significant impact typically is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented that would restore intersection level of service to insignificant conditions or better. CMP Roadway Impact and Compliance As the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for San Mateo County, the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) is responsible for maintaining the performance and standards of the Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadway network. Per CMP technical guidelines, all new developments estimated to add at least 100 net peak hour trips to the CMP roadway network are required to implement Travel Demand Management (TDM) measures in accordance with the C/CAG CMP Level of Service Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (sec.) A Little or no traffic delay Up to 10.0 B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0 Extreme traffic delays Greater than 50.0 C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2010) E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0 F Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 7 checklist. The proposed project is expected to add fewer than 100 net peak hour vehicle trips to the CMP roadway network. Report Organization The remainder of this report is divided into six chapters. Chapter 2 describes the existing roadway network, transit services, and pedestrian facilities. Chapter 3 presents the intersection operations under background conditions and describes the approved projects in the City of Burlingame that would likely add traffic to the study area. Chapter 4 describes the methods used to estimate project-generated traffic and its impact on the transportation system.Chapter 5 describes cumulative traffic conditions, both with and without the project. Chapter 6 presents the analysis of other transportation related issues including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 8 2.Existing Conditions This chapter describes the existing conditions for transportation facilities in the vicinity of the site, including the roadway network, transit service, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Existing Roadway Network Regional access to the project site is provided via US 101 and El Camino Real (SR 82).Local access to the site is provided by Carolan Avenue, Burlingame Avenue, and California Drive.These roadways are described below. US 101 is a north/south,eight-lane freeway in the vicinity of the site. US 101 extends northward through San Francisco and southward through San Jose. Access to and from the project study area is provided via a full-interchange at Broadway and a partial interchange at Peninsula Avenue. El Camino Real (SR 82)is a four-lane roadway west of the project site that serves as a north-south route of travel along the Peninsula in the vicinity of the site. El Camino Real extends northward to San Francisco,and southward to San Jose.Access to the project site from El Camino Real is provided via Burlingame Avenue. California Drive is a north/south roadway that extends from Millbrae Avenue in the City of Millbrae to Peninsula Avenue in San Mateo to the south, at which point it becomes North San Mateo Drive. California Drive consists of two lanes between Millbrae Avenue and Broadway, and four lanes south of Broadway. Located west of the project site, access from California Drive is provided via North Lane and Carolan Avenue. Carolan Avenue is a north/south, two-lane street that extends from Edwards Road to Burlingame Avenue, where it transitions into East Lane. On-street parking is permitted along both sides of Carolan Avenue. Access to the project site from Carolan Avenue is provided via Burlingame Avenue. Burlingame Avenue is an east/west, two-lane street that extends from Occidental Avenue through downtown Burlingame to California Drive, and continues east of the Caltrain tracks from Carolan Avenue/East Lane to Rollins Road. Burlingame Avenue forms the southern boundary of the project site and permits on-street parking along both sides of the roadway. Burlingame Avenue provides direct access to the project site. Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 9 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections. In the vicinity of the project site, sidewalks exist along either side or both sides of Burlingame Avenue, Anita Road, Myrtle Road, Carolan Avenue, and California Drive, providing pedestrian access to and from the project site. Marked crosswalks are provided on all stopped-controlled approaches of the unsignalized study intersections The overall network of sidewalks and crosswalks in the study area has adequate connectivity and provides pedestrians with safe routes to school, transit services,and other points of interest in the vicinity of the project site. Existing Bicycle Facilities There are some bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project site. The existing bicycle facilities within the study area are described below and are shown on Figure 3. North-south bicycle connections in the study area include Class III bike routes along California Drive between Millbrae Avenue and Burlingame Avenue to the west, and along Carolan Avenue between Howard Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue,also to the west. Bike routes are signed and designated roadways that provide connections to the project site,as well as parks, schools, other community amenities such as downtown Burlingame and the Millbrae Transit Center. There are also Class II bike lanes north of the project site along Carolan Avenue between Broadway and Oak Grove Avenue.Bike Lanes are preferential-use areas within a roadway, designated for bicycles. East-west bicycle connections in the study area consist of bike routes along Oak Grove Avenue between Acacia Drive and Winchester Drive,north of the project site, and along Howard Avenue south of the project site between Occidental Avenue and East Lane, where it transitions into Class II bike lanes and extends east to Humboldt Street. Although few of the local streets within the project study area are designated as bike routes, due to their low speed limits and traffic volumes many streets in the vicinity of the project site are conducive to bicycle travel. Existing Transit Service Existing transit service to the study area is provided by the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), the City of Burlingame, and Caltrain (See Figure 4). The study area is served directly by a limited bus route, an express bus route, and a shuttle route.The transit service routes that run through the study area are listed in Table 2, including their route description and commute hour headways. The nearest bus stop is located at the Myrtle Road/Burlingame Avenue intersection, which is about 500 feet walking distance west of the project site. Burlingame Community Center Figure 3 Existing Bicycle Facilities Califor n i a D r Howard AveD w i g h t R d B l o om f i e l d R d Car o l a n A v e Bayswater AveA n i t a R dBurlingame Ave Oak Grove Ave C l a r e n d o n R d L o r t o n A v eBellevue AveA r u n d e l R d S t a n l e y R d Myr t l e R d P r im r o s e R d P a r k R dFloribunda AveH i g h l a n d A v ePlymouth Way Chapin AveH a t c h L n Concord Way Douglas AveDonnelly AveC h a t h am R d El Ca m i n o R e a l Ans e l R d Peninsula AveBurlingame Ave X = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND = Existing Class II Bike Lanes = Existing Class III Bike Routes North LnN orth LnSouth LnSouth LnNorth LnSouth LnBurlingame1 4 3 2 5 6 Burlingame Caltrain Station Burlingame Community Center Figure 4 Existing Transit Services = Site Location LEGEND = Samtrans Route 46 = Samtrans Route 292 = Burlingame Trolley = Proposed High Speed Rail Califor n i a D r Howard AveD w i g h t R d B l o om f i e l d R d Car o l a n A v e Bayswater AveA n i t a R dBurlingame Ave Oak Grove Ave C l a r e n d o n R d L o r t o n A v eBellevue AveA r u n d e l R d S t a n l e y R d Myr t l e R d P r im r o s e R d P a r k R dFloribunda AveH i g h l a n d A v ePlymouth Way H a t c h L n Concord Way Douglas AveDonnelly AveC h a t h am R d Ans e l R d Peninsula AveBurlingame Ave North LnN orth LnSouth LnSouth LnNorth LnSouth LnBurlingame Caltrain Station Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 1 2 Table 2 Existing Transit Services Caltrain Service Caltrain provides frequent passenger train service between San Jose and San Francisco seven days a week. During commute hours, Caltrain provides extended service to Morgan Hill and Gilroy. The closest Caltrain station is the Burlingame Station (approximately a quarter-mile west of the project site), providing weekday and weekend service. The Burlingame Station provides local and limited Caltrain service. Trains that stop at the Burlingame Station operate at approximately 25-minute headways in both directions during the commute hours, with somewhat less frequent service midday. Service operates between about 5:30 AM and 11:35 PM in the northbound direction and between 5:20 AM and 12:35 AM (next day) in the southbound direction. As part of the Caltrain Modernization Program, the rail service will be electrified. The electrified Caltrain system will provide increased service through improved system operations. Existing Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Volumes The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were determined by observations in the field and are shown on Figure 5.Typical engineering practice allows for the use of traffic counts conducted within the past two years. At locations where the available count data is outdated, new peak-hour turning movement counts are conducted.When this study was started, there were counts already available at the Carolan/Oak Grove intersection from the 619 California Drive Live/Work Development traffic study. The other five study intersections needed new counts, which were conducted on May 1st, 2018.The existing peak-hour intersection volumes are shown on Figure 6. Intersection turning- movement counts conducted for this analysis are presented in Appendix A. Transit Route Route Description Headway 1 Operated by SamTrans Limited Route 46 Burlingame Intermediate School to Arundel Road/Howard Avenue Intersection N/A 2 Express Route 292 Hillsdale Shopping Center to Transbay Transit Center 30 mins Operated by the City of Burlingame Burlingame Trolley Service Burlingame Caltrain Station to San Francisco Airport Marriott Hotel 45 mins Notes: 1 Approximate headways during peak commute periods. 2 N/A - Route has only two trips during the AM. This route only operates on school days during the PM. Califor n i a D r Howard AveD w i g h t R d B l o om f i e l d R d Car o l a n A v e Bayswater AveA n i t a R dBurlingame Ave Oak Grove Ave C l a r e n d o n R d L o r t o n A v eBellevue AveA r u n d e l R d S t a n l e y R d Myr t l e R d P r im r o s e R d P a r k R dFloribunda AveH i g h l a n d A v ePlymouth Way Chapin AveH a t c h L n Concord Way Douglas AveDonnelly AveC h a t h am R d El Ca m i n o R e a l Ans e l R d Peninsula AveBurlingame Ave North LnN orth LnSouth LnSouth LnNorth LnSouth LnX = Study Intersection = Stop Control = Yield Control = Site Location LEGEND 1 4 3 2 5 6 STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOPCaliforniaDrBurlingame Community Center Figure 5 Existing Lane Configurations Califor n i a D r Howard AveD w i g h t R d B l o om f i e l d R d Car o l a n A v e Bayswater AveA n i t a R dBurlingame Ave Oak Grove Ave C l a r e n d o n R d L o r t o n A v eBellevue AveA r u n d e l R d S t a n l e y R d Myr t l e R d P r im r o s e R d P a r k R dFloribunda AveH i g h l a n d A v ePlymouth Way Chapin AveH a t c h L n Concord Way Douglas AveDonnelly AveC h a t h am R d El Ca m i n o R e a l Ans e l R d Peninsula AveBurlingame Ave North LnN orth LnSouth LnSouth LnNorth LnSouth Ln= AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX) X = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND 1 4 3 2 5 6 CarolanAveMyrtleRdEastLnLnNorth Ave Ave Grove Oak CarolanAveBurlingame AnitaRdAve Burlingame 1234 5 6 North Ln Burlingame AveCarolanAveTennisCour tDwy70(34)69(82)23(41)12(19)101(101)171(179)11(22) 146(133) 7(20) 298(208) 144(126) 123(46)689(833)164(86)174(111)554(676)33(45) 144(94)64(98)127(96)11(8)2(3)118(129)125(68)207(51) 28(6) 86(121)16(33)9(5)16(13)0(1)1(2)12(5) 115(87) 12(17) 23(28) 105(121) 19(23)3(2)65(59)107(145)92(107)19(20) 125(126)40(23)19(11)31(22) 102(85) 3(1) 92(106) 25(32) 9(5)15(5)10(11)1(2)2(4)CaliforniaDrBurlingame Community Center Figure 6 Existing Traffic Volumes Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 1 5 Existing Intersection Levels of Service The results of the analysis show that all except one of the unsignalized study intersections currently operate at LOS A or LOS B during the AM and PM peak hours (see Table 3).This indicates that vehicles at the majority of the stop-controlled approaches experience only minor delays. The California Drive/North Lane intersection operates at LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour for the stop-controlled movements on North Lane. The lower levels of service at the California Drive/North Lane intersection is partly attributed to the Caltrain railroad gate down-times on North Lane, between California Drive and Carolan Avenue. The intersection level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Table 3 Existing Intersection Levels of Service Observed Existing Traffic Conditions Overall, most study intersections operated adequately during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic, and the level of service analysis appears to accurately reflect actual existing traffic conditions. However, field observations showed that some operational problems currently occur during the AM and PM peak commute hours. These issues are described below. The study intersections nearest to the project site operate adequately during the AM and PM peak hours of traffic, and the level of service analysis accurately reflects actual existing traffic conditions. Count Traffic Peak Avg. Delay Intersection Date Control Hour (sec.)LOS 05/23/17 AM 14.0 B 05/23/17 PM 12.1 B 05/01/18 AM 21.2 C 05/01/18 PM 29.1 D 05/01/18 AM 10.2 B 05/01/18 PM 8.9 A 05/01/18 AM 8.3 A 05/01/18 PM 8.6 A 05/01/18 AM 10.4 B 05/01/18 PM 10.6 B 05/01/18 AM 7.8 A 05/01/18 PM 7.7 A AWSC = All-Way Stop Control SSSC = Side-Street Stop Control * 1 Average delay for an all-way stop controlled intersection is reported for the entire intersection. 2 Average delay for a side-street stop controlled intersection is reported for the worst stop-controlled approach. Calfiornia Drive and North Lane 3 Carolan Avenue and North Lane * 4 Due to limitations within the Synchro software, three of the intersections along Carolan Avenue (Oak Grove Avenue, North Lane, and Burlingame Avenue) cannot be evaluated with three stop or yield-controlled approaches and one free-flowing approach. Therefore, the study intersections were evaluated as an all-way stop control intersection to provide a conservative level of service analysis. Study Number 6 2 5 SSSC 2 Notes: 1 Existing Conditions Anita Road and Burlingame Avenue Myrtle Road and Burlingame Avenue Carolan Avenue/East Lane and Burlingame Avenue * Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue *AWSC 1 SSSC 2 AWSC 1 AWSC 1 SSSC 2 Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 1 6 North Lane, as well as Carolan Avenue south of Oak Grove Avenue, carries relatively moderate traffic volumes to and from Burlingame High School during student drop-off/pick-up times. Given the short period in which students are dropped-off/picked-up, the moderate traffic volumes along Oak Grove Avenue and within the study area only occur for 15-20 minutes and do not last the entire peak period. The close spacing of the intersections along North Lane result in occasional vehicle queue backups during the AM peak hour, particularly due to the frequent Caltrain railroad gate down-times. The eastbound vehicle queue typically backs up to California Drive during the gate down-times,resulting in extended wait times for vehicles turning on to North Lane from southbound California Drive as well as southbound and northbound Carolan Avenue. However, North Lane as well as the adjacent turn movements are able to clear their respective intersections quickly once the Caltrain gate is lifted. Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 1 7 3.Background Conditions This chapter describes background traffic conditions. Background conditions are defined as conditions within the next 3-5 years (a horizon year of 2021-2023) just prior to completion/occupation of the proposed development. Traffic volumes for background conditions comprise existing traffic volumes plus traffic generated by other approved developments in the vicinity of the site. This chapter describes the procedure used to determine background traffic volumes and the resulting traffic conditions. Roadway Network and Traffic Volumes Under background conditions, it is assumed that the proposed Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP), which is a key component of the Caltrain Modernization program, would be completed (projected to be operational between 2020 and 2021). According to Fehr & Peers’Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Transportation Analysis (2014), the PCEP is expected to increase service by up to six Caltrain trains per peak hour per direction by 2020.The remainder of the transportation network is assumed to be the same under background conditions as that of the existing transportation network. Background traffic volumes for the study intersections were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the trips generated by nearby approved but not yet completed or occupied projects in the area. A list of approved developments was obtained from the City of Burlingame and is included in the Appendix. Trip generation estimates for the approved projects were based on their respective traffic study, if available. For small projects that did not require a traffic study, trips were estimated based on ITE trip rates. The estimated trips from the approved projects were distributed and assigned throughout the study area based on the trip distribution assumptions present in the traffic studies or based on knowledge of travel patterns in the study area. Background peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Figure 7. Background Intersection Levels of Service Table 4 shows that the study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) during both the AM and PM peak hours under background conditions. This indicates that vehicles at the stop-controlled approaches would continue to experience moderate delays.The intersection level of service calculation sheets are provided in Appendix B. It should be noted that the proposed PCEP will result in additional gate down-times at the railroad crossings in Burlingame. These could result in an increase in the wait-time (delay) of some turning movements of the adjacent study intersections trying to cross the railroad tracks. However, given that all of the study intersections are stop-controlled, vehicles on the other approaches would still be able to travel through the intersection; thus, the increased train service is not expected to affect intersection Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 1 8 operations. In addition, based on the levels of service, all of the turning movements crossing the Caltrain railroad tracks would operate at LOS B or better. Thus, the added delay is not expected to significantly impact the adjacent study intersections. Table 4 Background Intersection Levels of Service Traffic Peak Avg. Delay Intersection Control Hour (sec.)LOS AM 14.1 B PM 12.1 B AM 21.8 C PM 30.7 D AM 10.2 B PM 8.9 A AM 8.3 A PM 8.6 A AM 10.4 B PM 10.6 B AM 7.8 A PM 7.7 A AWSC = All-Way Stop Control SSSC = Side-Street Stop Control * 1 Average delay for an all-way stop controlled intersection is reported for the entire intersection. 2 Due to limitations within the Synchro software, three of the intersections along Carolan Avenue (Oak Grove Avenue, North Lane, and Burlingame Avenue) cannot be evaluated with three stop or yield-controlled approaches and one free- flowing approach.Therefore, the study intersections were evaluated as an all-way stop control intersection to provide a conservative level of service analysis. Average delay for a side-street stop controlled intersection is reported for the worst stop-controlled approach. AWSC 1 AWSC 1 SSSC 2 SSSC 2 Notes: 6 Anita Road and Burlingame Avenue 3 Carolan Avenue and North Lane * 4 Carolan Avenue/East Lane and Burlingame Avenue * 5 Myrtle Road and Burlingame Avenue Background Study Number 1 Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue * 2 Calfiornia Drive and North Lane AWSC 1 SSSC 2 Califor n i a D r Howard AveD w i g h t R d B l o om f i e l d R d Car o l a n A v e Bayswater AveA n i t a R dBurlingame Ave Oak Grove Ave C l a r e n d o n R d L o r t o n A v eBellevue AveA r u n d e l R d S t a n l e y R d Myr t l e R d P r im r o s e R d P a r k R dFloribunda AveH i g h l a n d A v ePlymouth Way Chapin AveH a t c h L n Concord Way Douglas AveDonnelly AveC h a t h am R d El Ca m i n o R e a l Ans e l R d Peninsula AveBurlingame Ave North LnN orth LnSouth LnSouth LnNorth LnSouth Ln= AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX) X = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND 1 4 3 2 5 6 CarolanAveMyrtleRdEastLnLnNorth Ave Ave Grove Oak CarolanAveBurlingame AnitaRdAve Burlingame 1234 5 6 North Ln Burlingame AveCarolanAveTennisCourtDwy 70(34)69(82)23(43)12(19)101(101)176(181)11(22) 146(133) 7(20) 299(211) 144(126) 123(46)695(861)164(86)174(111)581(683)33(45) 144(94)64(98)127(96)11(8)2(3)118(129)125(68)207(51) 28(6) 86(121)16(33)9(5)16(13)0(1)1(2)12(5) 115(87) 12(17) 23(28) 105(121) 19(23)3(2)65(59)107(145)92(107)19(20) 125(126)40(23)19(11)31(22) 102(85) 3(1) 92(106) 25(32) 9(5)15(5)10(11)1(2)2(4)CaliforniaDrBurlingame Community Center Figure 7 Background Traffic Volumes Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 2 0 4.Project Conditions This chapter describes traffic conditions with the project and includes: (1) the method by which project traffic is estimated and (2) a level of service summary. Existing plus project conditions are represented by existing traffic conditions with the addition of traffic generated by the project. Existing plus project traffic conditions could potentially occur if the project were to be occupied prior to the other approved projects in the area. Project conditions are represented by background traffic conditions with the addition of traffic generated by the project. Roadway Network It is assumed in this analysis that the transportation network under project conditions would be the same as the background transportation network. Project Trip Estimates The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear were estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic traveling to and from the proposed community center was estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, the directions to and from which the project trips would travel were estimated. In the project trip assignment, the project trips were assigned to specific streets and intersections. These procedures are described below. Trip Generation Through empirical research, data have been collected that quantify the amount of traffic expected to be produced by common land uses. Thus, for the most common land uses there are standard trip generation rates that can be applied to help predict the future traffic increases that would result from a new development. The standard trip generation rates typically come from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication titled Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). Project trip generation was estimated by applying to the size and uses of the development the appropriate trip generation rates obtained from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The average trip generation rates for Recreational Community Center (Land Use 495)was applied to the project.The ITE trip rates reflect between 10 and 13 surveyed recreational community center locations during peak hours and comprise building sizes ranging from 30,000 square feet to 350,000 square feet. The project as proposed would replace the existing 25,000 square-foot recreation center with a new 35,700 square-foot community center. Based on ITE’s trip generation rates for Recreational Community Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 2 1 Center (Land Use 495), the project would generate 308 new daily vehicle trips, with 19 new trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 25 new trips occurring during the PM peak hour (see Table 5). Table 5 Project Trip Generation Estimates Trip Distribution and Trip Assignment The trip distribution pattern for the project was developed based on existing travel patterns on the surrounding roadway system and the locations of complementary land uses. The peak hour vehicle trips generated by the project were assigned to the roadway network in accordance with the trip distribution pattern.Figure 8 shows the trip distribution pattern for the project, while Figure 9 shows the trip assignment of project traffic on the local transportation network. Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes Project trips, as represented in the above project trip assignment, were added to existing traffic volumes to obtain existing plus project traffic volumes. The existing plus project traffic volumes are shown on Figure 10. Land Use Rate Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Proposed Uses Burlingame Community Center 1 35.7 ksf 28.82 1,029 1.76 41 22 63 2.31 39 43 82 Existing Uses Recreation Center 1 25.0 ksf 28.82 (721)1.76 (29)(15)(44)2.31 (27)(31)(58) Net Project Trips 308 12 7 19 12 13 25 Notes: KSF = 1,000 square feet 1 Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Size Recreational Community Center (Land Use 495) average rates published in ITE’s Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. Burlingame Community CenterFigure 8Project Trip DistributionCalifornia DrHoward AveDwight RdBloomfield RdCarolan AveBayswater AveAnita RdBurlingame AveOak Grove AveClarendon RdLorton AveBellevue AveArundel RdStanley RdMyrtle RdPrimrose RdPark RdFloribunda AveHighland AvePlymouth WayChapin AveHatch LnConcord WayDouglas AveDonnelly AveChatham RdEl Camino RealAnsel RdPeninsula AveBurlingame AveNorth LnNorth LnSouth LnSouth LnNorth LnSouth LnX= Study Intersection= Site LocationLEGEND14325625%15%15%15%10%10%10% Califor n i a D r Howard AveD w i g h t R d B l o om f i e l d R d Car o l a n A v e Bayswater AveA n i t a R dBurlingame Ave Oak Grove Ave C l a r e n d o n R d L o r t o n A v eBellevue AveA r u n d e l R d S t a n l e y R d Myr t l e R d P r im r o s e R d P a r k R dFloribunda AveH i g h l a n d A v ePlymouth Way Chapin AveH a t c h L n Concord Way Douglas AveDonnelly AveC h a t h am R d El Ca m i n o R e a l Ans e l R d Peninsula AveBurlingame Ave North LnN orth LnSouth LnSouth LnNorth LnSouth Ln= AM(PM) Peak-Hour TripsXX(XX) X = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND 1 4 3 2 5 6 CarolanAveMyrtleRdEastLnLnNorth Ave Ave Grove Oak CarolanAveBurlingame AnitaRdAve Burlingame 1234 5 6 North Ln Burlingame AveCarolanAveTennisCour tDwy1(2)1(2)2(2)2(2)1(1)2(2)1(1) 1(2)2(3)2(4)4(4)3(3)1(1)1(1)0(1)0(1) 6(6)7(7)4(7)1(1)1(1) 0(1) 1(1)CaliforniaDrBurlingame Community Center Figure 9 Project Trip Assignment Califor n i a D r Howard AveD w i g h t R d B l o om f i e l d R d Car o l a n A v e Bayswater AveA n i t a R dBurlingame Ave Oak Grove Ave C l a r e n d o n R d L o r t o n A v eBellevue AveA r u n d e l R d S t a n l e y R d Myr t l e R d P r im r o s e R d P a r k R dFloribunda AveH i g h l a n d A v ePlymouth Way Chapin AveH a t c h L n Concord Way Douglas AveDonnelly AveC h a t h am R d El Ca m i n o R e a l Ans e l R d Peninsula AveBurlingame Ave North LnN orth LnSouth LnSouth LnNorth LnSouth Ln= AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX) X = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND 1 4 3 2 5 6 CarolanAveMyrtleRdEastLnLnNorth Ave Ave Grove Oak CarolanAveBurlingame AnitaRdAve Burlingame 1234 5 6 North Ln Burlingame AveCarolanAveTennisCourtDwy 70(34)70(84)24(43)12(19)103(103)171(179)13(24) 146(133) 7(20) 298(208) 144(126) 123(46)689(833)165(87)176(113)554(676)34(46) 145(96)66(101)129(100)11(8)2(3)122(133)125(68)207(51) 28(6) 89(124)16(33)10(6)17(14)0(1)0(1)1(2)12(5) 115(88) 12(17) 29(34) 105(121) 19(23)3(2)65(59)114(152)92(107)19(20) 129(133)40(23)20(12)32(23) 102(86) 3(1) 93(107) 25(32) 9(5)15(5)10(11)1(2)2(4)CaliforniaDrBurlingame Community Center Figure 10 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 2 5 Existing Plus Project Intersection Analysis The results of the analysis show that all but one of the stop-controlled approaches of the unsignalized study intersections would continue to operate at LOS B or better during both peak hours (see Table 6). The Carolan Avenue/North Lane intersection would continue to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. This indicates that, with the addition of project traffic under existing conditions, vehicles at the stop-controlled approaches are expected to continue to experience minor-to-moderate delays.The intersection level of service calculation sheets are provided in Appendix B. Table 6 Existing Plus Project Level of Service Summary Project Condition Traffic Volumes Project trips, as represented in the above project trip assignment, were added to background traffic volumes to obtain project condition traffic volumes. The project condition traffic volumes at the study intersections are shown on Figure 11. Project Condition Intersection Analysis Analysis results from Table 7 show that all unsignalized study intersections and their stop-controlled approaches would operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours. Thus, vehicles at the stop- controlled approaches are expected experience up to moderate delays under background plus project conditions.Intersection level of service calculation sheets are provided in Appendix B. Traffic Peak Avg. Delay Avg. Delay Intersection Control Hour (sec.)LOS (sec.)LOS AM 14.0 B 14.1 B PM 12.1 B 12.1 B AM 21.2 C 21.8 C PM 29.1 D 29.7 D AM 10.2 B 10.2 B PM 8.9 A 8.9 A AM 8.3 A 8.4 A PM 8.6 A 8.7 A AM 10.4 B 10.5 B PM 10.6 B 10.8 B AM 7.8 A 7.8 A PM 7.7 A 7.7 A AWSC = All-Way Stop Control SSSC = Side-Street Stop Control * 1 Average delay for an all-way stop controlled intersection is reported for the entire intersection. 2 Average delay for a side-street stop controlled intersection is reported for the worst stop-controlled approach. Due to limitations within the Synchro software, three of the intersections along Carolan Avenue (Oak Grove Avenue, North Lane, and Burlingame Avenue) cannot be evaluated with three stop or yield-controlled approaches and one free-flowing approach.Therefore, the study intersections were evaluated as an all-way stop control intersection to provide a conservative level of service analysis. Note: AWSC 1 SSSC 2 AWSC 1 AWSC 1 SSSC 2 SSSC 2 4 1 Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue * 2 Calfiornia Drive and North Lane 3 Carolan Avenue and North Lane * Existing Conditions Study Number 6 With Project Myrtle Road and Burlingame Avenue No Project Anita Road and Burlingame Avenue Carolan Avenue/East Lane and Burlingame Avenue * 5 Califor n i a D r Howard AveD w i g h t R d B l o om f i e l d R d Car o l a n A v e Bayswater AveA n i t a R dBurlingame Ave Oak Grove Ave C l a r e n d o n R d L o r t o n A v eBellevue AveA r u n d e l R d S t a n l e y R d Myr t l e R d P r im r o s e R d P a r k R dFloribunda AveH i g h l a n d A v ePlymouth Way Chapin AveH a t c h L n Concord Way Douglas AveDonnelly AveC h a t h am R d El Ca m i n o R e a l Ans e l R d Peninsula AveBurlingame Ave North LnN orth LnSouth LnSouth LnNorth LnSouth Ln= AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX) X = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND 1 4 3 2 5 6 CarolanAveMyrtleRdEastLnLnNorth Ave Ave Grove Oak CaliforniaDrCarolanAveBurlingame AnitaRdAve Burlingame 1234 5 6 North Ln Burlingame AveCarolanAveTennisCourtDwy 70(34)70(84)24(45)12(19)103(103)176(181)13(24) 146(133) 7(20) 299(211) 144(126) 123(46)695(861)165(87)176(113)581(683)34(46) 145(96)66(101)129(100)11(8)2(3)122(133)125(68)207(51) 28(6) 89(124)16(33)10(6)17(14)0(1)0(1)1(2)12(5) 115(88) 12(17) 29(34) 105(121) 19(23)3(2)65(59)114(152)92(107)19(20) 129(133)40(23)20(12)32(23) 102(86) 3(1) 93(107) 25(32) 9(5)15(5)10(11)1(2)2(4)Burlingame Community Center Figure 11 Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 2 7 Table 7 Background Plus Project Level of Service Summary Traffic Peak Avg Avg Intersection Control Hour Delay (sec.)LOS Delay (sec.)LOS AM 14.1 B 14.2 B PM 12.1 B 12.2 B AM 21.8 C 22.3 C PM 30.7 D 31.5 D AM 10.2 B 10.2 B PM 8.9 A 8.9 A AM 8.3 A 8.4 A PM 8.6 A 8.7 A AM 10.4 B 10.5 B PM 10.6 B 10.8 B AM 7.8 A 7.8 A PM 7.7 A 7.7 A AWSC = All-Way Stop Control SSSC = Side-Street Stop Control * 1 Average delay for an all-way stop controlled intersection is reported for the entire intersection. 2 Average delay for a side-street stop controlled intersection is reported for the worst stop-controlled approach. Due to limitations within the Synchro software, three of the intersections along Carolan Avenue (Oak Grove Avenue, North Lane, and Burlingame Avenue) cannot be evaluated with three stop or yield-controlled approaches and one free-flowing approach.Therefore, the study intersections were evaluated as an all-way stop control intersection to provide a conservative level of service analysis. SSSC 2 AWSC 1 AWSC 1 SSSC 2 SSSC 2 Note: Myrtle Road and Burlingame Avenue 6 Anita Road and Burlingame Avenue 2 Calfiornia Drive and North Lane 3 Carolan Avenue and North Lane * 4 Carolan Avenue/East Lane and Burlingame Avenue * 5 Background Conditions No Project With Project Study Number 1 Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue *AWSC 1 Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 2 8 5.Cumulative Conditions This chapter presents a summary of the traffic conditions that would occur under cumulative conditions with the proposed project. Cumulative conditions represent future traffic conditions with expected growth in the area. The expected future traffic growth was estimated by applying an annual growth factor to the existing counts over 10 years. Thus, cumulative conditions reflect a horizon year of 2028. Roadway Network and Traffic Volumes The intersection lane configurations under cumulative conditions were assumed to be the same as described under background conditions. Based on the C/CAG travel demand model, as well as previously completed traffic studies within the City of Burlingame, the traffic volumes under cumulative no project conditions for the study intersections were estimated by applying a 1.0 percent annual growth rate to the existing traffic counts and adding traffic from approved developments. The growth rate was applied to the study intersections through the year 2028 (ten-year horizon). Project trips were then added to the growth estimates to create the cumulative conditions volumes (see Figure 12). Intersection Levels of Service Analysis Analysis results from Table 8 show that most of the unsignalized study intersections and their stop- controlled approaches would operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours. The California Drive/North Lane intersection would operate at an unacceptable LOS E with and without the addition of the project traffic during the PM peak hour. In addition, a signal warrant analysis conducted at the California Drive/North Lane intersection shows that the warrant would be met under all scenarios with and without project traffic during the AM and PM peak hours (see description below). However, the addition of project traffic would not create a significant impact at this intersection because the increase to the stop-controlled delay per vehicle would be less than the standard threshold of five (5) seconds. Intersection level of service calculation sheets are provided in Appendix B. Califor n i a D r Howard AveD w i g h t R d B l o om f i e l d R d Car o l a n A v e Bayswater AveA n i t a R dBurlingame Ave Oak Grove Ave C l a r e n d o n R d L o r t o n A v eBellevue AveA r u n d e l R d S t a n l e y R d Myr t l e R d P r im r o s e R d P a r k R dFloribunda AveH i g h l a n d A v ePlymouth Way Chapin AveH a t c h L n Concord Way Douglas AveDonnelly AveC h a t h am R d El Ca m i n o R e a l Ans e l R d Peninsula AveBurlingame Ave North LnN orth LnSouth LnSouth LnNorth LnSouth Ln= AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX) X = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND 1 4 3 2 5 6CaliforniaDrBurlingame Community Center Figure 12 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 3 0 Table 8 Cumulative Level of Service Summary Signal Warrant Analysis Signal warrant checks (California MUTCD, Section 4, Warrant 3) were performed for the unsignalized study intersections. The results of the signal warrant analysis are described and summarized below. Signal warrant worksheets and threshold tables are included in Appendix C. A peak hour signal warrant analysis was performed for the unsignalized study intersections. Based on their peak-hour traffic volumes, only one of the study intersections would warrant signalization. The intersection of California Drive and North Lane would warrant a traffic signal under all scenarios with and without the project. California Drive has two through lanes in each direction as well as a southbound left-turn lane at the unsignalized California Drive/North Lane intersection. Vehicles turning left from southbound California Drive onto eastbound North Lane must wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic flow, during which time through traffic is able to proceed in the through lanes. Similarly, left turning traffic from North Lane onto southbound California Drive must wait for a gap in both the northbound and southbound traffic flow. As described in the previous section, the California Drive/North Lane intersection would operate at LOS E under cumulative conditions, which reflects very long traffic delays and extended vehicle queues. Given the presence of the Caltrain railroad tracks east of the California Drive/North Lane intersection, operational and safety-related issues could potentially arise from westbound turning vehicles waiting for a gap in the northbound and/or southbound traffic flow and vehicle queues extending onto the railroad tracks.While the addition of project-generated traffic is not expected to create a significant impact, the Traffic Peak Avg Avg Intersection Control Hour Delay (sec.)LOS Delay (sec.)LOS AM 16.4 C 16.5 C PM 13.2 B 13.3 B AM 28.3 D 29.6 D PM 46.5 E 49.2 E AM 10.8 B 10.9 B PM 9.1 A 9.2 A AM 8.5 A 8.6 A PM 9.0 A 9.0 A AM 10.6 B 10.7 B PM 11.0 B 11.1 B AM 7.9 A 8.0 A PM 7.8 A 7.8 A AWSC = All-Way Stop Control SSSC = Side-Street Stop Control * 1 Average delay for an all-way stop controlled intersection is reported for the entire intersection. 2 Average delay for a side-street stop controlled intersection is reported for the worst stop-controlled approach. Bold indicates a substandard level of service. 6 Anita Road and Burlingame Avenue SSSC 2 Note: Due to limitations within the Synchro software, three of the intersections along Carolan Avenue (Oak Grove Avenue, North Lane, and Burlingame Avenue) cannot be evaluated with three stop or yield-controlled approaches and one free-flowing approach.Therefore, the study intersections were evaluated as an all-way stop control intersection to provide a conservative level of service analysis. 4 Carolan Avenue/East Lane and Burlingame Avenue *AWSC 1 5 Myrtle Road and Burlingame Avenue SSSC 2 2 Calfiornia Drive and North Lane SSSC 2 3 Carolan Avenue and North Lane *AWSC 1 Cumulative Conditions No Project With Project Study Number 1 Carolan Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue *AWSC 1 Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 3 1 City of Burlingame should monitor the California Drive/North Lane intersection and its potential conflict with the Caltrain railroad tracks, including evaluating the need for signalization.Given the close proximity of the California Drive/Burlingame Avenue intersection, the traffic signal at the North Lane would need to be coordinated with the nearby Burlingame Avenue intersection to ensure efficient traffic operations along California Drive and North Lane. Coordinating these two traffic signals will ensure that westbound traffic on No rth Lane would not extend across the Caltrain railroad tracks. Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 3 2 6.Other Transportation Issues This chapter presents other transportation issues associated with the project. These include an analysis of: Project site access and circulation Truck access and circulation Parking analysis Potential impacts to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities Unlike the level of service impact methodology, most of the analyses in this chapter are based on professional judgement in accordance with the standards and methods employed by traffic engineering professionals. Although operational issues are not considered CEQA impacts, they do describe traffic conditions that are relevant to describing the project environment. Site Access and On-Site Circulation The site access and on-site circulation evaluation is based on the May 2018 site plan prepared by Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc.(see Figure 2). Site access was evaluated to determine the adequacy of the site’s new driveway with regard to the following: traffic volume, delays, vehicle queues, geometric design, and corner sight distance. On-site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards and transportation planning principles. Project Driveway Design The proposed project would replace two of the existing partial-access driveways,east of the Anita Road/Burlingame Avenue intersection, with a single full-access driveway.The project as proposed would provide a width of 18 feet for the proposed driveway that would provide access to the surface parking area and the subterranean parking garage adjacent to the building. The City of Burlingame Zoning Code requires a minimum of either two 12-foot driveways or one 18-foot driveway for parking areas of more than 30 vehicle spaces. Therefore,the project site plan would conform to the City’s minimum width requirement for a two-way driveway. Nearby Driveways The location of the project driveway was also reviewed with respect to other driveways in the vicinity of the project site. Nearby driveways are located across from and approximately 50 feet west of the exit- only driveway of the City-owned parking Lot X on Burlingame Avenue. Similarly, nearby residential driveways and an alleyway are located across from the proposed driveway leading to the parking area adjacent to the community center building. While both project driveways would be close in proximity to the neighboring driveways, vehicles are still expected to be able to make turns in and out of the project driveway without affecting similar operations at the adjacent driveways due to the low traffic volumes Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 3 3 and speed along Burlingame Avenue. Therefore, the driveway location as proposed were found to be adequate. Sight Distance There are no existing trees or visual obstructions along the project frontage that could obscure sight distance at the project driveway. The project access points should be free and clear of any obstructions to provide adequate sight distance, thereby ensuring that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk and vehicles and bicycles traveling on Burlingame Avenue. Any landscaping and signage should be located in such a way to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers exiting the site. Adequate sight distance (sight distance triangles) should be provided at the project driveway in accordance with Caltrans standards. Sight distance triangles should be measured approximately 10 feet back from the traveled way. Providing the appropriate sight distance reduces the likelihood of a collision at a driveway or intersection and provides drivers with the ability to exit a driveway or locate sufficient gaps in traffic. The minimum acceptable sight distance is often considered the Caltrans stopping sight distance. Sight distance requirements vary depending on the roadway speeds. For driveways on Burlingame Avenue, which has a posted speed limit of 25 mph, the Caltrans stopping sight distance is 200 feet (based on a design speed of 30 mph). Thus, a driver must be able to see 200 feet in both directions along Burlingame Avenue in order to stop and avoid a collision. Based on the project site plan, it can be concluded that the project driveways would meet the Caltrans stopping sight distance standards. Project Driveway Operations The project-generated gross trips that are estimated to occur at the project driveway are 41 inbound trips and 22 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and 39 inbound trips and 43 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. Based on the relatively low traffic volumes near the project site and observations of existing traffic operations along Burlingame Avenue, vehicle queues should rarely exceed 1 or 2 vehicles in length during the peak hours. The project driveway adjacent to the community center building would provide full-access, allowing right and left inbound and outbound turns to and from Burlingame Avenue. Outbound left turns from the project driveway would require vehicles to wait for gaps in traffic in both the eastbound and westbound directions, while inbound left turns would require vehicles to wait for a gap in the westbound traffic flow only. Given that Burlingame Avenue consists of only one lane in each direction with no left-turn pockets, inbound left turns at the project driveway would be made from the through lane. Thus, there would be interruptions to the through traffic flow while left-turn vehicles wait for a gap in the on-coming traffic flow, albeit momentary. Driveways at the City-owned parking lot would operate similarly, except the partial-access driveway,which only allows right and left outbound turns. A level of service analysis was conducted for left turns at the project driveways to ensure that vehicles would operate without excessive delays or queues (see Table 9). Under all scenarios with project traffic, the project driveways would operate at LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours. This indicates that left-turning vehicles at the project driveway would experience minor delays and are expected to have a minimal effect on operations at the adjacent intersections. Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 3 4 Table 9 Project Driveway Levels of Service Summary On-Site Circulation On-site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with the City of Burlingame Zoning Code and generally accepted traffic engineering standards. In general, the proposed site plan would provide vehicle traffic with adequate connectivity through the parking areas. The project would provide 90- degree parking stalls throughout surface level parking area as well as the parking garage. The City’s standard minimum width for two-way drive aisles is 18 feet wide and 24 feet wide where 90-degree parking is provided. This allows sufficient room for vehicles to back out of the parking spaces. Currently, the project site plan does not show the width of the drive aisles. The project as proposed would provide 24-foot drive aisles, which would conform to the City’s minimum width requirement for drive aisles adjacent to 90-degree parking. Typical engineering standards require garage ramps to have no greater than a 20 percent grade with transition grades of 10 percent.The garage ramp slope and transition grade are not noted on the project plans; thus,the project should ensure that the garage ramp conforms to typical engineering standards. Parking Garage Circulation A single-level parking structure would occupy the eastern half of the project site. Access to the parking garage would be provided via an entrance/exit ramp located at the center of the surface parking lot (see Figure 2). Circulation through the surface level of the surface parking lot would allow vehicles to adequately access the pick-up/drop-off area adjacent to the building entrance. Pedestrian access between the parking structure and on-site uses are typically provided via elevators and stairways on each parking level.Elevators and stairways would be located along the western edge of the lower level of the garage, providing access to the building’s main lobby.A stairway would also be located in the southeast corner of the garage and would provide access to an exit corridor leading to Burlingame Avenue. Study Peak Avg. Delay Avg. Delay Avg. Delay Number Intersection Movement Hour (sec.)LOS (sec.)LOS (sec.)LOS AM 7.5 A 7.5 A 7.5 A PM 7.5 A 7.5 A 7.5 A AM 8.9 A 8.9 A 8.9 A PM 9.9 A 9.9 A 10.1 B AM 9.0 A 9.0 A 9.0 A PM 9.0 A 9.0 A 9.0 A AM 7.5 A 7.5 A 7.5 A PM 7.5 A 7.5 A 7.5 A AM 9.7 A 9.7 A 9.8 A PM 9.7 A 9.7 A 9.8 A Cumulative with Project Existing with Project Parking Lot X - Driveway B and Burlingame Avenue Inbound Left Outbound Left/Right Outbound Left/Right Outbound Left/Right Myrtle Road and Burlingame Avenue Background with Project 5 8 Driveway A and Burlingame Avenue Inbound Left 7 Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 3 5 Bike and Pedestrian On-site Circulation The site plan shows adequate pedestrian circulation throughout the site, as well as between the site and the surrounding pedestrian facilities. The site plan shows continuous walkways along the northern and southern edges of the site, including a pedestrian connection that would stretch from the western side of the project building to the existing park promenade and bike path that bisects Washington Park. The pedestrian connection would also provide access to the community center terraces,the proposed picnic tables,the proposed playground, and the proposed new basketball court, adjacent to the Lions Club Hall building. In addition, the project would provide a pedestrian plaza adjacent to the building entrance. As previously mentioned, the parking garage also includes a few areas with elevators and stairs so that pedestrians would have convenient access to them from any part of the garage. Bicycle parking would be located adjacent to the designated drop-off/pick-up area near the building entrance, as well as near the western building entrance on the park-side of the building.This would allow bicyclists to enter and leave the project site using either the existing park promenade or the pedestrian plaza and connect to Burlingame Avenue. Providing convenient bike parking would help create a pedestrian-and bicycle-friendly environment and encourage bicycling by patrons. In addition, the inclusion of convenient bike parking would complement the bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project site. Unloading/Loading Zones According to the project site plan, a pick-up/drop-off zone is planned for the project adjacent to the building entrance and pedestrian plaza.As previously mentioned, the pick-up/drop-off area would be accessible via the surface level of the parking garage. The loading zone would primarily serve patrons of the community center, particularly those being dropped-off for activities and programs conducted at the community center or for patrons of the community center waiting for rides. The project description also includes a larger designated loading/unloading space curbside along Burlingame Avenue to accommodate the frequent tour bus trips associated with recreational programs. Parking Supply Based on the City of Burlingame Master Plan, the Master Plan Area is required to provide a total of 143 off-street parking spaces.The required parking reflects the typical daily peak hour demand as well as the maximum parking demand during an event. Of the required 143 parking spaces,59 spaces currently exist in the City-owned public parking Lot X, adjacent to the Lions Club Hall. Therefore, based on the City’s parking requirement and the project description, the proposed community center project area is required to provide 84 new parking spaces. The project plans dated May 2018 show that the project area would provide a total of 84 parking spaces, with 44 spaces located within the surface parking lot and 40 spaces located within the subterranean parking garage. Thus, the proposed parking supply would meet the City’s parking requirement. Per the California Building Code (CBC) Table 11B-6, five (5) ADA accessible spaces are required for projects with 101 to 150 parking spaces. Of the required accessible parking spaces, one van accessible space is required. The existing Lot X contains three (3) accessible spaces. The project as proposed would include four (4) accessible spaces, two on the surface level and two in the subterranean level of the parking garage. Of the provided ADA accessible spaces,two would be van accessible.Therefore, the project would adhere to the CBC accessible parking provisions. Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 3 6 Bicycle Parking According to the City of Burlingame Master Plan, the Master Plan Area is required to provide a total of 8 bicycle parking spaces.Of the required bicycle parking, seven spaces are to be secured long-term bicycle spaces and the one remaining space is to be a short-term bicycle parking space.The City of Burlingame Master Plan defines long-term bicycle parking facilities as central,secure bicycle storage facilities that fully enclose and protect bicycles, which may include an access-controlled room or covered area with short-term bicycle parking facilities, or individual bicycle lockers that securely enclose one bicycle per locker.Short-term bicycle parking facilities are accessible and usable by visitors, guests or business patrons and may include permanently anchored bicycle racks. As previously mentioned, the project as proposed would provide bicycle parking located adjacent to the designated drop-off/pick-up area near the building entrance, as well as near the western building entrance on the park-side of the building.Based on the project description, it is anticipated that the provided bicycle parking would amount to at least 8 bicycle parking spaces comprised of 7 long-term spaces and one short-term space. Thus, the project would conform to the City’s minimum bicycle parking requirement. Intersection Queuing Analysis The operations analysis is based on vehicle queuing for high-demand movements at the study intersections (see Table 10). The following two left-turn movements were examined as part of the queuing analysis for this project: Westbound left turn movement at the California Drive and North Lane intersection Southbound left turn movement at the Carolan Avenue and Burlingame Avenue intersection Eastbound left turn movement at the Myrtle Road and Burlingame Avenue intersection Given that the left-turn movements at the Carolan Avenue/Burlingame Avenue and Myrtle Road/Burlingame Avenue intersections share the lane with other turn movements, the queueing analysis reflects the vehicle queueing for the entire southbound and eastbound movement, respectively. The estimated queue lengths based on the Poisson numerical calculations show no queuing deficiencies for any of the studied left turns (see Table 10). Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 3 7 Table 10 Queuing Analysis Summary Measurement AM PM AM PM AM PM Existing Cycle/Delay 1 (sec)21.2 29.1 8.3 8.6 7.5 7.5 Volume (vphpl )33 45 199 252 147 172 95th %. Queue (veh/ln.)2 1 2 2 2 1 2 95th %. Queue (ft./ln)25 50 50 50 25 50 Storage (ft./ ln.)75 75 75 75 50 50 Adequate (Y/N)Y Y Y Y Y Y Existing Plus Project Cycle/Delay 1 (sec)21.8 29.7 8.4 8.7 7.5 7.5 Volume (vphpl )33 45 206 259 153 178 95th %. Queue (veh/ln.)2 1 2 2 2 1 2 95th %. Queue (ft./ln)25 50 50 50 25 50 Storage (ft./ ln.)75 75 75 75 50 50 Adequate (Y/N)Y Y Y Y Y Y Background Cycle/Delay 1 (sec)21.8 30.7 8.3 8.6 7.5 7.5 Volume (vphpl )34 46 199 252 147 172 95th %. Queue (veh/ln.)2 1 2 2 2 1 2 95th %. Queue (ft./ln)25 50 50 50 25 50 Storage (ft./ ln.)75 75 75 75 50 50 Adequate (Y/N)Y Y Y Y Y Y Background Plus Project Cycle/Delay 1 (sec)22.3 31.5 8.4 8.7 7.5 7.5 Volume (vphpl )34 46 206 259 153 178 95th %. Queue (veh/ln.)2 1 2 2 2 1 2 95th %. Queue (ft./ln)25 50 50 50 25 50 Storage (ft./ ln.)75 75 75 75 50 50 Adequate (Y/N)Y Y Y Y Y Y Cumulative Cycle/Delay 1 (sec)28.3 46.5 8.5 9.0 7.5 7.5 Volume (vphpl )36 50 220 278 162 190 95th %. Queue (veh/ln.)2 1 2 2 2 1 2 95th %. Queue (ft./ln)25 50 50 50 25 50 Storage (ft./ ln.)75 75 75 75 50 50 Adequate (Y/N)Y Y Y Y Y Y Cumulative Plus Project Cycle/Delay 1 (sec)29.6 49.2 8.6 9.0 7.5 7.5 Volume (vphpl )37 51 227 285 168 196 95th %. Queue (veh/ln.)2 1 2 2 2 1 2 95th %. Queue (ft./ln)25 50 50 50 25 50 Storage (ft./ ln.)75 75 75 75 50 50 Adequate (Y/N)Y Y Y Y Y Y Notes: 1 Vehicle queue calculations based on cycle length for signalized intersections. 2 Assumes 25 Feet Per Vehicle Queued. EBL = eastbound left movement; EBT = eastbound through movement; EBR = eastbound right movement; SBL = southbound left movement; SBT = southbound through movement; WBL = westbound left movement Carolan Avenue & Burlingame Avenue EBL/EBT/EBR Myrtle Road & Burlingame Avenue SBL/SBT California Drive & North Lane WBL Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 3 8 Pedestrian, Bicycle,and Transit Analysis All new development projects in the City of Burlingame should encourage multi-modal travel, consistent with the goals of the City’s General Plan. It is the goal of the General Plan that all development projects accommodate and encourage the use of non-automobile transportation modes to achieve Burlingame’s mobility goals. In addition, the adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan establishes goals and policies to make bicycling a daily part of life in Burlingame. The Transportation Plan includes designated bike lanes where possible, as well as designated routes for both local and regional trips, to provide a complete connection through Burlingame. In order to further the goals of the City, pedestrian and bicycle facilities should be encouraged with new development projects. Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities in the study area consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections (see Chapter 2 for details). The project is expected to increase the number of pedestrians using the sidewalks and crosswalks. The project plans show existing sidewalks of approximately 5 feet in width along the Burlingame Avenue frontage, with a 9-foot landscaped setback from the curb and landscaping in between the sidewalk and building facade. The overall network of sidewalks and crosswalks in the vicinity of the project site has adequate connectivity and provides pedestrians with safe routes to nearby destinations.The project would not remove any pedestrian facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or policies for new pedestrian facilities. As previously mentioned, the project proposes to develop a pedestrian plaza adjacent to the building entrance, as well as picnic tables, a new playground, and a new basketball court on the park-side of the building and adjacent to the Lions Club Hall and Washington Park. Comprised of landscaping and benches, both the pedestrian-centric areas would connect to the existing pedestrian facilities along Burlingame Avenue as well as within Washington Park. Bicycle Facilities There are some bike facilities in the immediate vicinity of the project site (see Chapter 2 for details). Bicycles are also allowed on Caltrain and BART. The Burlingame Station is served by Caltrain (approximately a quarter-mile north of the project site), while the Millbrae Station is served by Caltrain and BART (located about three miles from the project site). There are bicycle racks and bicycle lockers available at both transit stations. Bicyclists north of the Burlingame Station could take California Drive and Carolan Avenue to Burlingame Avenue, while cyclists traveling to the site from the Burlingame Caltrain station could use Burlingame Avenue as a direct route to the project site.Although Burlingame Avenue is not a designated bike route, due to its low speed limit and traffic volumes,it is conducive to bicycle travel. The project would not remove any bicycle facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or policies for new bicycle facilities. Transit Services The project study area is well-served by SamTrans, Caltrain, and the Burlingame Trolley. The study area is served directly by one limited bus route, one express bus route, and two shuttle routes. The project would generate about 63 person-trips during the AM peak hour and 82 person-trips during the PM peak hour. Given the project site’s proximity to transit services, it could be expected that a portion (10%) of patrons’trips would be made by transit. Assuming up to 10% of the total trips are made by transit, that translates into a maximum of about 8 new transit riders during the peak hours. There are 4 buses and a trolley that serve the transit stop and Burlingame Caltrain station near the site during peak Burlingame Community Center –Transportation Impact Analysis June 27, 2018 P a g e | 3 9 hours. This calculates to an average of about two new transit riders per bus or trolley. It is assumed that the buses have sufficient capacity to accommodate this minor increase in ridership. The project would not remove any transit facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or policies associated with new transit facilities. Future Transit Services As previously stated, the PCEP is expected to increase service by up to six Caltrain trains per peak hour per direction by 2020.With the proposed electrification project, it is expected that the transit ridership at the Burlingame Station will increase. Given the nearby Caltrain station, development of this community center project would potentially result in new transit riders, thus reducing vehicle trips. The Burlingame Station is within walking distance (approximately a quarter-mile west of the project site). Bicycling to the site would also be a suitable option, given that Burlingame Avenue between the Burlingame Station and the project site consist of low speed limits and traffic volumes which makes it conducive to bicycle travel. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OCTOBER 2018 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CA \\BRK10\Projects\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\MMRP\Burlingame CC MMRP.docx (10/12/18) 1-1 1.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM This Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is formulated based upon the findings of the Burlingame Community Center Master Plan Project (proposed project) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) published in September 2018. The MMRP, which is found in Table 1, lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND prepared for the proposed project and identifies mitigation monitoring requirements. This MMRP has been prepared to comply with the requirements of State law (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). State law requires the Lead Agency to adopt an MMRP when mitigation measures are required to avoid significant impacts. The MMRP is intended to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND during implementation of the project. The MMRP is organized in a matrix format. The first two columns identify the potential impacts and corresponding mitigation measures. The third column, entitled Mitigation Responsibility, refers to the party responsible for implementing the mitigation measure. The fourth column, entitled Oversight of Implementation, refers to the agency and/or department responsible for oversight or ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The fifth column, entitled Monitoring Schedule, refers to when monitoring will occur to ensure that the mitigating action is completed. BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OCTOBER 2018 \\BRK10\Projects\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\MMRP\Burlingame CC MMRP.docx (10/12/18) 1-2 This page intentional left blank. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OCTOBER 2018 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CA \\BRK10\Projects\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\MMRP\Burlingame CC MMRP.docx (10/12/18) 1-3 Table 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation Responsibility Oversight of Implementation Monitoring Schedule 4.3: Air Quality The proposed project could violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. AIR-1: Consistent with the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures and Additional Mitigation Measures required by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the following actions shall be incorporated into construction contracts and specifications for projects:  All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.  All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.  All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.  All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.  Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.  All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.  A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Burlingame regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Construction contractor City of Burlingame Community Development Department During all phases of construction BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OCTOBER 2018 \\BRK10\Projects\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\MMRP\Burlingame CC MMRP.docx (10/12/18) 1-4 Table 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation Responsibility Oversight of Implementation Monitoring Schedule 4.4 Biological Resources The proposed project could interfere substantially with the movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species through the removal of trees. BIO-1: If feasible, all vegetation removal shall be conducted during the non-breeding season (i.e., September 1 to January 31) to avoid direct impacts to nesting birds. If such work is scheduled during the breeding season, a qualified biologist or ornithologist shall conduct a pre- construction survey to determine if any birds are nesting within the project sites. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted within 15 days prior to the start of work from March through May (since there is a higher potential for birds to initiate nesting during this period), and within 30 days prior to the start of work from June through July. If active nests are found during the survey, the biologist or ornithologist shall determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work will be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the buffer shall be determined by the biologist or ornithologist in consultation with the California department of Fish and Wildlife, and would be based on the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, and the expected types of disturbance. City of Burlingame Parks and Recreation Department City of Burlingame Community Development Department Prior to the initiation of any construction activities MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OCTOBER 2018 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CA \\BRK10\Projects\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\MMRP\Burlingame CC MMRP.docx (10/12/18) 1-5 Table 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation Responsibility Oversight of Implementation Monitoring Schedule 4.5: Cultural Resources The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a previously unidentified archaeological resource as a result of construction activities. CULT-1: Should an archaeological resource be encountered during project construction activities, the construction contractor shall halt construction within 25 feet of the find and immediately notify the City. Construction activities shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the City, shall: : 1) evaluate the archaeological deposit to determine if it meets the CEQA definition of a historical or unique archaeological resource and 2) make recommendations about the treatment of the deposit, as warranted. If the deposit does meet the CEQA definition of a historical or unique archaeological resource then it shall be avoided to the extent feasible by project construction activities. If avoidance is not feasible, then adverse effects to the deposit shall be mitigated as specified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b) (for historic resources) or CEQA Section 21083.2 (for unique archaeological resources). This mitigation may include, but is not limited to, a thorough recording of the resource on Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523 records, or archaeological data recovery excavation. If data recovery excavation is warranted, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), which requires a data recovery plan prior to data recovery excavation, shall be followed. If the significant identified resources are unique archaeological resources, mitigation of these resources shall be subject to the limitations on mitigation measures for archaeological resources identified in CEQA Sections 21083.2(c) through 21083.2(f). Construction contractor City of Burlingame Community Development Department During all phases of construction BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OCTOBER 2018 \\BRK10\Projects\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\MMRP\Burlingame CC MMRP.docx (10/12/18) 1-6 Table 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation Responsibility Oversight of Implementation Monitoring Schedule The proposed could directly or indirectly destroy a previously unidentified unique paleontological resource as a result of construction activities. CULT-2: If paleontological resources are encountered during site preparation or grading activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until a qualified paleontologist has assessed the discoveries and made recommendations. Paleontological resources include fossil plants and animals, and evidence of past life such as trace fossils and tracks. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, adverse effects to such resources shall be avoided by project activities to the extent feasible. If project activities cannot avoid the resources, the adverse effects shall be mitigated in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3). Mitigation may include data recovery and analysis, preparation of a final report, and the formal transmission or delivery of any fossil material recovered to a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). Upon completion of project activities, the final report shall document methods and findings of the mitigation and be submitted to the City’s Community Development Department and a suitable paleontological repository. Construction contractor City of Burlingame Community Development Department During all phases of construction The proposed project could uncover previously unidentified Native American human remains as a result of construction activities CULT-3: If human remains are encountered during construction activities, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the San Mateo County Coroner shall be notified immediately. At the same time, a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the situation and consult with the appropriate agencies. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grace goods. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results, and provide recommendations for the treatment of human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The City shall follow the recommendations outlined in the report and the report shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Department and the Northwest Information Center. Construction contractor City of Burlingame’s qualified archaeologist City of Burlingame Community Development Department During all phases of construction MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OCTOBER 2018 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CA \\BRK10\Projects\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\MMRP\Burlingame CC MMRP.docx (10/12/18) 1-7 Table 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation Responsibility Oversight of Implementation Monitoring Schedule 4.9: Hydrology and Water Quality The proposed project could violate water quality standards as a result of construction activities. HYD-1: Prior to construction, the project applicant shall prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), meeting Construction General Permit requirements (State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2009-000–DWQ, as amended) designed to reduce potential adverse impacts to surface water quality through the project construction period. The SWPPP shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of any permits for ground disturbing activities. The SWPPP shall be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer in accordance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit. These include: Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sediment control, site management/housekeeping/waste management, management of non-stormwater discharges, run-on and runoff controls, and BMP inspection/maintenance/repair activities. BMP implementation shall be consistent with the BMP requirements in the most recent version of the California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Handbook-Construction. The SWPPP shall include a construction site monitoring program that identifies requirements for dry weather visual observations of pollutants at all discharge locations, and as appropriate (depending on the Risk Level), sampling of the site effluent and receiving waters. A Qualified SWPPP Practitioner shall be responsible for implementing the BMPs at the site and performing all required monitoring and inspection/maintenance/repair activities. City of Burlingame Parks and Recreation Department City of Burlingame Community Development Department City of Burlingame Public Works Department Prior to ground disturbing activities BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OCTOBER 2018 \\BRK10\Projects\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\MMRP\Burlingame CC MMRP.docx (10/12/18) 1-8 Table 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation Responsibility Oversight of Implementation Monitoring Schedule The proposed project could violate water quality standards as a result of project operation. HYD-2: The project applicant shall fully comply with San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board stormwater permit requirements, including Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit. The project applicant shall prepare and implement a Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) for the project. The SCP shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of any permits for ground disturbing activities. The SCP would act as the overall program document designed to provide measures to mitigate potential water quality impacts associated with the operation of the proposed project. At a minimum, the SCP for the project shall include:  An inventory and accounting of existing and proposed impervious areas.  Low Impact Development (LID) design details incorporated into the project. Specific LID design may include, but is not limited to: using pervious pavements and green roofs, dispersing runoff to landscaped areas, and/or routing runoff to rain gardens, cisterns, swales, and other small-scale facilities distributed throughout the site.  Measures to address potential stormwater contaminants. These may include measures to cover or control potential sources of stormwater pollutants at the project site.  A Draft Stormwater Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan for the project site, which will include periodic inspection and maintenance of the storm drainage system. Persons responsible for performing and funding the requirements of this plan shall be identified. This plan must be finalized prior to issuance of building permits for the project. City of Burlingame Parks and Recreation Department City of Burlingame Community Development Department City of Burlingame Public Works Department Prior to ground disturbing activities MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OCTOBER 2018 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CA \\BRK10\Projects\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\MMRP\Burlingame CC MMRP.docx (10/12/18) 1-9 Table 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation Responsibility Oversight of Implementation Monitoring Schedule 4.12: Noise Construction noise would result in a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. NOI-1: The project contractor shall implement the following best management practice measures during construction of the project:  Equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards.  Place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the active project site.  Locate equipment staging in areas that would create the greatest possible distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the active project site during all project construction.  Install temporary noise barriers around stationary noise sources (such as compressors) and locate stationary noise sources as far from adjacent or nearby sensitive receptors as possible.  Prohibit extended idling time of internal combustion engines.  All construction equipment shall not exceed the noise levels established in the General Plan (Table 4).  All noise producing construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays.  Designate a "disturbance coordinator" at the City of Burlingame who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and would determine and implement reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. Construction contractor City of Burlingame Community Development Department During all phases of construction Source: LSA, 2018. BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN PROJECT BURLINGAME, CA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OCTOBER 2018 \\BRK10\Projects\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\MMRP\Burlingame CC MMRP.docx (10/12/18) 1-10 This page intentional left blank. CARLSBAD FRESNO IRVINE LOS ANGELES PALM SPRINGS POINT RICHMOND RIVERSIDE ROSEVILLE SAN LUIS OBISPO 157 Park Place, Pt. Richmond, California 94801 510.236.6810 www.lsa.net MEMORANDUM DATE: October 25, 2018 TO: Teresa Rom, Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc. FROM: Theresa Wallace, AICP, Principal-in-Charge Matthew Wiswell, Project Manager SUBJECT: Minor Changes to the Burlingame Community Center Master Plan Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Ms. Rom: The purpose of this Memorandum is to evaluate the potential effects related to minor modifications to the Burlingame Community Center Master Plan Project (proposed project). An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)1 for the proposed project was made available for public review on September 13, 2018. The public review period closed on October 3, 2018. The proposed project and IS/MND are scheduled to be heard and considered for approval and adoption by the Burlingame City Council on November 19, 2018. LSA understands that in the time after the public review period closed and prior to the adoption of the IS/MND, the City of Burlingame (City) has requested that Group 4 Architecture, Planning + Research, Inc. (Group 4) consider swapping the locations of the proposed basketball court and playground (refer to Figure 2-6 in the IS/MND). Aside from these different locations, all other aspects of the proposed project would remain the same. It is LSA’s professional opinion that swapping the locations of the basketball court and playground would not result in any new or more significant impacts compared to those already analyzed in the IS/MND. Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which requires a pre-construction nesting bird survey to be completed prior to vegetation removal if it occurs between February 1 and October 31, would still be required. Additionally, while the total number of protected trees removed from the project site may be different than what was identified and analyzed in the IS/MND, the City would still be required to provide replacement plantings as part of the proposed project. 1 LSA Associates, Inc., 2018. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Burlingame Community Center Master Plan Project. September. 10/25/18 (\\BRK10\Projects\GRP1802 Burlingame Community Ctr IS MND\PRODUCTS\Memo\10-25-18 Burlingame CC Memo.docx) 2 All other mitigation measures included in the IS/MND would still be required. Therefore, the IS/MND adequately addresses the impacts of the minor revisions to the proposed project, and no further environmental review would be required. Sincerely, LSA Associates, Inc. Theresa Wallace, AICP Principal-in-Charge Matthew Wiswell Project Manager 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9b MEETING DATE: December 3, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: December 3, 2018 From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 588-7222 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving and Levying 2019 San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District Assessments on Hotel Businesses within the District RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing to consider any protests to the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) assessments; close the public hearing and ask the City Clerk to report out any protests filed with the City; determine whether a majority (in relation to the total number of hotel rooms in the district – 17,566 rooms) protest has been made; and, if a majority protest has not been made, adopt a Resolution approving and levying assessments for 2019. BACKGROUND The San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) was formed in 2001 to revitalize the San Mateo County Convention & Visitors Bureau (SMCCVB). Prior to that time, the Bureau’s marketing and sales efforts had been funded with a share of transient occupancy tax revenues from those cities that chose to participate. By 1999, this inconsistent funding stream had resulted in layoffs and a reduction in activities at the Bureau, leading hoteliers to express their dissatisfaction in the inadequate marketing of the area and their properties. The Board hired Anne LeClair as the Bureau’s new CEO in May 2000, with specific direction to form a TBID to provide adequate and consistent funding for the Bureau’s activities. At that time, Burlingame was forwarding over $425,000 of TOT dollars annually to the Bureau. Because Burlingame had the most hotel rooms and had the greatest interest in seeing the TBID formed, the City agreed to act as “Lead Agency” for the TBID. Following multiple meetings with hotels and city councils in the County, the Bureau proposed the TBID and the City of Burlingame held all of the required hearings in 2000, with the TBID going into effect in 2001. Board slots were allocated based upon the number of hotel rooms in the various cities, with Burlingame allotted four, the most of any city. Since the San Mateo County TBID’s formation, the Burlingame City Council has held the annual reauthorization hearing for the TBID, and the City has overseen the various cities’ tourism fee assessment payments. The TBID now has 14 cities, along with Unincorporated San Mateo County, participating. The District uses annual assessments of its 171 member hotel businesses to fund its successful and wide-ranging promotional activities. On November 5, 2018, Council approved the Bureau’s 2018 2019 Assessments for the SMC Tourism Business Improvement District December 3, 2018 2 annual report, filed by the District Advisory Board with the City Clerk. The report states the District’s activities and accomplishments during the past year. Among other achievements, the Board reports that 38,768 room nights had been generated from the Bureau’s activities from October 2017 through September 2018, not including individual corporate or leisure traveler nights generated through promotion of the area as a whole. Meeting leads generated for San Mateo County and Palo Alto properties had a potential economic impact of approximately $95.7 million. The District Board is recommending that the Council adopt and levy the 2019 assessments on the hotel businesses within the District to support similar activities in the coming year. At the November 5th meeting, the City Council adopted a Resolution stating its intention to levy the annual assessments and to schedule a hearing for December 3, 2018. Notices of the public hearing and the proposed assessments were provided to the cities and members of the District by the District staff. The assessments requested by the District are consistent with the original authority for assessments enacted in 2001 at the time of District formation, and the method of computing the assessments has not changed from last year. Total assessments for the TBID in 2019 approximate $2.3 million. DISCUSSION The City Council should take the following actions: • Conduct a public hearing on the proposed District assessments for 2019 • Determine whether a majority protest has been made • If a majority protest has not been made, adopt the Resolution approving and levying assessments for the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District for the year 2019 FISCAL IMPACT Assessment revenues provide funding for operations and activities of the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District. The City charges an annual fee from the Bureau based on costs of services attributable to administration of the assessments to non-Burlingame hotels. For the 2019 assessment, the fee is approximately $9,300. There is no other direct fiscal impact to the City. Exhibit: • Resolution Approving Assessments for 2019 RESOLUTION NO. _____ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING AND LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND APPROVING DISTRICT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE YEAR 2019 WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq., the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District ("District" herein) has been established for the purpose of promoting tourism in the District; and WHEREAS, the District Advisory Board has requested the Burlingame City Council to establish calendar year 2019 assessments for the District; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2018, the City Council approved the District report and adopted a resolution of intention declaring its intent to impose assessments for the calendar year 2019 and setting and noticing a public hearing about the proposed assessments for December 3, 2018; and WHEREAS, notices were provided to the hotel businesses within the District as required by law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Streets & Highways Code, a public hearing on the proposed assessments was duly held on December 3, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, at the Council Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Streets and Highways Code, the City Council determined at the conclusion of the public hearing that a majority protest had not been made as to the proposed assessments or as to any proposed program or activity for the District; and WHEREAS, the proposed assessments and method of computing the assessments appear reasonable and consistent with the ordinance establishing the District, as amended, and the underlying State law; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve, determine, and find as follows: 2 2018 Assessment Resolution 1. Upon close of the public hearing, written protests to assessments, improvements or activities were not received which constituted a majority protest as defined in Government Code sections 36500 and following; accordingly, the Council f inds that there was no majority protest to the assessments. 2. The City Council does hereby levy an assessment for the calendar year 2019 on hotel businesses within the District as described in City of Burlingame Ordinance Nos. 1648, 1678, and 1774, as further amended, for the purpose of funding services, programs, and activities of the District. 3. The types of services, programs, and activities to be funded by the levy of assessments on businesses in the District for the calendar year 2019 are set forth in Exhibit "A", incorporated herein by reference. 4. The basis for assessments for the calendar year 2019 on all hotels within the District are set forth in Exhibit "B", the Assessment Formula Chart, incorporated herein by reference. 5. The assessments for the calendar year 2019 on hotel businesses within the District are set forth in Exhibit "C", incorporated herein by reference. 6. New businesses shall not be exempt from assessment. _____________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 3 rd day of December, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Councilmembers: Councilmembers: ________________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk EXHIBITA SANMATEOCOUNTYTOURISMBUSINESSIMPROVEMENTDISTRICT SANMATEOCOUNTY/SILICONVALLEYCONVENTION&VISITORSBUREAU PLANNEDACTIVITIESFOR2019 Forthecalendaryear2019,theBureauplanstocontinueallofitsnormalactivities,including butnotlimitedto: * Exhibitingintradeshows; * Conductingindividualfamiliarization(FAM)andsitetoursforplanners; * ConductingFAMtoursforinternationaltravelagentsfromoverseas; * ConductingFAMtoursformembersofthefoodandtravelmediafromaroundtheU.S.; * ConductingindividualFAMtoursfortravelmedia; *Usingmultiplesocialmediachannelstopushoutstoriesonthearea; * ConductingamajorGoogleadscampaign; * Advertisinginmeetingplannerpublications; * Advertisinginleisurepublications; * Promotingtheareatointernationalanddomesticmediawithregularreleasesofeditorial; * Creatingmultipleblogseverymonthtopromotevariousaspectsofthearea; * WorkingwithGoogletoexpandtheircoverageofourareapartners,nowthatwehaveofficially beendesignatedasthetourismrepresentativeofthearea; * Creatingupdatedvisitorguides,electronicmapsandspecialtybrochures,suchasourDog FriendlyGuide; * Doingsalesoutreachtorecruitconferences,specialevents,tourandtravelgroupstothearea; * Sponsoringjobfairsforareacommunitycollegestudentstohelpemployersinthehospitality industryfindteammembers; * ContinuingtopromoteourAsFreshasitGetscampaign; *Activelyrecruitingfilming; * WorkingwithBARTonapilotproject,usingourwebsitetoallowfuturevisitorstobuyBART ticketsinadvanceoftheirvisits. CATEGORYZONE A - ASSESSMENT FOR YEAR 2019ZONE B - ASSESSMENT FOR YEAR 2019ZONE C - ASSESSMENT FOR YEAR 2019Hotel with full serviceand more than 20 sleeping rooms$360 per sleeping room x 69.5% X (District months in 2019)12$360 per sleeping room X 55% X (District months in 2019)12$360 per sleeping room x 68% X (District months in 2019)12Hotel with limited serviceand more than 1,000 squarefeet of meeting spaceand more than 20 sleeping rooms$180 per sleeping room X 60% X (District months in 2019)12$180 per sleeping room X 40% X (District months in 2019)12$180 per sleeping room X 60% X (District months in 2019)12Hotel with limited serviceand some meeting spacebut less than 1,000 squarefeet and more than 20sleeping rooms$90 per sleeping room X 60% X (District months in 2019)12$90 per sleeping room X 40% X (District months in 2019)12$90 per sleeping room X 60% X (District months in 2019)12Hotel with standard serviceand more than 20 sleepingrooms$54 per sleeping room X 60% X (District months in 2019)12$54 per sleeping room X 40% X (District months in 2019)12$54 per sleeping room X 60% X (District months in 2019)12Hotel with full service,limited service, or standardservice, and 20 sleepingrooms or less$54 per sleeping room X 30% X (District months in 2019)12$54 per sleeping room X 25% X (District months in 2019)12$54 per sleeping room X 30% X (District months in 2019)12ZONE A - Includes all cities in the District except Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, Palo Alto and the unincorporated County.ZONE B - Includes Half Moon Bay, Pacifica and the unincorporated County.ZONE C - Palo AltoASSESSMENT FORMULA CHARTSAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTy,//d 1 of 6**** SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS (ALL ZONES) FOR 2019 *****As of 1‐1‐19BurlingameName of PropertyZone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly AssessmentBay LandingA90.00$ 1307,020.00$ 585.00$ Crowne Plaza SFOA360.00$ 30977,311.80$ 6,442.65$ DoubleTree by Hilton SFOA360.00$ 39398,328.60$ 8,194.05$ Embassy Suites SFO ‐ WaterfrontA360.00$ 34085,068.00$ 7,089.00$ Hampton Inn & SuitesA54.00$ 772,494.80$ 207.90$ Hilton Garden InnA180.00$ 13214,256.00$ 1,188.00$ Hilton SF Airport BayfrontA360.00$ 400100,080.00$ 8,340.00$ Holiday Inn Express SFO SouthA90.00$ 1467,884.00$ 657.00$ Hyatt Regency SFOA360.00$ 789197,407.80$ 16,450.65$ Red Roof Plus+A54.00$ 2136,901.20$ 575.10$ SFO Marriott WaterfrontA360.00$ 688172,137.60$ 14,344.80$ Vagabond Inn ExecutiveA54.00$ 902,916.00$ 243.00$ Room Total 3707Total:771,805.80$ San MateoName of PropertyZone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly AssessmentAmericas Best Value InnA54.00$ 531,717.20$ 143.10$ Best Western Coyote Point A54.00$ 993,207.60$ 267.30$ Extended Stay AmericaA54.00$ 1364,406.40$ 367.20$ Hillsdale InnA54.00$ 902,916.00$ 243.00$ Hilton Garden InnA180.00$ 15616,848.00$ 1,404.00$ Holiday Inn & SuitesA360.00$ 11027,522.00$ 2,293.50$ Howard JohnsonA54.00$ 571,846.80$ 153.90$ Los Prados HotelA90.00$ 1136,102.00$ 508.50$ Residence Inn A54.00$ 1605,184.00$ 432.00$ San Mateo MarriottA360.00$ 476119,095.20$ 9,924.60$ San Mateo SFO Airport Hotel A54.00$ 1103,564.00$ 297.00$ Stone Villa InnA90.00$ 452,430.00$ 202.50$ Room Total 1605Total:194,839.20$ South San FranciscoName of PropertyZone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly AssessmentAC Hotel SFO/Oyster Point Waterfront A360.00$ 18746,787.40$ 3,898.95$ Airport InnA54.00$ 341,101.60$ 91.80$ All Seasons LodgeA54.00$ 13210.60$ 17.55$ Americana Inn MotelA54.00$ 17275.40$ 22.95$ Americas Best Value Inn SFOA54.00$ 21680.40$ 56.70$ Best Western Plus Grosvenor Hotel A360.00$ 20651,541.20$ 4,295.10$ Comfort Inn & Suites SFOA54.00$ 1665,378.40$ 448.20$ Courtyard Oyster PointA180.00$ 19721,276.00$ 1,773.00$ y,//dC 2 of 6**** SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS (ALL ZONES) FOR 2019 *****As of 1‐1‐19Days InnA54.00$ 25810.00$ 67.50$ Deluxe InnA54.00$ 20324.00$ 27.00$ Embassy Suites SFOA360.00$ 31278,062.40$ 6,505.20$ Four Points by Sheraton A54.00$ 1013,272.40$ 272.70$ Hampton InnA54.00$ 1003,240.00$ 270.00$ Hilton Garden Inn SFO NorthA180.00$ 16918,252.00$ 1,521.00$ Holiday Inn Express & SuitesA54.00$ 872,818.80$ 234.90$ Holiday Inn SF Int'l AirportA360.00$ 22456,044.80$ 4,670.40$ Hotel Focus SFOA54.00$ 1173,790.80$ 315.90$ Hotel VA54.00$ 511,652.40$ 137.70$ La Quinta Inn & SuitesA54.00$ 1715,540.40$ 461.70$ Larkspur LandingA90.00$ 1115,994.00$ 499.50$ Park Pointe HotelA180.00$ 17518,900.00$ 1,575.00$ Quality Inn & SuitesA54.00$ 451,458.00$ 121.50$ Ramada Limited SuitesA54.00$ 451,458.00$ 121.50$ Residence Inn Oyster PointA90.00$ 1528,208.00$ 684.00$ Royal InnA54.00$ 17275.40$ 22.95$ Travelers InnA54.00$ 20324.00$ 27.00$ Travelodge SFO North A54.00$ 1996,447.60$ 537.30$ Room Total 2982Total:344,124.00$ MillbraeName of PropertyZone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly AssessmentAloft SFOA90.00$ 27114,634.00$ 1,219.50$ Best Western Plus El Rancho Inn A54.00$ 2197,095.60$ 591.30$ The Dylan at SFOA54.00$ 581,879.20$ 156.60$ Fairfield Inn & Suites SFO A54.00$ 802,592.00$ 216.00$ La Quinta Inn & Suites SFOA54.00$ 1003,240.00$ 270.00$ Millwood Inn & SuitesA54.00$ 341,101.60$ 91.80$ The Westin S.F. AirportA360.00$ 39799,329.40$ 8,277.45$ Room Total 1159Total:129,871.80$ Foster CityName of PropertyZone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly AssessmentCrowne Plaza Foster City‐San Mateo A360.00$ 35689,071.20$ 7,422.60$ Courtyard San Mateo‐Foster CityA180.00$ 14715,876.00$ 1,323.00$ TownePlace Suites San Mateo‐Foster City A54.00$ 1213,920.40$ 326.70$ Room Total 624Total:108,867.60$ y,//dC 3 of 6**** SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS (ALL ZONES) FOR 2019 *****As of 1‐1‐19Half Moon BayName of PropertyZone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly AssessmentAmericas Best Value Inn B54.00$ 27583.20$ 48.60$ Beach House HotelB180.00$ 543,888.00$ 324.00$ Best Western Plus Cameron's InnB90.00$ 461,656.00$ 138.00$ Coastside InnB54.00$ 521,123.20$ 93.60$ Comfort InnB90.00$ 541,944.00$ 162.00$ Half Moon Bay InnB54.00$ 15202.50$ 16.88$ Half Moon Bay LodgeB180.00$ 815,832.00$ 486.00$ Mill Rose InnB54.00$ 681.00$ 6.75$ Nantucket Whale InnB54.00$ 794.50$ 7.88$ The Ritz‐CarltonB360.00$ 26151,678.00$ 4,306.50$ San Benito HouseB54.00$ 12162.00$ 13.50$ Zaballa House Bed & BreakfastB54.00$ 16216.00$ 18.00$ Room Total 631Total:67,460.40$ Unincorporated CountyName of PropertyZone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly AssessmentAtherton InnA54.00$ 567.50$ 5.63$ Best Western Plus Executive Suites A54.00$ 29626.40$ 52.20$ Costanoa B90.00$ 1726,192.00$ 516.00$ Cypress Inn on Miramar BeachB54.00$ 18243.00$ 20.25$ Harbor View InnB54.00$ 17229.50$ 19.13$ Inn at MavericksB54.00$ 681.00$ 6.75$ Inn Suites at Oceano B54.00$ 11148.50$ 12.38$ Motorville MotelB54.00$ 30648.00$ 54.00$ Ocean View InnB54.00$ 9121.50$ 10.13$ The Oceanfront HotelB54.00$ 8108.00$ 9.00$ Oceano Hotel & SpaB360.00$ 9518,810.00$ 1,567.50$ Pacific Victorian Bed & BreakfastB54.00$ 340.50$ 3.38$ Pescadero Creek InnB54.00$ 454.00$ 4.50$ Seal Cove InnB54.00$ 10135.00$ 11.25$ Room Total 417Total:27,504.90$ y,//dC 4 of 6**** SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS (ALL ZONES) FOR 2019 *****As of 1‐1‐19Redwood CityName of PropertyZone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly AssessmentAtherton Park Inn & SuitesA54.00$ 381,231.20$ 102.60$ Best Western InnA54.00$ 26842.40$ 70.20$ Budget InnA54.00$ 401,296.00$ 108.00$ Capri MotelA54.00$ 501,620.00$ 135.00$ Comfort InnA54.00$ 521,684.80$ 140.40$ Courtyard Redwood CityA180.00$ 17719,116.00$ 1,593.00$ Days InnA54.00$ 682,203.20$ 183.60$ Deluxe InnA54.00$ 27874.80$ 72.90$ Garden MotelA54.00$ 17275.40$ 22.95$ Good Nite InnA54.00$ 1233,985.20$ 332.10$ Holiday Inn Express RWC CentralA54.00$ 611,976.40$ 164.70$ Pacific Euro HotelA54.00$ 551,782.00$ 148.50$ Pacific Inn A54.00$ 752,430.00$ 202.50$ Pullman San Francisco BayA360.00$ 421105,334.20$ 8,777.85$ Redwood Creek InnA54.00$ 381,231.20$ 102.60$ Redwood Motor CourtA54.00$ 12194.40$ 16.20$ Sequoia InnA54.00$ 22712.80$ 59.40$ TownePlace Suites Redwood Shores A54.00$ 953,078.00$ 256.50$ Room Total 1397Total:149,868.00$ San BrunoName of PropertyZone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly AssessmentBayhill InnA54.00$ 24777.60$ 64.80$ Comfort Inn & SuitesA54.00$ 29939.60$ 78.30$ Courtyard by MarriottA180.00$ 14715,876.00$ 1,323.00$ Days InnA54.00$ 481,555.20$ 129.60$ Gateway Inn & SuitesA54.00$ 311,004.40$ 83.70$ Hotel Aura SFOA54.00$ 491,587.60$ 132.30$ Ramada LimitedA54.00$ 611,976.40$ 164.70$ Regency InnA54.00$ 311,004.40$ 83.70$ Ritz InnA54.00$ 23745.20$ 62.10$ Staybridge Suites A180.00$ 929,936.00$ 828.00$ Super 8 A54.00$ 541,749.60$ 145.80$ Villa Montes HotelA90.00$ 412,214.00$ 184.50$ Room Total 630Total:39,366.00$ y,//dC 5 of 6**** SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS (ALL ZONES) FOR 2019 *****As of 1‐1‐19BelmontName of PropertyZone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly AssessmentBel Mateo MotelA54.00$ 23745.20$ 62.10$ Belmont PalmsA54.00$ 14226.80$ 18.90$ Extended Stay AmericaA54.00$ 1083,499.20$ 291.60$ Holiday Inn Express & SuitesA90.00$ 824,428.00$ 369.00$ Hotel Belmont A54.00$ 16259.20$ 21.60$ Hyatt HouseA90.00$ 1327,128.00$ 594.00$ Motel 6A54.00$ 2738,845.20$ 737.10$ Silicon Valley InnA54.00$ 23745.20$ 62.10$ SpringHill Suites Belmont Redwood Shores A90.00$ 1689,072.00$ 756.00$ Room Total 839Total:34,948.80$ San CarlosName of PropertyZone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly AssessmentAmericas Best Value InnA54.00$ 321,036.80$ 86.40$ Country Inn & SuitesA54.00$ 501,620.00$ 135.00$ Extended Stay AmericaA90.00$ 1166,264.00$ 522.00$ Fairfield Inn & SuitesA54.00$ 1123,628.80$ 302.40$ Hotel San CarlosA54.00$ 29939.60$ 78.30$ LiA HotelA54.00$ 351,134.00$ 94.50$ Residence Inn Redwood City‐San Carlos A90.00$ 20411,016.00$ 918.00$ San Carlos InnA54.00$ 10162.00$ 13.50$ Room Total 588Total:25,801.20$ East Palo AltoName of PropertyZone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly AssessmentFour Seasons Silicon ValleyA360.00$ 20050,040.00$ 4,170.00$ Palo AltoName of PropertyZone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly AssessmentAmericas Best Value Sky Ranch Inn C54.00$ 29939.60$ 78.30$ Berbeda PlaceC54.00$ 18291.60$ 24.30$ Cardinal Hotel Palo AltoC54.00$ 601,944.00$ 162.00$ The Clement HotelC54.00$ 23745.20$ 62.10$ Comfort Inn StanfordC54.00$ 702,268.00$ 189.00$ Coronet MotelC54.00$ 21680.40$ 56.70$ Country Inn MotelC54.00$ 27874.80$ 72.90$ Cowper InnC54.00$ 14226.80$ 18.90$ Creekside InnC180.00$ 13614,688.00$ 1,224.00$ y,//dC 6 of 6**** SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS (ALL ZONES) FOR 2019 *****As of 1‐1‐19Crowne Plaza Palo AltoC360.00$ 19547,736.00$ 3,978.00$ Dinah's Garden HotelC360.00$ 12931,579.20$ 2,631.60$ Garden Court HotelC360.00$ 6215,177.60$ 1,264.80$ Glass Slipper InnC54.00$ 25810.00$ 67.50$ Hilton Garden Inn Palo AltoC180.00$ 17418,792.00$ 1,566.00$ Homewood Suites by Hilton Palo Alto C90.00$ 1387,452.00$ 621.00$ Hotel KeenC54.00$ 421,360.80$ 113.40$ Hotel ParmaniC54.00$ 361,166.40$ 97.20$ Oak Motel Palo AltoC54.00$ 421,360.80$ 113.40$ The Nest Palo AltoC54.00$ 541,749.60$ 145.80$ Nobu Hotel Epiphany Palo AltoC360.00$ 7718,849.60$ 1,570.80$ The Palo Alto InnC54.00$ 23745.20$ 62.10$ Sheraton Palo AltoC360.00$ 35586,904.00$ 7,242.00$ Stanford Motor InnC54.00$ 371,198.80$ 99.90$ Stanford Terrace InnC90.00$ 804,320.00$ 360.00$ Travelodge Palo Alto Silicon Valley C54.00$ 29939.60$ 78.30$ The Westin Palo AltoC360.00$ 18445,043.20$ 3,753.60$ The Zen HotelC54.00$ 371,198.80$ 99.90$ Room Total 2117Total:309,042.00$ PacificaName of PropertyZone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly AssessmentAmericas Best Value InnB54.00$ 25540.00$ 45.00$ Holiday Inn ExpressB54.00$ 38820.80$ 68.40$ Inn at RockawayB54.00$ 44950.40$ 79.20$ Lighthouse HotelB180.00$ 976,984.00$ 582.00$ Pacifica Beach HotelB90.00$ 521,872.00$ 156.00$ Sea Breeze MotelB54.00$ 20270.00$ 22.50$ Room Total 276Total:11,437.20$ BrisbaneName of PropertyZone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly AssessmentDoubleTree by Hilton SFO NorthA360.00$ 21052,542.00$ 4,378.50$ Homewood Suites by Hilton SFO North A90.00$ 1779,558.00$ 796.50$ Room Total 387Total:62,100.00$ y,//dC 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 10a MEETING DATE: December 3, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: December 3, 2018 From: Sonya M. Morrison, Human Resources Director – (650) 558-7209 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving Changes to the Compensation and Benefit Plan for the City of Burlingame Department Head and Unrepresented Classifications, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Plan on Behalf of the City RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to modify the Compensation and Benefit Plan for the City of Burlingame Department Head and Unrepresented Classifications. The revised Plan is attached to this report. BACKGROUND The Department Head and Unrepresented Compensation and Benefit Plan expires on December 31, 2018. In the past, the City has tried to maintain equity with salary and benefit changes among the miscellaneous employee groups. Effective July 1, 2015, the City and AFSCME Local 2190 and 829 entered into three-year contracts with the City that included 3% salary increases effective July 1, 2015, July 1, 2016, and July 1, 2017. On February 21, 2017, the contracts were extended for one additional year, granting a 3% salary increase on July 1, 2018. On August 20, 2018, staff met with the City Council in a closed session to discuss salary and benefit changes for the Department Heads and Unrepresented employees. DISCUSSION The attached Compensation and Benefit Plan for the City of Burlingame Department Head and Unrepresented Classifications includes the following changes: Term: • Three years, January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2021 Salary: • 3.0 % increase effective the first pay period in January 2019 • 3.0% increase effective the first pay period in January 2020 • 3.0% increase effective the first pay period in January 2021 Retiree Health Reimbursement Arrangement: • The City shall contribute 1.0% of base pay to a Retiree Health Reimbursement Department Head & Unrepresented Employees Compensation/Benefit Plan December 3, 2018 2 Arrangement (HRA) account for all Department Heads and Unrepresented employees. Employees in the unit shall contribute 1.0% of base pay to the retiree HRA account. Retiree Medical: • For employees hired on or after November 1, 2011, the City shall make contributions, based on base pay, to a retiree HRA account based on years of service. From date of hire to the 5th year, the contribution will be 2.0%, starting the 5th year through the 19th year of service, the contribution will be 3.0%, for 20 or more years of service the contribution is 5.5%. Medical: • The City will contribute up to the third highest cost Bay Area premium rate for employee only, up to the third highest cost Bay Area premium rate for employee plus one, and up to the Bay Area premium Kaiser Family rate for employee plus two or more. • Cash in lieu of medical insurance ($350) shall be taken as taxable income. Administrative Leave: • Administrative Leave will accrue on a bi-weekly basis effective January 1, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT Over the life of the three-year Compensation and Benefit plan, the estimated increase in cost is $700,000. Exhibits: • Resolution • Compensation and Benefit Plan for the City of Burlingame Department Head and Unrepresented Classifications RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING CHANGES TO THE DEPARTMENT HEAD AND UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT PLAN, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE PLAN ON BEHALF OF THE CITY WHEREAS, the Department Heads and Unrepresented Employees Compensation and Benefit Plan is set to expire on December 31, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City has tried to maintain equity with salary and benefit changes among the miscellaneous groups; and WHEREAS, the AFSCME Units entered into three-year contracts with the City effective July 2015 that included 3% salary increases each year of the contract that were extended for a fourth year; and WHEREAS, staff recommends the Department Head and Unrepresented Employees continue to receive the same salary adjustment as the AFSCME employees; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes are in alignment with the City’s financial sustainability goals, and provide a reasonable increase whilst containing pension costs; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council authorize a three-year term to include a 3% salary increase the first pay period in January 2019, a 3% salary increase effective the first pay period in January 2020, and a 3% salary increase effective the first pay period in January 2021, a 1% contribution to employee retiree Health Reimbursement Arrangements with a mandatory match, and changes to the retiree health contribution for employees hired on or after November 1, 2011. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 1. The changes in existing salary and benefits of the employees listed in the Department Head and Unrepresented Employees Compensation and Benefit Plan, as attached, are approved. 2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the Department Head and Unrepresented Employees Compensation and Benefit Plan. ____________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, MEAGAHN 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 3rd day of December, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ____________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk COMPENSATION & BENEFIT PLAN FOR THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DEPARTMENT HEAD & UNREPRESENTED CLASSIFICATIONS January 1, 20196-December 31, 202118 2 This Compensation and Benefit Plan covers the City of Burlingame (City) Department Head and Unrepresented Group (DH/UR). The parties have entered into this agreement after meeting and agree to the following terms: 1. RECOGNITION 1.1 Positions Covered The positions covered by this agreement include all Department Head and Unrepresented classifications that work under the direction and at the will of the City Manager. These positions are all "confidential" classifications based on the nature of their work. The classifications that are covered by this compensation and benefit plan are as follows: Department Head Classifications: City Clerk City Librarian Community Development Director Finance Director Human Resources Director Library Director Parks & Recreation Director Police Chief Public Works Director Unrepresented Classifications: Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer Chief Building Official Code Compliance Officer and Senior Risk Analyst Deputy Director of Public Works Operations Deputy Finance Director Executive Assistant Human Resources Technician Human Resources Analyst II Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer Chief Building Official Deputy Finance Director Parks Superintendent/City Arborist Planning Manager Public Works Superintendent The City Manager and City Attorney are not included as part of this agreementcompensation and benefit plan, but receive the same benefits plan as the City of Burlingame Department Head and Unrepresented Group (DH/UR) unless specifically noted in their employment agreements. 3 2. SALARY 2.1 Salary Adjustments In order to maintain consistency with the other miscellaneous employee units: Department Heads and Unrepresented employees will receive a general increase equal to what AFSCME receives:  3% increase effective first pay period in January 1, 20196  3% increase effective first pay period in January 1, 202017  3% increase effective first pay period in January 1, 202118 2.2 Deferred Compensation The City will maintain a matching contribution to deferred compensation of $45 per bi- weekly pay period. Deferred compensation is part of the total salary and will be included as such for future salary market analysis. 2.3 Post-Employment (Retiree) Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) The City shall contribute one percent (1%) of base salary per pay period into the retiree HRA plan. Employees in the unit shall contribute one percent (1%) of base salary per pay period into the retiree HRA. Fees will be paid in accordance with the Plan Document. During the term of this MOU, employees in this unit may elect to contribute a set amount of salary to the retiree HRA and/or contribute separation pay to the retiree HRA. The City shall be notified of any such election sixty (60) days prior to the effective date. 3. BENEFITS 3.1 Health Insurance Coverage 3.1.1 No Plan Employees who demonstrate they have medical insurance through another source will receive $350 per month in lieu of health insurance. The $350 per month allowance may be put into a deferred compensation plan or taken in cash. If taken in cash itThis is subject to normal taxation. 3.1.2 Contributions for Department Head and Unrepresented Classifications The City shall contribute the below-listed amount per month toward each employee’s Section 125 Plan benefit allowance components. All contributions listed below include the PERS required Minimum Employer Contribution (MEC). • Employee Only: 92.5% of the selected medical plan premium up to a maximum of 92.5% of the Blue Shield HMOthird highest plan CalPERS Bay Area premium rate for Employee only 4 • Employee plus one: 92.5% of the selected medical plan premium up to a maximum of 92.5% of the Blue Shield HMO third highest plan CalPERS Bay Area premium rate for Employee plus one • Employee plus two or more: 92.5% of the selected medical plan premium up to a maximum of 92.5% of the Blue Shield HMOthird highest plan CalPERS Bay Area premium rate for family coverage An employee that enrolls in a medical plan that has a higher premium than the City's contribution as stated above will pay the difference via pre-tax payroll deductions. 3.2 Retiree Medical 3.2.1 Retiree Medical for Employees Hired Prior to March 31, 2008 who Retire prior to January 1, 2015 (Tier 1) Employees hired prior to March 31, 2008 who retire prior to January 1, 2015 with a minimum of five (5) years of service with the City will receive a retiree medical benefit equivalent to the amount necessary for actual enrollment in single, two- party, or family coverage, up to a maximum dollar amount of the Kaiser family premium rate. 3.2.2 Retiree Medical for Employees Hired Prior to March 31, 2008 and Retire on or after January 1, 2015 (Tier 1a) Effective January 1, 2015, employees hired prior to March 31, 2008 who retire on or after January 1, 2015 with a minimum of five years of City service will receive a retiree medical benefit as follows: • The City will contribute up to the Bay Area Region premiums for Blue Shield Access HMO Singlethe third highest Employee Only plan for single retirees, Blue Shieldthe third highest Two-Party plan for retiree plus one, or Kaiser Family for retiree plus two or more. • Eligible retirees who are 65 years of age or older must enroll in Medicare. The City will contribute up to the Medicare supplement plan (or Medicare Combination plan, as applicable to enrollment) premium for the Bay Area Region for Blue Shield Access HMO third highest Employee Only plan for single retirees, Blue Shield the third highest Two-Party plan for retiree plus one, or Kaiser for retiree plus two or more. If Blue Shield Access HMO is not available, the third highest CalPERS Medical Plan will be used to determine the City’s contribution. For CalPERS Plan Year 2017, that plan will be United Healthcare HMO. 3.2.23 Retiree Medical for Employees Hired Between March 31, 2008 and October 31, 2011 (Tier 2) Employees hired between March 31, 2008 and October 31, 2011 who retire with a minimum of five years of service with the City will receive a retiree medical benefit based upon years of service as follows: 5 Years of City Service Monthly Contribution (tied to Basic, Combination, or Medicare plan, as applicable to enrollment) 0 to the end of 9th year of service Minimum monthly amount as governed by the CalPERS Health System. 10 years to the end of the 14th year of service 100% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee only. 15 years to the end of the 19th year of service 75% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee +1 dependent. 20 years of service or more 100% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee +1 dependent. 3.2.34 Retiree Medical for Employees Hired On or After November 1, 2011 (Tier 3) Employees hired on or after November 1, 2011 will receive the following contributions to a Retirement Health Savings AccountPost-Employment (Retiree) Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA), based on years of service with the City. Years of Service Monthly Contribution 0- to the end of the 45th year of service 20.0% 56 years of service to the end of the 19th year of service 32.0% of base pay 20 years of service or more 52.5% of base pay In the event the BAMM and/or the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) units receive higher benefit levels than those offered to the members covered by this compensation and benefit plan, the members can request that the compensation and benefit plan be reopened relative to retiree medical benefits. 3.3 Dental and Vision Plans 3.3.1 Dental Plan Effective January 1, 2016 and each calendar year thereafter, the City will reimburse up to $1900 per year per employee for dental related expenses. In addition, all enrolled eligible dependents will receive a maximum combined benefit of $1800 of reimbursable dental expenses per calendar year. 3.3.2 Vision Plan Effective January 1, 2016 and each calendar year thereafter, the maximum reimbursement for an employee for vision eligible expenses will be $600 annually not including an eye examination. If an eye examination is included in the reimbursement the maximum reimbursement will be increased to $700. The maximum cumulative reimbursement for 6 eligible dependents shall not exceed $300 per calendar year or $350 per calendar year if an eye examination is included for reimbursement, for vision eligible expenses. 3.4 Long Term Disability (LTD) The City agrees to provide Long-Term Disability (LTD) coverage to Department Heads and Unrepresented classifications. The coverage is 60% of covered earnings with a maximum monthly benefit of $8,000. If the Police Chief elects to obtain LTD coverage through his or her respective professional organizations, the City agrees to pay the premium of such LTD coverage. 3.5 Life Insurance The City agrees to provide a term life-insurance policy in an amount equal to annual salary for the Department Head group (to a maximum of $250,000), and $100,000 for the Unrepresented group. 4. RETIREMENT 4.1.1 Retirement Formula • Effective 03/31/2008, the City amended its contract with CalPERS to provide for the 2.5% at 55 retirement formula for all miscellaneous employees. • Miscellaneous employees hired after January 1, 2013, who are not considered “classic employees,” shall receive the 2% @ 62 retirement benefit and are subject to the PEPRA rules. • The Police Chief shall receive the 3% @ 50 retirement benefit afforded to other sworn Police Personnel. A Police Chief who is new to the PERS system shall receive the 2% @ 57 retirement benefit. 4.1.2 Retirement Contribution • Department Head and Unrepresented employees will contribute 1.50% of the employer’s contribution to PERS retirement via payroll deduction on a pre-tax basis. The City shall “pick-up” the employer contribution amount that is being paid by the employees through a payroll reduction under IRS Code Section 414(h)(2). Department Head and Unrepresented employees hired 01/01/2013 and after are exempt from this contribution. 4.2 One-Year Final Compensation • Classic employees, who are those employees hired prior to January 1, 2013, shall receive the One-Year Final Compensation Benefit (GC Section 20042). Miscellaneous employees hired after January 1, 2013 who are not “classic employees” are subject to the average of the last three years of final compensation for retirement calculations. 4.3 Military Buy Back for Creditable Service • The City contracts with CalPERS to provide for Military Service Credit (GC 7 21024). 4.4 Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit • The City’s contract with CalPERS provides the Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit (GC 21548), which gives the surviving spouse of a retirement-eligible active employee the highest possible retirement benefit as though the employee had retired the day before death and selected the option. 5. VACATION 5.1 Vacation Accrual Vacation Accrual rates will change on an employee’s anniversary date as follows: Biweekly Additive Maximum Length of Service Accrual Rate Amount Accrual 0-4 years 3.087 160 5 4.62 +40 240 11 4.93 +8 256 12 5.24 +8 272 13 5.54 +8 288 14 5.85 +8 304 15 6.16 +8 320 16 6.47 +8 336 17 6.78 +8 352 18 7.09 +8 368 25 7.39 +8 384 Note: The maximum vacation accrual for the Police Chief is 448 hours. 5.2 Vacation Accrual Maximum An employee shall not be allowed to have an accumulation of more than two years' credit at any time. 6. SICK LEAVE 6.1 Sick Leave Accrual Employees will accrue 3.69 hours of sick leave per pay period. 6.2 Sick Leave Conversion Upon retirement, employees with sick leave balances may convert all sick leave hours to CalPERS credible service per GC Section 20965, with the exception of the Police Chief, who will receive the same sick leave conversion benefit as granted to the Police Administrators. The Police Administrators can elect to have all sick leave hours converted to CalPERS credible service, or they can elect to be compensated for up to 600 hours of accumulated sick leave. Any remaining sick leave hours can then be converted to CalPERS credible service. 8 6.3 Maximum Accrual The maximum sick leave accrual is 2,000 hours, except that the maximum accrual for the Police Chief is 2,080 hours. 7. HOLIDAY PAY 7.1 Holidays for Regular Full-time Employees Regular full-time employees shall be entitled to observe all authorized holidays at full pay, not to exceed eight hours for any one day. 7.2 Holidays Listed The following are the authorized holidays: New Year’s Day January 1st Martin Luther King’s Birthday 3rd Monday in January Washington’s Birthday 3rd Monday in February Memorial Day Last Monday in May Independence Day July 4th Labor Day 1st Monday in September Columbus Day 2nd Monday in October Veteran’s Day November 11th Thanksgiving Day 4th Thursday in November Day after Thanksgiving 4th Friday in November Christmas Eve December 24th, ½ day Christmas Day December 25th New Year’s Eve December 31st, ½ day Two floating holidays per calendar year 7.3 Holiday Observance If a holiday falls on a Sunday, such holiday shall be observed on the Monday following. If a holiday falls on a Saturday, such holiday shall be observed on the preceding Friday. 7.4 Vacation on Holiday In the event any of the holidays specified above occurs while an employee is on vacation, the holiday shall not be charged to vacation. 8. ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE 8.1. Department Head Classifications Effective July 1 of each year, all Department Head classifications shall be granted 80 hours of administrative leave per year. Administrative Leave accrues on a bi-weekly basis. The City Manager may approve up to an additional 40 hours of administrative leave for Department Heads when warranted (any additional contribution to a leave bank does not change accrual rates). 8.2. Unrepresented Classifications 9 Effective July 1 of each year, allAll unrepresented classifications, with the exception of the HR Technician and Executive Assistant, shall be granted 80 hours of administrative leave per year. Administrative Leave accrues on a bi-weekly basis. With the consent and recommendation of the Department Head, an employee may request that the City Manager authorize additional administrative leave up to a maximum of 16 hours per year (any additional contribution to a leave bank does not change accrual rates). This additional leave may be granted based on: Excessive hours worked; The value of the extraordinary effort, and The performance of the employee The City Manager has full discretion in deciding whether to grant additional leave. This provision does not increase the amount of administrative leave time that may be paid out. The HR Technician and Executive Assistant positions are considered FLSA non-exempt positions and are not eligible for administrative leave. 8.3 Administrative Leave Payout Employees eligible for administrative leave may have a maximum of one year of administrative leave on the books and may request administrative leave pay out at any time by submitting the payout request on the timesheet. When administrative leave balances exceed the one-year maximum (80 hours), hours that exceed the one-year maximum will automatically be paid out. 8.4 Separation Pays Accumulated Leave Allowance For Separated Employees Employees who separate shall be paid the straight-time, base pay, salary equivalent in a lump sum for all eligible accrued leave earned (vacation, administrative leave, holiday, eligible sick leave). 9. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT & ALLOWANCES 9.1. Professional Development Department Head classifications are eligible to receive up to $2,500 per fiscal year for professional development expenses. This includes reimbursement for educational programs and events and/or computer related devices. For details, refer to the Professional Development Policy. 9.2 Auto Allowance Department Head classifications are eligible to receive auto allowance as enumerated below. This is subject to normal taxation. Department Heads can elect to waive their monthly auto allowance and defer an equivalent amount into their Section 457 – Deferred 10 Compensation Account. Such elections can be changed annually with an effective date of January 1. Classification Monthly Amount Finance Director $200 City Clerk $200 Community Development Director $200 Human Resources Director $200 City Librarian $200 Parks & Recreation Director $350 Public Works Director $350 9.3. Uniform Allowance The Police Chief will receive an annual uniform allowance the same as granted to the Association of Police Administrators. 9.4 POST Certificate Pay The Police Chief shall be eligible to receive $9501,034.50/month upon obtaining the POST Executive Certificate. 10. Term This agreement shall be effective on January 1, 2016 and will remain in effect through December 31, 2018. The City agrees not to alter, amend, or reduce any existing benefit included in this document without meeting and conferring regarding such change. For the City: For the DH/UR: _________________________________ ___________________________ Date:_____________________________ Date:________________________ 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 10b MEETING DATE: December 3, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: December 3, 2018 From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager – (650) 558-7243 Nil Blackburn, Assistant to the City Manager – (650) 558-7229 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Extending the City’s Agreement with Lime and Authorization of the Issuance of a Request for Proposals to Identify a Long- term Bike Share Vendor RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution to extend the City’s agreement with bike share provider LimeBike (hereinafter known as Lime, the company’s new name). Staff also recommends that the City Council authorize staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to identify a long-term bike share vendor. BACKGROUND During its goal-setting session in 2017, the City Council set four priorities for the City: sustainability, transportation, housing, and infrastructure. Bike sharing plays an important role in supporting the City’s sustainability goal and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. To that end, the City Council voted in November 2017 to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement allowing the use of the City’s public right-of -way and public spaces to facilitate the Lime bike sharing program in Burlingame. Lime offers dockless bike share that allows riders to leave the bikes at their destination rather than at a docking station. The goals of the six-month pilot program, which began in December 2017, were to test dockless bike sharing in Burlingame; provide another transportation alternative to cars, especially for making first and last mile transit connections; and support the City’s climate action goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Under the attached agreement, Lime is responsible for all aspects of operating and supporting the bike sharing program, including maintaining a 24-hour customer service line and responding to complaints within two hours. DISCUSSION On May 7, 2018, the City Council voted to amend the agreement with Lime and extend the pilot program another six months through December 19, 2018. The City Council agreed to extend the pilot program in order to: (1) collect more usage data, particularly during the warmer months of the Lime Update and Extension of Agreement December 3, 2018 2 year; (2) continue to learn from other cities’ experiences; and, (3) assess the opinion of Burlingame residents by conducting a customer community opinion survey. Pilot Program Findings Lime Usage in Burlingame Lime launched in Burlingame at the end of December 2017 with 50 bikes. By January 2018, Lime had deployed a total of 200 bikes. In February, Lime replaced some of the manual bikes with electric assist bikes (e-bikes). As of October, Lime’s dashboard showed that there were 107 bikes deployed in Burlingame. According to a Lime representative, there is “a lot of movement from Burlingame to and from San Mateo and SSF. So it’s possible there’s not always exactly 200 bikes in Burlingame at all times.” # Bicycles in Burlingame, April –October, 2018 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Manual 37 58 44 42 60 62 51 Lime E 21 121 68 61 71 61 56 All Bikes 58 179 112 103 131 123 107 Based upon the monthly usage data provided by Lime below, total rides averaged about 5,473 per month since May. Also, total complaints received by Lime have decreased since the pilot program first kicked off. Benchmarking Other Cities’ Experiences South San Francisco was an early adopter of a dockless bike share program with Lime. While it will likely continue with some type of bike share program, it has extended its pilot program through February 2019 to allow more time to investigate necessary changes to its City ordinances. South San Francisco has about 200 bikes (100 manual and 100 e-bikes) deployed throughout the city and about 500 users who consistently use Lime bikes one to two times a month. The issue of bad parking, when users leave bikes in inappropriate areas, has lessened since the outset of its pilot program. One possible reason offered for the decline in bad parking complaints may be attributable Month Pedal Bike Rides Electric Bike Rides Total Rides Complaints Lime Received January 2,093 0 2093 77 February 3,468 2,273 5,741 130 March 2,087 2,081 4,168 56 April 1,694 2,543 4,237 44 May 1,836 4,091 5,927 38 June 1,839 4,127 5,966 57 July 1,764 4,315 6,079 64 August 1,868 4,061 5,929 53 September 1,399 3,157 4,556 42 October 1,139 3,245 4,384 32 Lime Update and Extension of Agreement December 3, 2018 3 to the elimination of promo codes for free bike rides that Lime offered at the beginning of the pilot program. As the initial fervor and curiosity surrounding the bikes decreased over time, so did the number of complaints related to bad parking. The City of Alameda launched its six-month pilot with Lime in October 2017. It was the second city in the Bay Area, and the first city in the East Bay, to test dockless bike sharing. At the close of its pilot program, the City of Alameda conducted a community survey to assess public opinion regarding the program. While the program was generally well supported, respondents cited two primary issues: bad parking of bikes and youth riding without helmets. Alameda issued an RFP for a dockless bike share program on May 3, 2018. As part of their proposals, the City encouraged companies to provide solutions for the issues of bad parking and helmet safety. Only two companies, Lime and Beijing-based Ofo, submitted proposals. The City selected Lime, and their bikes are currently in use in Alameda. The City of Palo Alto kicked off a 12-month pilot program in March 2018 and opened up the program to any eligible bike share company that could meet its permit requirements. It also removed any cap on the number of bikes deployed in order to encourage competition. The City of San Mateo launched its bike share pilot program with Lime in May 2018 after a two-year pilot program with Social Bicycles, a bike share program that used docking stations. Foster City recently kicked off its 12-month pilot program with Lime in June 2018. Several other cities throughout the Bay Area are discussing or testing dockless bike sharing. Community Opinion On Monday, November 12, 2018, staff released a community survey designed to gauge the degree of public support for dockless bike sharing in Burlingame, identify pain points, and obtain some usage and demographic data. The data from the survey is available in Exhibit C: Community Survey Results. The public was invited to participate in the 13-question survey via Nextdoor, the City’s weekly e-Newsletter, and Burlingame High School’s student newspaper. The survey had 607 respondents, though most respondents did not answer all of the questions. While this community survey was by no means scientific, particularly with regard to sampling, there are ten notable findings and conclusions. 1. Most respondents support dockless bike share in Burlingame. • 68.8% (413 out of 600 respondents) are “very supportive” or “somewhat supportive” of dockless bike share in Burlingame. (Survey, Q3) • 17.0% (102 out of 600 respondents) are “somewhat against” or “very against” dockless bike share in Burlingame. The remaining 14.2% are “neutral”. (Survey, Q3) 2. Non-Lime users also support a dockless bike share program. • Even though 413 out of the 600 respondents who answered Q2 are “very supportive” or “somewhat supportive” of dockless bike share in Burlingame, only 282 out of the 607 respondents who answered Q7 have actually used a Lime bike in Burlingame. • 53.5% (325 out of 607 respondents) have never used a Lime bike in Burlingame. 3. Similar to other cities’ experiences, the two biggest complaints about dockless bike sharing in Burlingame are poor parking by users and users riding without helmets. Lime Update and Extension of Agreement December 3, 2018 4 • 58.2% (314 out of 540 respondents) selected “bicycles are often parked poorly, blocking sidewalks, curb ramps, or bus stops” as their most disliked aspect of dockless bike share. (Q2) • 30.6% (165 out of 540 respondents) selected “too many bike share users ride without helmets”. (Q2) 4. Most respondents did not wear a helmet when riding a Lime bike. • 75.4% (218 out of 289 respondents) indicated they did not wear a helmet. Q8) 5. Users want more bikes around Burlingame. • The third most disliked aspect of dockless bike share in Burlingame is “there are too few bikes near me when I need one” according to 25.0%, or 135 out of 540 respondents. (Q2) • To contrast, 26 survey respondents said they might be more supportive of dockless bike share if fewer bikes were made available throughout the city.(Q4) 6. Respondents that consider themselves “neutral” or “not supportive” of dockless bike sharing might be more supportive of the program if users did a better job parking the bikes, and docking stations were used in some locations. • 57.6% (140 out of 243 respondents) said “ensuring better parking of bikes by users” would make them more supportive. (Q4) • 47.7% (116 out of 243 respondents) said “using docking stations in certain locations: outside City Hall, train station, library, etc.” would make them more supportive. (Q4) • To contrast, one of the features of the program that 41.3% (235 out of 569 respondents) liked most is that “it’s dockless”. (Q1) 7. Most Lime riders are adults. • 69.7% (258 out of 370 respondents) are 18 years old or older. (Q11) 8. Lime does not always address questions or concerns within the two hours required by the agreement between Lime and the City of Burlingame. • 31.76% (47 out of 148 respondents) indicated that Lime took more than two hours to address their questions or concerns. (Q6) 9. Implementation of this pilot bike share program supported the City’s climate action goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. • Of the 290 respondents who reported what they would have used had dockless bike share not been available, 61.3% (178 out of 290 respondents) would have used some type of motor vehicle instead, including the Burlingame shuttle (1.38%); Lyft, Uber, or taxi (21.4%); or personal car (38.6%). (Q10) 10. Most Lime users are not riding for fun or recreation. • 89.6% (260 out of 290 respondents) have used Lime as transportation to and from work, to and from school, to take care of errands and appointments, and going to or from a restaurant and/or shopping destination. (Q9) • Of the 24 respondents who answered “Other” to question 9, which asks about the primary Lime Update and Extension of Agreement December 3, 2018 5 purpose of their most recent trip, more than half listed transportation to or from BART or Caltrain, or some other use in lieu of an automobile. Extension of Agreement with Lime Although some members of the community oppose dockless bike sharing in Burlingame, the community survey and other data indicate that the program has been well received and should continue. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an amendment to the agreement with Lime extending the program for an additional six months. This should give staff sufficient time to issue a Request for Proposals for dockless bike sharing in Burlingame and negotiate an agreement with a selected vendor. Both the Request for Proposals and the subsequent agreement will include performance metrics in order to address some of the issues that have been raised, such as availability of bikes, parking, and customer service. Alternatively, the City Council could decide to employ a permit model similar to that used by the City of Palo Alto whereby any bike share company that meets yet-to-be-developed permit requirements is eligible to pay a fee and operate in Burlingame. Given the current state of flux in the bike share industry, with Uber and Lyft moving into the field, and some companies abandoning bike share in favor of electric scooters, it is unclear how many companies will remain in the bike share business. Nevertheless, should the City Council be so inclined, it could direct staff to develop a permit system, rather than a Request for Proposals, and allow all companies to apply to operate in Burlingame. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact related to this update. While there is no direct cost to the City for dockless bike share equipment or operations, implementing and monitoring a bike share program requires City staff time to respond to comments and complaints; plan efforts to solicit a company, monitor an agreement, and evaluate the program; and ensure that the selected operator is meeting its contractual requirements. Exhibits: • Resolution • Second Amendment to Agreement • Original Agreement • May 2018 Staff Report • Community Survey Results RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING A SECOND AMENDMENT TO EXTEND THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND LIMEBIKE AN SIX ADDITIONAL MONTHS WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame and Neutron Holdings, Inc. OBA LimeBike (“LimeBike”) entered into a six month Bike Sharing Services Agreement (“Agreement”) on December 19, 2017; and WHEREAS, the first amendment to the Agreement was executed on May 29, 2018 to extend the Agreement to December 19, 2018 in order to collect more usage data, benchmark other cities’ experiences, and conduct a community opinion survey; and, WHEREAS, a November 2018 community opinion survey and other data indicate that the program has been well received and should continue; and, WHEREAS, extension of the agreement would give staff sufficient time to issue a Request for Proposals for dockless bike sharing in Burlingame and negotiate an agreement with a selected vendor. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves the attached second amendment to the Agreement with LimeBike, extending the termination date to June 19, 2019, and authorizes the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City. ___________________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3rd day of December, 2018 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: ___________________________________ Meghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND LIMEBIKE TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SIX MONTHS THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2, made and entered into this ____ day of ___________ 2018, by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a municipal corporation [hereinafter “City”], and Neutron Holdings, Inc. OBA LimeBike, [hereinafter “Contractor”], amends the Agreement between the parties dated December 19, 2017 [hereinafter "Agreement'']. WHEREAS, on December 19, 2017, the City and Contractor executed the Agreement for a six month bike sharing pilot program, and WHEREAS, on May 29, 2017, the City and Contractor executed the First Amendment to extend the pilot program and extend the Agreement expiration date to December 19, 2018; and, WHEREAS, the City has determined the need to extend the Agreement to give staff time to issue a Request for Proposals for dockless bike sharing in Burlingame. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The term of the Agreement shall expire on June 19, 2019. 2. All remaining terms and conditions shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 2 on the day and year first above written. CITY OF BURLINGAME CONTRACTOR NAME A municipal corporation By: ________________________ By: ________________________ Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager ATTEST: ___________________________ Meaghan-Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk Approved as to Form: ___________________________ Kathleen Kane, City Attorney BIKE SHARING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND LIiVIEBIKE This Bike Sharing Services Agreement ("Agreement") is made this l9t\ da.v of -l\".c-tt I r 2017, bv and between the City of Burlinganre, a municipal corporation ("City") and Neutron Holdings, Inc. OBA LimeBike ("LimeBike"). City and LimeBike arc each individually referred to as a "Parq/." and collectivel_v" as the "Parties." RECITALS l. City seeks to provide safe and affordable multi-rnodal transportation options to the pnblic to reduce traffic congestion and to maximize carbon free mobiliry. 2. Bicycle share services lvill help the City achieve its transportation and greenlrouse ernission reduction goals. 3. Ciq'desires to make bicycle slrare services available to tlte public. 4. LimeBike proposes to operate a bicycle share program within the City. 5. LimeBikewill abide by all Cit-v ordinances and rules goveming the use of publicrightof way to provide efricient and effective bicycle share services. 6. All LimeBike bicycles ("Bike Fleet") have GPS, 3G. and selfJocking technologl., such that the bicycles may be locked and tracked and opened by users rvith an online application. In consideration of the mutual covenants alld representations set tbrth in this Agreement, City and LinreBike hereby agree to Iaunch a pilot bicycle slrare program, with the possibility of an extension for a longer temr described belou,. AGREEIUENT 2. License to Use Ciry ROIV. Ch-v authorizes LimeBike to rrse the public ROW solely tbr the purposes of maintaining and offering its bicycle fleet for a bicycle sharing program u,ithin the Cir-y. Authority to utilize the Cit_v ROW for this bicycle fleet is dependent on compliance rvith all terms of this Agteemenl The rights described in this Agreement do not constitute a lease or an easement and slrall not transfer an)" real property interest in Cit1.' propery-. 1 I . Pilot Term. The City hereby gives LimeBike a revocable, non-transferrable license to utilize the City Right of Way to provide bicycle share services within the Ciry-. The term Right of \\ay ("ROW') ret'ers to sideu.alks. roads other pathways, parking lots, and Citv Parks orvned and maintained by the Ciry, City herebv grants LimeBike a license to operate a pilot bicy'cle share program for a term of up to sir (6) rnonths, rvhich may be extended in writing, b-v'. muhral agreement tl'ut may address any. issues and modifications raised during the pilot tem: a. This agreement only applies to operations rvithin the Cily oi Burlingarne ROW and City' Parks. Additional zones rnay be established; for example, loealions within publicly' accessible plazas, transit stations. and private parking lots. However, permission to do so shall require the prior tlitten consent of the CiB" or property owner. as applicable- and shall be comrnunicated to LimeBike's customers through signage approved by the respective properry- orvner and,/or tlrroLrgh the mobile atrd web application. 3. Pemitted Use. LimeBike customers may use the ROW solely for riding bicycles in accor{ance rvith applicable law and parking ofbicycles owned and maintained by LimeBike for use in the bicycle slrare program. For purposes of this Agreement the term ROW refers to hard-surfaced areas owned and maintained by the City. LimeBike shall not place or attach any personal properl}-. fi.rturcs. or structures to ROW \}'ithout the prior written consent of Citv or private property oivners- a. lt is LimeBike's duty under this Agreement to ensure, as reasonably feasiblg that use of the ROW and LimeBike's operations within the City shall not: a) adversely affect ROW or the Citr-'s streets. or sidelvalks; and b) adversely affect the propert) of an-v third parties: and c) inhibit pedestrian movement within the public way or along other proPert) or rights-of rvay orvned or conbolled by the Cit-v; and d) create conditions which are a threat to public safety and security. b. Upon termination of this Agreement by either Party, LimeBike shall. at its sole cost and expense, immediately remol'e its Bike Fleet and any other property from the City- 4. Bicycles. The bicycles provided by LimeBike shall meet all applieable bicycle requirements in the California Vehicle Code, includilg for lights and ret'lectrors. and be well-maintained and in good and safe riding condition. 5. Bicy.cle parking. LimeBike and the City may collaborativel.v identifi' designated parking ar€as to station bic-v-cles and corral rebalanced bicycles. LimeBike and the City will pre- designate bicycle parking zones for staging and corralling bicycles lor public use ("Home Zones'). The Horne Zones will be identified on the up-to-date application map maintained by LimeBike and available for viewing b.v the City at all times. Bikes rnay only be parked in a Iegal manner in the ROW by individuals panicipating in the bicycle share program. Bicycles parked on private property nill be allo*ed at the discretion of the private property owrer. LimeBike rvill actively manage its bicycle fleet to ensure orderly parking and the free and tunobstructed use of the ROW. Bicycles in the bicycle fleet shatl be rcstricted to the follorving parking zones on thea ROW: i. Bicyctes can only be parked on hard surfaces (e.g. concrcte. asphalt) and shall stand upright rvhen parked. ii. Bieycles shall not be parked in zones adjacent to or in any way blocking loading zones, passenger loading zones. disabled parking zones. curb ramps! entry-rvays. driveways, and street fumiture arrd pathways that require pedesnian access (e.g- benches, play structures). iii. Bicycles parked in residential areas that do not impede pedeskian travel will be allowed to remain in place for up to 2:1 hours after they are parked' Holvever, if there is a callor comptaint, LimeBike shall respond in the time periods outlined in "Exhibit 2 City makes the ROW available to LimeBike in an "as is" condirion. City makes no representations or warranties conceming the condition of dre public uay or its suitability. for use by LimeBike or its customers. City assumes no du+.' to r+am either LimeBike or its customers conceming conditions that exist now or mal. arise in the future. a. b City assumes no liabilitl,for loss or darnage io LimeBike's bicycles or other property. LimeBike agrees that City is not responsible for providing security at any location where LimeBike's bicycles are storcd or located. and LimeBike hereby waives any claim against City in the event LimeBike's bicycles or orher property are lost or damaged. c. LimeBike shall provide the City with a contact name(s) and phone number(s) for LimeBike staff that are capable of relocating. rebalancing. removing, andlor repairing bicycles. The City will noti$ LimeBike staff or through the cusromer service portal in the app for any bicycle that is found to be adversely affecting the Ciry ROW. LimeBike shall be responsible to corect improperly parked bicycles within the timefrarnes listed in "Exhibit A". LimeBike shall give the City special righrs in the app to immediately unlock and remove bicycles blocking access to the ROW. 7. Customer Conurunication. LimeBike shall Educate users regarding laws applicable to riding and operating a bicycle and to rvearing a helmet if under I 8 years ofage. b. Notifu customers rhat bicyclists shall yield ro pedestrians on siden'alks. c. lnstruct customers on how to park a bicycle legally and properly. d. Parking instruction matcrials will be available on the bicycles, the app and as outreach materials for distribution. e. Provide a mechanism for customers to easily and quickly notify the company of any problems with the bicl'cle. such as through the mobile application and a phone number or website printed on dre bicycle. f. Maintain a 24-hour customer service phone number tbr customers to repon safety concems. complaints, or ask questions. g. Ilnplement a markaing plan to promote bicycle sharing city*,ide. h. LimeBike will be responsible and accountable for any bicycle sat'ety equipmenr distributed to users, such as helmets and other accessories- a. 3 6. Condition of City ROW 8 Engage with Burlingame High School and possibly other schools and institutions on bicycle safety. Maintenance and Care of ROW. LimeBike expressty agrees to repair. replace or otherr,r'ise restore any part or item ol real or personal properly- that is damaged' lost or destrol'ed as a result of LimeBike's use of ROW. Should LimeBike fail to repair, replace or otherwise restore such real or personal property, LimeBike expressly agrees to pay City's costs, irrcluding reasonable administrative fees, in making such repairs, replacements. or restorations.Operations and Maintenance. LimeBike shall be responsible to maintain the bicycle fleet as s€t forth in Exhibit A. LimeBike shall be solely responsible for all .uinienan." and service costs in order to maintain the bic).cle fleet and associated maintenance to minimurn level of service and reporting outlined in Exhibit A. Any occurrence upon. at or li'om ROW or occasioned *'holly or in part by the entry, use or presence upon Citl' ROW by LimeBike or by anyone making use of ROW at the invitation or sufferance of LirneBike, except such loss or datnage which was caused by the sole negligence or *illiul misconduct of City. 9. lndemlification. LimeBike shall defend, pay, indemnis and hold harmless cirJ*. is oflicers. ofticials, emplo,vees, agens, invitees, and volunteers from any and all actual or alleged claims, suits, actions, damages. demands, costs or e:(Penses of any kind or nature by or in favor of anyone whomsoever and from and against any and all costs and expenses, including without limitation court costs and reasonable attomeys' fees, resulting from or in connection with loss of life, bodily or personal injury or property damage arising directly or indirectly out of or from or on account of: a. b. Use of LimeBike's bicycles by any individual, regardless ofvl'trether such use *as widt or without the permission of LimeBike, including claims by users of the bicycles or third parties. 10. lnsurance. Prior to beginning and continuing throughout the term of this Agreement, LimeBike, at its sole cost and expense, shall fumish the City with certificates of insurance and original or contractual endorsements evidencing that it has obtained and maintains insurance as required by the CitY. I L Compliance rvith All Lars. LirneBike at its own cost and expense. shall comply with all stahrtes, ordinances. regulations, and requirements of all govemmental entities applicable to is use of RO\U and the operation of its bicycle share program. including but not limited to lalvs governing operation of bicycles. [f any license. permit. or other goveflxnental authorization is required for LimeBike's lawful use or occupancy of ROW or any portion tlrereof, LimeBike shall procure and rnaintain suclr license, permit and/or govemmental authorization throughout the lerm of this Agreement. 4 12. Required Reports. LimeBike shall provide reports to the City concerning utilization of its bicycles and bicycle route usage not less than monthly, and shall cooperate u,ith the City in the collection and analysis ofaggregated data conceming is operations. Reports rvill include, but not lirnited to: aggregated customer usage by City residents and non-residents; total number of reponed complaints and collisions; total number of rides per day, hour. and month. Such repots shall be public records as defined in the Califomia Public Records Acl 13. Nci Joint Venture. Nothing herein contained stall be in any way construed as expressing or implying that the parties hereto have joined together in any joint venture or company or in any manner have agreed to or are contemplating the sharing of profits and losses among themselves in rrlation to any matter relating to this Agreement. 14. Term. This Agreement shall commence on L.. - l9 , 2017, (lhe "Commencement Date") and shall expire 6 months after the Commencement Date, unless earlier terminated pursuant to Section 14. t5. Termination. This Agreement mav be terminated prior to the expiration date set tbrrh in Section 13. above, upon the occurence ofany ofthe following conditions: Upon delivery of written notice frorn City to LimeBike terminating this Agreement for any reason, or for no reason. by giving at least thiny* (30) days' notice to the LimeBike ofsuch tennination. b. An attempt to transfer or assign this Agreement. LirneBike shall not terminate this Agreement rvithout first by giving at least 180 days' written notice of plans for lennination. Upon the effective date of termination of this Agreement, LimeBike shall remove all bicycles from the City and restore the ROW to the condition of the ROW at the Commencement Date of this Agreement. 16. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Such amendments shall only be effective if incorporated in written amendments to this Agreement and executed by duly authorized representatives ofthe parties. 17. Applicable Law and Venue. The laws of Califomia shall govem the interpletation and enforcement ofthis Agreement. Venue shall be in San Mateo County Superior Court. 18. Counterparts. This Agreement rray be executed simultaneously or in any number of counterpafts, each of which shall be dcemed an origiual, but all of rvhich together shall constitute one and the same agreemena. a. 5 ! IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the Ciry and the LimeBike have executed this Agreement on the date of IOR CTTY FOR LIN1EBIKE I Goldman. City Manager Approved as to form: Kathleen Kane. Cit-v Aftomey Ax !ftvh VL(E TPETIDEIE Print Name and Title S ignature City Clerk 6 Exhibit A The following performance indlcators shall be met and reported to help the City measure our success serving its citizens and improving the livability and mobility of Burlingame. LimeBike will maintain its birycles to be in an excellent state of cleanliness and repair, with a minimum of gO% of deployed bicycles opereble at any time. Performance lndicator Description Measurement Tool Reporting Frequency App & customer service support portal LimeBlke reservation system tully operational Uptime reporting The app will be operational 99.5% uptime. monthly Bicycle distribution Maps identifoing trends in peak bicycle distribut'on Maps showing aggregate usage patterns Fleet will focus on serving people in the City of Burlingame monthly Bicycles in serv rce Bikes in service Daily uptime reports Deploy and maintain a minimumof [ ]bicycles in service in any calendar month. Bicycles will be phased into deployment over a 6 week period and can be increased based on usage and demand. monthly Rebalancing Regular redistribution of bicycles For any complaint outside of business hours, within ten (10) hours of receiving notice. monthly Report- responsive Response time to improper bicycle parking / other problems Number of requests. Time relative to report logs Eicycles will be relocated or rebalanced within two (2) hours during business hours between 8am to monthly 7 Description of LimeBike's Service Level Aoreement Minimum Performance Standard Number of requests. Time relative to report logs Bicycles will be relocated or rebalanced within two (2) hours during business hours between 8am to 8pm Monday through Friday except for State and Federal holidays. communicated to Customer Service 8pm Monday through Friday except for State and Federal holidays. For any complaint outside of business hours, within two (2) hours of receiving notice. 8 i#o'CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE CERTIFICATE NUMBER:REVISION NUMBER: TIFICATE OER CANCELLAT @ I 98&201 5 ACORD CORPORATION. All rlghts ro3orvod. ACORD 2lt (2015103) The ACORD lame and logo are reglstoi€d marks of ACORD 3435rr,5 I l7-ls G!/xs/^!to ti.hr.y B:.v.t.! 1rlr5/2rt, 10:05:1, ra (asrt I ro9. r o THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUEO AS A }IATTER OF I'{FORXATIOT{ OXLY AIID COT,IFERS I{O RIGHTS UPOI{ THE CERNFIC,ATE HOLDE& THIS CERTIFICATE OOES T{OT AFFIR'SATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AIIE'{D, EXTE},ID OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDEO BY THE POLICTES BELOU THIS CERnFIGATE OF II{SURANCE DOES NOT COI{STITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEE},| THE |SSU|NG TNSURER(S), AUTHORTZEO REPRESENTATIVE OR PROOUCE& At{O THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IT PORTANT: lf the certiticato holdor ls an ADDITIONAL INSUREO, tfi€ policylle3) must have AODITIONAL ll{SURED provisions or be endorsed. ll SUBROGATIOT{ lS WAIVEO, sublact to lho t ms ard condillom o, thr pollcy, cert ln policies m.y Gquir. .n ondorsenenl A statement on thlr cadlflcate dogs not contor dghrq to the cedificats hotder in tieu of such ondorsemont(s ). PioorJcEi Garrett/Mosier/Griftth/sistrunk Risk Manaoement & lnsurance Services 12 Truman- lrvine, CA 92620 wwlv.gm9s.Gom 0884519 949-559-3377 AOORESS:ashleYb@qmos.com INSURERIS} AFFOROING COVERA6E suRrBA: Buriinqtoi lnsuaance Conoany 23620 Neutron Holdinos- lnc. DBAr Limebike- 66 Bovet Rd San Mateo CA 94402 nsuREi B : GeneGl Star Indemnity Company 37362 r$uFrE c: Ohio Sedrrity lnsuhnce Company 24082 IISUREA D: LtulTs EACHOCCURA€NCE s1.000.000 PREMISES lE, @mnar s 100 000 MEOEXP{Airon.pa$n)s'1.000 P:RSONAT & ADV NJURY s2.000.000 GE NERAT AGGF EGAT's2,000,000 PROOUCTS. COMP/OP AGG s1,000,000 GENLaGGREGAIE UUll APPLIES PERIt--l opa l_---lPoucY L l iablr t l LOC 9338W39532 5/1n017 5t1t2018 s l.l AOOTY TNJJRY (Pn pG.s)s gOOTLY INJUIY (Px &id€.!|s s owrEoAjIG O'ILY BIREO ,'IJIOS orILY SCHEDULEO NOfi,OWTiEO AU.lOTOBILEUAA]!iTY BAS5814t]851 9t18/2017 5t112018 EACH@CURRENCE s4,000,000l,l8NE JT LIAB EICESS L|AS occlJF AGGREG TE 54,000.000 B rxG928170 ?nD017 s PEi oTl.i- ER E L, EACN rcOO€NI s E L OISEASE, EAEMPLOYEE SIORIGRS COXPEI'ISA1Io.| AiIO EI'FLOI'ER' UAA&TY AiIYPROPRIEIOR'PARII{€R'EXECUTIVE OFFICEi]UET6ER O(CLUOEO? oEscRrPTlol oF oPERATroa,ls b.re E L OISE^SE - FOLTCY ULtT s OESCi?!E{ OF eER tloa{S, L@^I!ONS l\rElilclEs OCOiD t(h, A oiEl R.n tr sdi.d|i.rnr.,0..c..h.<tamn.r.oa'r$rtr<tl TNs certifcate may be r€lied upon only if th€ cedifcate adderdum refered to herein b atlad€d hergto. SHot,'LD ANY Of THE ABOVE OESCRIBEO POI.ISES BE CATICELLEO BEFORErHE A(Pnarot{ DArE THER€OF, t{OnCE UflLL BE I)ELMREO tt{ ACCORDAXCE WTTH THE POUCY PROVISIOI{S Citv of Burlinoame 50l Primrose-Road Burlinqame CA 94010 ?zF-;,--AUIHORI2EO REPRESENTATI!'E THIS IS TO CERTIF/ TIIAT THE POLICIES OF INSURAT.TCE USTED BELOW }IAVE BEEN ISSUEO TO THE INSUREO NA EO ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOO INOICATEO- NOTWTHSTANDING ANY REOUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF A}IY COT{TRACT OR OTHER OOCUMENT WTH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUEO OR MAY PERTAJN. THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POUCIES OESCRIBEO HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO A[ THE TERMS. E(CLUSIONSAND CONOITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWI{ MAY HAVE BEEN REOUCEO AY PA]D CLAIMS COT"ERCIA! GENEiAL LIABIUTY c 5 5l1no18 tr Michael Finn AGEI{CY CUSTOI|ER ID: LOC *: ADDITIONAL REMARKS SCHEDULE ADOITIONAL acoRD '101 (2008/01) Tho ACORD nam€ and logo are Fglstorrd ma.ta of ACORO 13353133 I 1r-13 Gtlxslkro I ljhrey A!.,tr.. | 11/r6l:0t? 10:0€:1? Ax (psTl I p.g. ? o Page of @ 200E ACORD CORPORATION. All .ights resewed. AgE CY GanetuMosier/Griff th/Sistrunk NAXEO lasltREo Neutron Holdinos. lnc. DBA: Limebike- 66 Bovet Rd San Mateo CA 94/tO2 THIS ADDITIOI{AL RE{ARKS FOR IS A SCHEDULE TO ACORD FORII, FORIi t{urrBER: 25 FOR { TITLE: Cenmcate of Liability (03/16) HOLOER: Crty of Burlingame AODRESS: 50'l P.imrose Road Eurlingame CA g,{010 As respects General liability covelage, City of Burlinga&e/ its officers, eRployees,agents. and voluoteers are added as Additional Insured-Stale or Governmental Agency orSubdivisiol or Political Subdivisioo, per CG20120509 attached, and this insurance isprimary, per IFG-G-0094 0212 attached- As respects Autonobile Liability corerage, City of Burlingame. its officeEs, employees,agents, and volunteers are added as Additional I[sured, per CA88100113 attached, and thisinsurance is prinary, pe! CA00010306 attached. ADOENOUM POLICY NUIMBER:COMM ERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY cG 20 12 05 09 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. ADDITIONAL INSURED - STATE OR GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY OR SUBDIVISION OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION - PERMITS OR AUTHORIZATIONS This enddsetner rmdifies irEurance provided und6r the following: COMI\,ERC IAL GENERAL LIABIUTY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE $de Or Governmental Agency Or Subdivision Or Political Subdivision: Any stale or political suMivision that requires you in accordance with lheir statutes or regulations to add such state or political subdivision as an additional insured on your policy provided such witten permit is Fully executed prior lo an 'occurrence' in which coverage is sought under this policy. lnformdion req uired to comdete fiis Schedule, if not sho,,/n above. will be s hown in the Declardions Section I - liltro ls An hsured is arEnded to include 6 an insured any stat6 or govemmental agency or sLbdivision or poltical suHMsim shown in the SctEdtb, s$iect b the follouring provisions: 1. This irEurance apCies only with resped to operatiolE perbrmed by you or on your behalf br whicfi the stde or gc rernmental eencl or subdivision s pofrtical subdivbim has bsu€d a perrdt or authazalon. cG 20 12 05 09 2. Thb insurarre does notapdy b: a 'Bodity iniury", 'propefiy damage" or hersonal ard adv€rtising injry" arising out of operatims perfqmed for the federal governmart, shlo or mrnicipality; or b. "Bodily injtry' or "p.operty dam€e" inclded wihin the "Frod u d$conplet€d eeratiatshaz{d. @ lnsurance ServicesOffice, lnc., 2006 3aa!3rrs r r7-r{ 6l.,/x5/l!ro I r.nl.y !!.et!.! | tlltal2atl 10:Oa:1, lx Ittr) I ?.ge 3 ol ? Pe ge 1of 1 tr THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POUCY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. AMENDMENT. OTHER INSU RANCE (PRTMARY AND NON-COi{TR|BUTORY COVERAGE) This endorsement modfies insurance pro,/ided under he following: COMI\iERCIAL GEN ERAL LIAE ILITY COVERAGE PART PRODUCTS.COIUPLETED OPERATlONS LIABILTTY COVERAG E PART Scheduh of Additbnd lnstred(s): Any person or organizalion named in an A(Eitional lnsured endorsement allached to thas policy with whom you have agreed, in a written contracl, lhat such person or organizetion should be pmvided primary and non-contribulory coverage, but only when such written contract is fully executed prior to an 'occunence' in which coverage is sought under this policl. 9338v1rJ9532 A. Paragraph C. of this endorsement replaces paragraph 4. Other lnstrance d Sectbn lV- Commercid General Lhblly Cmditions, but only with respect to the insurance afforded to the additional insured(s) scfieduled above. B. Paragraph C. of this endorsement Eplaces pnragraph /t. Other krsurance of Section lV- Produdscorpleted Operations UaUlity Condtions, but only witl rssp€ct to the insurance afiorded to he additional insured(s) sdreduled above. C. Other lnsurance Notwihsbnding other valid and coledible insurance available lo the in$red for a loss we cover under the applicable Coverage Parl to which lhis endorsement is modifying, this insurance is primary and nm-contribulory. However, this endorsement: l. Applies only when ,ou are required by contrad, agreement or permil to provide primary and non-contibutory co\€rage for he additional insured, provided $ch wri[en conlrad, egreement or pemit is tully e)Gcuted prior to an 'occunence' in which coverage is soughl under this policy, and 2. Does not apply to any daim, loss or liability due b lhe sole neglilence of the additional insured. lncludes copyrighted material of lS O Prop€rties, lnc., with permission 3eas!r35 I lr-13 clllr/rqto I altl.y B!.rtt.r r l1/t6/r:or7 lo:ocrlr a tpsrl Pagel dlIFG-G-009/I 02 12 8AS58148851 Neutron Holdings, lnc. DBA: Limebike 12 (3 lf the Limits of lnsurance of any other insurance policy have been exhausled; or To "bodily iniury' or 'property damage' that occuned bebre you acquired or formed the organization. 2. EMPLOYEES AS INSUREOS SECTION ll - LIABILITY COVERAGE, paragraph A.'1. -WHO lS AN INSURED is amended to include the follo/ring as an insured: f. Any'employee' of yours while using a covered "auto' you do not own, hire or bonow, but only for acts within lhe scope of their employment by you. lnsurance provided by this endorsement is excess over any other insurance available to any'employee'.g. An 'employee' of yours while operating an 'auto' hired or borrowed uoder a written contract or agreement in that 'employee's' name, with your permission, while performing duties related to the conduct of your business and within the scope of lheir employment. lnsurance provided by this endorsemenl is excess over any other insurance available to the'employee'. 3. ADDITIONAL INSURED BY CONTRACT, AGREEMENT OR PERMIT SECTION ll - LIABILITY COVERAGE, paEgraph A.1- -WHO lS AN INSURED is amended to include the following as an insured: h. Any person or organization with respeci to the operation, maintenance or use of a covered 'auto', provided that you and such person o, organization have agreed in a written contract, agreement, or permit issued to you by govemmental or public authority, to add such person, or organization, or governmental or public authority to lhis policy as an'insured". However, such person or organization is an 'insured': (1) Only wilh respect to the operation. maintenance or use of a covered'auto'; l2l Only for'bodily injury' or 'property damage'caused by an "accident'which takgs place afrer you executed the written contract or agreement, or the permit has been issued to you; and(3) Only for the duration of that contract, agreement or permit 4. ST,PPLEMENTARYPAYME]'ITS SECTION ll - LIABILITY COVERAGE, Coverage Extensions, 2.a. Supplementary Payments, paragraphs (2) and (4) are replaced by the follor ring: l2l Up to $3,000 for cost of bail bonds (including bonds for related traffic violations) required because of an 'accident' we cover. We do not have to fumish these bonds.(4) All reasonable expenses incurred by the insured at our request, including actual loss of eamings up to $500 a day because of time off from work. 5. Ai'ENDED FELLOW EMPLOYEE EXCLUSION In those jurisdictions where, by law, fellow employees are not entitled to the prolection afforded to the employer by the workers compensation exclusivity rule, or similar protection, the follo ing provision is added: SECTION ll - LIABILITY, exclusion B.5- FELLOW EMPLOYEE does not apply if the 'bodily injury' results from lhe use of a covered 'auto' you own or hire- SECTION lll - PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE is amended as follows: HIRED AUTO PHYSICAL DAI,IAGE Paragraph A.4. Coverage Eltensions of SECTION lll - PHYSICAL OAMAGE COVERAGE, is amended by adding the following: lf hired 'autos' are covered 'autos' for Liability Coverage, and if Comprehensive, Speciiled Causes of Loss or Collision coverage are provided under the Business Auto Coverage Form for any 'auto" you own, then the Physical Damage coverages provided are extended to'autos': a. You hire, renl or bonow: or cA 88 10 01 t3 O 201 3 Ltberty Mutuat lnsurane lncludes copyrighted malerial of lnsurarrc€ Se ices Offce. lnc., with ils pe..nission Page 2 of 7 3ar5!705 | l?-16 Gllnslr'.. I r.U., a!.rs:er I r1lr6/1ot? 10:06:1, rt| (?5") Ldg.5 ot , 20 2't. To the extent possible, notice to us should include: (1) How, when and where the'accidenf or'loss" took place; (21 The 'ansureds' name and address: and (3) The names and addresses of any iniured persons and witnesses. WAIVER OF TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF RECOVERY AGAINST OTHERS TO US SECTION lV - BUSINESS AUTO CONOITIONS, paragraph A.5., Transfer ot Rights of Recovery Against others to us, is amended by lhe addition of the follorring: lf the person or organization has waived those ights before an'accidenf or 'loss', our rights are waived also. HIRED AUTO COVERAGE TERRITORY SECTION lV - BUSINESS AUTO CONOITIONS, paragraph 8.7., Policy Period, Coverage Territory, is amended by lhe addilion of the following: For'autos'hired 30 days or less, the coverage teritory is anywhere in the world, provided that the insured's rcsponsibility to pay for damages is determined in a "suit', on the merits, in the United States, the tenitories and possessions of the United States of America, Puerto Rico or Canada or in a settlement we agree to. This extension of coverage does not apply to an 'auto' hired, leased, rented or borrowed with a ddver. SECTION V - DEFINITIONS is amended as follows: 22. BODILY INJURY REDEFINED Under SECTION V - DEFINTIONS, definition C. is replaced by the following: "Bodily iniury'means physical iniury, sickness or disease sustained by a person, including mental anguish, mental injury, shock, fright or death resultlng from any of these at any time. COMiIMON POLICY CONDITIONS 23. EXTENDEDCANCELLATIONCONDITION COMMON POLICY CONDITIONS, paragraph A.- CANCELLATION condition applies except as follows: lf we cancel ficr any reason other than nonpayment of prem ium, we will mail to the frst Named lnsured written notice of cancellation at least 60 days before the effective date of cancellation. This provision does not appty in those states which require more than 60 days prior notice of cancellation. cA 88 10 01 13 @ 2013 Liberty Mutual lnsurance lncludes copyrighted materiat of tnsuaance SeMces O{fice, lnc.. with its permission f. 3685r?85 I 1?-t9 Cl,/;as/r!!o I I rr/r5l:ot? 1a:06:1r rr r!s?t I p.qe 5 of ? Page 7 ot 7 BAS58'148851 5. Other lnsurance g t r. For any covsred 'auto' you own, this Coverage Form povides primary insurance. For any @vgred "auto' you don't own, the lnsurance pro- vided by thig Coverage Form is ex- cess ovsr any other collectible insurance. However, whilo a covered 'auto' whlch is a 'lrailor' is mn- nec'ted to another vBhiclo, the Liabil- tty Coverage this CovalEge Form providos for the 'trailef is: (1) Excess while it ls connecled to a rnotor vehicla you do not own. (21 Primary while it is connected to a covered 'auio' you own. b. For Hired Auto Physical Damage Coverage, any cov6rad "auto' ]rou lease, hire, rent or bono\, is deemed io be a @vered "auto' you own. However, any "auto' ihat is leased, hired, rented or borowgd with a driver is not a @vered 'auto'. c. Regardlees of the provisions of Para- graph a. above, this Cwerage Form's Liability Coverage is primary for any liability assumed under an 'insured contract'. d. \4Ih9n this Coverage Form and any other Coverage Form or policy cov- els on gle samg basis, either excess or primary, we will pay only our share. Our shars is lhe proportion that the Limit ot lnsurance of out Covarage Form bears to ths total of the limits of all the Coverage Forms and pol'rcies covering on the same basis. 6. Premlum Audit a. The estimated premium for thls Cov- erage Form is based on lhe exp+ sures you told us you would have when this policy began. We will compute the final premium due when ws determins your actual ex- posures. The estimated total premi- um will be credited against lhe final prsmium dus and the first Named lnsured wilt be billed for the balance, it any. lf Ure estimated total premium exceeds the final premium due, the frst Named lnsured will gel a re. tund. b. lf this policy is issued for more than one year, tha premium for this Cov- erage Form will be computed annu- ally based on our rates or premiums in effect at the beginning of each year of the policy. 7. Policy Perlod, Coverage Tenitory Under this Coverage Form, we cover'ac- cidenH and 1osses" occuning: a. During ths policy period shown in the Declarations; and b. lMthin the coyerage territory. The coverage tenitory is: a. The United Slales of America; b. The tenitories and possessions of the united states of America: c. Puerto Rim; d. Canada: and e. Anwhere in the world it (1) A covered "auto" ot the privale passengs type is leased, hired, rentd or bonowed withoul a drivsr for a period of 30 days or less: and (2) The "insured's' responsibility to pay damages is determined in a "suit' on the merit6, in the Unil- ed Statos of Amsrica, tho tsr- ritories and possessions of the United Strates of America, Puerlo Rico, or Canada or ln a settle- rneot we agree to. We also cover 'loss' to, or 'accidents" involving, a covered 'aul,o' while being transportod belween any of these places. 8. Two Or More Coverage Forms Or Poli- cles lssusd By Us lf this Coverage Form and sny other fuv- erage Form or policy issued to you by us or any company affiliated with us apply to the same '6ccident', the aggregate maximum Limit of lnsurancs und€r all lhe Coverage Forms or policies shall not exceed the highest applicable Limil ot lnsuranca under any on6 Coverage Form or polioy. This condition does not apply lo any Coverage Form or policy issued by us ot an arfiliated company specifi- cally to apply as excess i.surance over lhis Coverage Form. :: E =!!=E I cA 00 0, 03 06 otso 33n53145 l Ir-13 crlts/rnto j ilh:ey.rersrer I rrl:6/101? 10:06:17 Ar. Properlies, lnc.. 2005 lPs:) i !.q. ? of ',Page 10 of ,3 5 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: May 7, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 7, 2018 From: Sigalle Michael, Sustainability Coordinator – (650) 558-7261 Subject: Update on LimeBike Bike Sharing Pilot Program RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council receive an update on the City’s bike sharing program operated by LimeBike. The Council may wish to provide direction to staff on how to proceed with the program. BACKGROUND In December 2017, the City of Burlingame adopted a bike sharing program operated by LimeBike as a six-month pilot project ending this June 2018. LimeBike offers a dockless bike share that allows riders to leave the bicycles at their destination rather than at a docking station. The program is operating in Burlingame at no cost to the City. The City signed an agreement allowing LimeBike to utilize the City’s public right-of-way to park the LimeBikes without disturbing pedestrians, residents, and businesses. Under the agreement, LimeBike is responsible for all aspects of operating and supporting the bike sharing program including: maintaining a 24-hour customer service line; responding to complaints within specific time frames; and providing free helmets and outreach to local schools on bicycle safety. LimeBike is headquartered in San Mateo and operates bike sharing programs nationwide. Burlingame was among the third city in the Bay Area to adopt a program with LimeBike, following South San Francisco and Alameda. The goals of the six-month pilot program are to: test dockless bike sharing in Burlingame; provide another transportation alternative to driving, especially for making first and last mile transit connections; and support the City’s climate action goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. After the six-month pilot, the City may use its lessons learned to modify and direct future bike sharing programs in Burlingame. DISCUSSION LimeBike launched in Burlingame at the end of December with 50 bicycles. In January, the number grew to 200 bikes; in February, 30 electric assist bikes were switched in as part of the 200 total. To ride a LimeBike, users unlock the bicycle through the app, ride the bicycle, and then LimeBike Update May 7, 2018 2 pay by entering credit card information into the app. Rides cost $1 per 30 minutes for the manual bikes. The e-bikes cost $1 to unlock and $0.15/minute. Monthly memberships are available as well. To end a ride, users park the bicycles and use the app to lock the bicycle. The program created an immediate response in the community. In January, over 2,000 trips were taken, and in February trips doubled to over 5,000. The trip numbers dipped in March most likely due to rainy days and the expiration of free ride promos. On average, users ride the LimeBikes for about 1.15 miles and 9 minutes. Usage heatmaps provided by LimeBike show that downtown Burlingame and Broadway are popular LimeBike locations. See the heatmap for March below as an example. Issues with the program were also quickly raised. Some community members contacted LimeBike, City staff, the Police Department, and Councilmembers with complaints and confusion over the program. Since dockless bike sharing programs are relatively new, the LimeBikes at first seemed to be abandoned. In addition, some bikes were parked carelessly on private property and left for long durations of time in residential areas. And, some people found that when they called LimeBike directly with complaints, they were met with long hold periods and slow response times. LimeBike made quick improvements to their service; based on the declining number of complaints, it seems that the community has grown accustomed to the LimeBikes. LimeBike expanded their Burlingame team and increased the number of customer hotline staff. They were also proactive in reaching out to the community including: holding two bicycle safety events at Burlingame High School, communicating with Burlingame Intermediate School, joining the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce, and meeting with the Burlingame Parks and Recreation Commission. LimeBike reached out to hotels in Burlingame and is working with the Hyatt Regency to provide their guests with LimeBikes. LimeBike distributed around 100 helmets at various community events, and staff and LimeBike are collaborating on ways to increase helmet safety in the community. Overall, LimeBike has been a responsive and collaborative partner through the pilot and is open to making program improvements. LimeBike Update May 7, 2018 3 Per the City’s agreement with LimeBike, LimeBike sends the City monthly ridership reports and complaint log totals. In April, LimeBike introduced an online dashboard to streamline and make information more accessible for City staff. Staff uses the monthly reports and dashboard as the primary sources for tracking the program. The table below summarizes the monthly reports and total number of complaints and comments received to date on LimeBike. In addition, staff maintains an email account, bikeshare@burlingame.org, inviting the public to send LimeBike- related comments directly to staff. Staff has received about 20 unique emails to that account. Complaints and comments about LimeBike have also reached the City via the Police Department, Councilmembers, accessBurlingame (the City’s civic app), and directly to staff. Staff has also been made aware of an ongoing active discussion about the LimeBike program, with both positive and negative perspectives, on NextDoor. As the Council is aware, staff can only respond to inquiries and comments on NextDoor when they are sent directly to the City or are in response to City-initiated postings. Complaints received tend to be primarily about: bikes parked on private property (5); bikes blocking pedestrian access or parked irresponsibly (19); bicycle helmet safety concerns (3); bikes seem scattered and abandoned/prefer docking stations/don’t support program (14); and love and support the program (11). LimeBike noted that in April most of the complaints they received were by in-app reporting versus by phone or email. This suggests that the complaints are mostly about the user experience (like a broken bicycle) rather than residential complaints. LimeBike Tracking Summary Month Manual Rides Electric Rides Total Rides Unique Riders Complaints to LimeBike Comments to City Outreach January 2,208 0 2,208 1,142 77 6 Bike launch event 1/16/18 February 3,434 2,236 5,670 2,556 130 29 (includes 9 support comments) Multiple events at BHS; meeting with Parks & Rec Commission March 2,001 2,076 4,077 1,847 56 10 (includes 2 support comments) LimeBike joined Chamber of Commerce April 1,646 2,427 4,073 1,948 44 6 Complaints mostly in- app reporting vs. phone/email Staff is tracking how other cities are managing their bike sharing programs and found that they are struggling with similar challenges—specifically, parking issues and helmet safety. Cities seem to agree that dockless bike sharing programs are evolving, and city participation will drive improvements and refinements to the programs. The City’s pilot with LimeBike is set to end on June 19, 2018, six months after the start day. Through the pilot’s duration, the bike sharing industry has evolved significantly in the Bay Area. LimeBike Update May 7, 2018 4 LimeBike is expanding rapidly in the region with San Mateo, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and several East Bay and South Bay cities adopting bike sharing programs with LimeBike. Millbrae, Foster City, San Carlos, and Hillsborough are communicating with LimeBike as well. Other bike sharing companies are growing or leaving the area: San Mateo is ending its contract with Social Bikes; Uber bought Jump Bikes, an electric bike sharing company; Spin Bikes left South San Francisco; and Ford GoBikes, San Francisco’s bike sharing program, is expanding to electric bikes. In addition, LimeBike, Spin, and Bird have introduced electric scooters in San Francisco that San Francisco City staff are trying to manage. South San Francisco and Alameda adopted LimeBike pilot programs prior to Burlingame. South San Francisco’s six-month pilot recently ended, and the City decided to extend it to a full year to collect more data and prepare a bike sharing policy. The City of Alameda’s six-month pilot also ended, and they are proposing to continue with LimeBike until this fall, when they will release a request for proposals (RFP) for a single bike share company to serve their city. Alameda conducted a community survey at the end of their pilot to capture the public’s opinion and help refine the RFP’s program requirements. Staff recommends that the City Council consider extending the agreement with LimeBike another six months in order to: collect more data; implement bike sharing during the warm months and for a full year; continue to learn from other local cities’ experiences; and see how bicycle sharing programs further evolve in the region. Staff also recommends that the City conduct a public opinion survey similar to Alameda’s prior to the end of the pilot. Staff will then report back to Council with the survey and tracking results and recommendations for how to proceed with the City’s bike sharing program. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact. Exhibit:  Presentation 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 10c MEETING DATE: December 3, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: December 3, 2018 From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222 Subject: Acceptance of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2018 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year 2017-18. BACKGROUND Following the close of each fiscal year, the City’s external auditors conduct an audit of the City’s financial records and assist in the compilation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). The paramount objective of general purpose external financial reporting is accountability. The goal of a financial statement audit is to provide users with a reasonable assurance from an independent source that the information presented in the statements is reliable. The audit for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018 was just recently completed. DISCUSSION The 2017-18 fiscal year audit is the third annual audit performed by Maze & Associates as the City’s external auditors. The firm conducts their audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. The standards require that the auditors plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. On a sample basis, they examine evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall basic financial statement presentation. The auditor’s unmodified (“clean”) opinion is presented as the first item in the financial section of the CAFR (page 1). In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, the auditors also issue a report of recommendations to City management identifying any areas for improvement in the City’s internal control over financial reporting. The City’s Audit Committee, currently comprised of Vice Mayor Donna Colson and Councilmember Ricardo Ortiz, recently met with staff and the auditors to discuss the audit reports, results, and recommendations. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2017-18 December 3, 2018 2 The City participates in the CAFR award program administered by the Governmental Finance Officers Association (GFOA), and has been successful in obtaining the award each fiscal year beginning in 1989-90. Staff intends to submit the City’s FY 2017-18 CAFR to the GFOA program and is confident that the report will again merit the GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. The FY 2017-18 CAFR is posted to the City’s web site (Finance Department web page) at 2017-18 CAFR. Management’s Discussion and Analysis Governmental Accounting Standards require a Management’s Discussion and Analysis (referred to as MD&A) to be included with the audited financial statements, with the intent of giving readers an objective and easily readable analysis of the City’s financial performance for the year. The MD&A includes a discussion of the basic financial statements, some condensed financial information, an analysis of the City’s financial position, and results of operations on both a City- wide and Fund basis. The Management’s Discussion and Analysis begins on page 5 of the CAFR. As noted in the document, the financial standing of the City remains relatively strong. The City’s total revenues increased $2.9 million over the prior year, and total expenses increased nearly $7.1 million – nearly $5.0 million in governmental activities (8.7 percent) and $2.1 million in the City’s business-type activities (7.6 percent). The business-type activities consist of self-supporting functions (largely comprised of the City’s Water and Wastewater utilities operations). The government-wide financial statements, which provide a broad overview of the City’s finances, indicate that the City’s net position increased $30.8 million (15.4 percent) during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018: $20.1 million due to governmental activities, and $10.7 million due to business-type activities. Governmental revenues were up only slightly, as a $4.2 million increase in general revenues was largely offset by a $4.0 million decrease in program revenues. Although most other departmental charges for services remained strong, the additional $5 million in public benefit charges that were reported in the prior fiscal year, largely related to two large development projects, did not reoccur. GASB standards that relate to the recording and reporting of other post-employment benefits (OPEB) liabilities were newly implemented in the 2017-18 fiscal year CAFR. Similar to the reporting of pension liabilities, the actuarially accrued liabilities of the City’s retiree healthcare benefits are now reported on the face of the financial statements (as opposed to being disclosed in the Notes to the Financial Statements). As a result, governmental net position (reported in the government- wide financial statements) was reduced by $15.6 million; the reduction for business-type activities was approximately $3.9 million. Note that all governmental agencies that conform to governmental accounting standards were impacted by this change, which reflects only a change in accounting principle, not an actual change in financial condition. As the net pension liability diminishes, the unrestricted portion of the City’s net position will improve. General Fund Status General Fund highlights for the 2017-18 fiscal year are summarized in the MD&A. A separate disclosure, the Budgetary Comparison Schedule for the General Fund, is included in the CAFR (page 118) after Required Supplementary Information. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2017-18 December 3, 2018 3 The General Fund experienced a surplus for the year, as revenues of the fund exceeded expenditures and net transfers by nearly $3.1 million. The largest positive revenue budget variance was reported for Sales and Use Taxes, which totaled over $12.8 million – a positive variance of $615,000. Much of the variance was the result of the first quarter of Measure I receipts of $474,000. Measure I was effective April 1, 2018, but these revenues were not actually distributed to the City until after the fiscal year end, and were not included in the 2017-18 adjusted budget. Irrespective of the Measure I receipts, sales tax revenues reflect a 2.1% growth in taxable sales transactions when compared to the prior fiscal year. Property tax revenues ($20.3 million) were up nearly $1.4 million, a 7.4 percent increase over the prior year, reflecting strong property values. The City’s highest General Fund revenue source – Transient Occupancy (Hotel) Tax – at $27.9 million, was over $1.5 million (6.4 percent) higher than in the previous fiscal year. Other than Measure I revenues, most of these increases were anticipated at mid-year and were reflected in the adjusted budget for the year. In all, actual General Fund revenues came in approximately 1.8 percent higher than the adjusted budget. Budgetary savings (positive expenditure variances) within the General Fund were experienced in all departments, resulting in expenditures of nearly $2.6 million (roughly 4.6 percent) less than budgeted for the fiscal year. Of this amount, slightly over $1.0 million was from salaries and wages (5.6 percent), indicating an average vacancy rate. (The budget is established assuming full staffing throughout the year.) The area with the highest percentage of budgetary savings was Public Works, where a higher than usual level of staff turnover in the Streets Maintenance crew yielded some salary savings. More importantly, resources were shifted to allow for proper training of the new crew members, diluting the focus on street and sidewalk maintenance, ditch cleaning, and other regular upkeep activities. In addition, $243,000 was added to the Street and Storm Drain Division budget at mid-year for enhanced maintenance in the Broadway Avenue area; competitive bidding allowed these improvements to be made for much less. Budgetary savings were also higher in General Government functions, where staff vacancies played a role as well. Since local government expenditure budgets (appropriations) serve as the legal level of budgetary control, some level of savings will be realized in any fiscal year. In addition, budgets are developed based on year-round occupancy of all authorized staff positions. In periods of high turnover or other reasons for an increased level of staff vacancies, higher budgetary savings may be experienced. Storm Drain Fund Status Although the Storm Drainage Fund was established in fiscal year 2009-10 to account for the storm drainage fees collected as a result of an assessment approved by the voters, it was not shown as a major governmental fund in the CAFR until fiscal year 2014-15. Fee revenues to the fund (over $2.9 million) in fiscal year 2017-18 reflected an increase of nearly 5.9 percent over the prior year. The increase was due largely to a mid-year adjustment to correct the prior year’s omission of certain school district properties from the assessment roll. Transfers of $2.1 million for debt service on previously issued bonds resulted in a fund balance of $4.2 million. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2017-18 December 3, 2018 4 Proprietary Funds Proprietary Funds are used to account for activities that are fueled by charges for the services provided by each fund. Enterprise Funds account for external activities (largely utilities), while Internal Service Funds (ISFs) account for internal (interdepartmental) activities. The W ater and Sewer Funds account for the City’s main enterprise activities. Charts depicting the historical financial performance of these two funds are included in the MD&A. The funds are self - supporting: the sale of water and provision of wastewater services to customers generates the revenue needed to support the operations and capital needs of these utilities. Both utilities experienced an increase in net position in fiscal year 2017-18: a $2.7 million increase for the Water Fund, and $3.6 million for the Sewer Fund. However, these increases largely represented growth in each fund’s net investment in capital assets. The Water Fund unrestricted net position decreased $1.1 million (13.2 percent); the Sewer Fund unrestricted net position decreased $0.9 million (10.7 percent). The Solid Waste Management Fund and Landfill Fund are both fueled by a surcharge on garbage rates. The Solid Waste Fund accounts for City costs of street cleaning, the household hazardous waste program, steam-cleaning of City receptacles and other related activities, and provides a rate stabilization reserve for rate payers. As that rate stabilization reserve has been drawn on in the past two fiscal years, solid waste rate increases are proposed and would be effective in calendar year 2019. The Landfill Fund accounts for post closure maintenance and monitoring of the City’s old landfill site. The City reports its obligation to ensure that the City’s landfill site is properly maintained going forward as a post-closure liability, which results in a deficit position for the fund. However, the landfill surcharge should serve not only to maintain the site, but also to reduce the unfunded portion of the post-closure liability in future years. Other enterprise funds consist of the Parking Fund and the Building Fund. The Parking Fund’s net position increased nearly $1.5 million, appropriate for funding future improvements and replacements in the City’s parking infrastructure. The Building Fund experienced over $2.8 million in increased net position, as revenues from permit and plan check activities were $326,000 higher (nearly 8 percent) than the prior year. The City’s six Internal Service Funds (ISFs) are utilized to report activities that provide insurance, facilities, vehicles and equipment, and information technology services to support the City’s various programs and functions. The combined net positions reported in all of the ISFs increased in fiscal year 2017-18 due largely to the stable claims development, particularly within the City’s general liability program. The City’s OPEB (Other Post-Employment Benefits) Fund was created in fiscal year 2013-14 to account for funding of the external trust account established to meet the City’s retiree medical obligations. Surcharges on departmental payrolls provide revenue to the OPEB ISF; retiree medical premiums and monthly contributions to the trust account comprise the fund’s expenditures. The City forwards any remaining departmental charges to the trust fund, where higher interest earnings are obtained than can be achieved in the City’s investment portfolio. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2017-18 December 3, 2018 5 The City strives to maintain an appropriate level of reserves in these funds to protect against unusual losses beyond normal experience. Charges to the departments are calibrated so as to cover the costs of each activity, though demands of these funds have varied considerably in recent fiscal years. As of June 30, 2018, nearly all of the ISFs maintain positive balances, although the Facilities Services Fund retained a deficit ($1.2 million). Internal (departmental) charges for services should require only small adjustments in future years. Other Funds The MD&A discusses changes in the City’s Capital Projects Fund and Debt Service Fund, which are considered major funds for financial statement purposes. Capital project expenditures totaled over $10.1 million, with streets capital improvements leading the list with $3.9 million in expenditures. The City spent $1.9 million on the Carolan Avenue Complete Street Improvements project alone. $1.9 million was spent on various facilities capital improvements, including $631,000 on the Police Station HVAC System. Parks projects ($1.8 million in spending) included $680,000 in Murray Field Renovations and $292,000 for Paloma Park Renovation expenditures during the fiscal year. Spending for Storm Drain Capital improvement Projects totaled $2.5 million. Governmental debt activities for the year were limited to debt service payments on the City’s outstanding debt, which included $5.2 million in principal payments and $2.4 million in interest and administrative costs. This amount is approximately $1.1 million less than in the prior fiscal year due to two lease loan agreements in fiscal year 2016-17. As noted in the document’s Letter of Transmittal, the City’s AA+ general obligation credit rating was last re-affirmed by Standard & Poor’s Global Ratings (S&P) in June 2016. It should also be noted that S&P increased the rating on the City’s Pension Obligation Bonds to AA+ from AA- in February of this year. The City also has eight non-major governmental funds, all of which are considered Special Revenue Funds. (Special revenue funds are used to account for the proceeds of governmental revenues that are restricted or committed for purposes other than debt service or capital projects.) Details of these funds are reported in the Combining Financial Statements beginning on page 124 of the CAFR. The City’s largest special revenue fund is the Development Fees Fund, which got a boost in fiscal year 2016-17 with revenues of over $5.0 million. The fund remained relatively stable in fiscal year 2017-18. Non-major special revenue funds also include the Gas Tax and Measure A Funds. Transactions in these funds consist largely of transfers to the Capital Projects Fund for street and transportation projects. These funds retain a minimal fund balance as the revenues are put to work annually on related projects. The impact of the 2017-18 fiscal year results for the City’s General Fund on the current year budget continues to be analyzed in conjunction with a monthly budget-to-actual review. A review of all of the City’s funds, an update on the status of major projects and priorities, and an update of economic conditions will be presented to the Council with the mid-year report and budget adjustments in March. At that time, the long-term financial forecast will also be revised. FISCAL IMPACT Acceptance of the City’s CAFR has no direct impact on City resources. However, obtaining an unqualified opinion from the auditor is an important independent verification and validation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2017-18 December 3, 2018 6 City’s financial management practices and a prerequisite to receiving the GFOA award. An award- winning CAFR contributes to the City’s excellent bond rating. Exhibit: • City of Burlingame Fiscal Year 2017-18 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report City of Burlingame, California 2017-18 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report June 30, 2018 City of Burlingame, California  _____________________________________________________________  COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL  FINANCIAL REPORT  For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018  Prepared by  City of Burlingame Finance Department  CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  Comprehensive Annual Financial Report June 30, 2018   COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT  JUNE 30, 2018    TABLE OF CONTENTS     Page  INTRODUCTORY SECTION  Finance Director’s Letter of Transmittal ............................................................................................   i  Certificate of Achievement – Government Finance Officers Association ..........................................   vii  Elected and Appointed Officials .........................................................................................................   viii  City of Burlingame Organizational Chart............................................................................................   ix  City of Organization by Critical Service Area …………………………………………………………………………………   x  City of Burlingame Finance Department Organization Chart ............................................................   xi  Organizational Compass ....................................................................................................................   xii  FINANCIAL SECTION  Independent Auditor’s Report ..................................................................................................................   1  Management’s Discussion and Analysis ...................................................................................................   5  Basic Financial Statements:  Government‐Wide Financial Statements:  Statement of Net Position ...........................................................................................................   27  Statement of Activities ................................................................................................................   28  Fund Financial Statements:  Balance Sheet – Governmental Funds ........................................................................................   32  Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet     to the Statement of Net Position ..............................................................................................   33  Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes     in Fund Balances – Governmental Funds ..................................................................................   34  Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes     in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities.................................   35  Statement of Net Position – Proprietary Funds  .........................................................................   38  Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in     Fund Net Position – Proprietary Funds .....................................................................................  40  Statement of Cash Flows – Proprietary Funds ............................................................................   42  Statement of Net Position – Fiduciary Funds ..............................................................................   44  Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (The Notes to the Basic Financial Statements     are an integral part of the basic financial statements) ...........................................................................   45  Required Supplementary Information:  Cost‐Sharing Multiple‐Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plan     Schedule of the City’s Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability .........................................   110  Cost‐Sharing Multiple‐Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plan Schedule of Contributions .............   111     FINANCIAL SECTION (continued)  Required Supplementary Information (Continued):  Agent Multiple Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plan Schedule of     Changes in the Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios .................................................................   112  Agent Multiple Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plan Schedule of Contributions .........................   113  Schedule of Changes in the Net OPEB Liability and Related Ratios  ...........................................   114  Modified Approach for the City’s Infrastructure .........................................................................   116   Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget and Actual –    General Fund .............................................................................................................................   120  Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget and Actual –     Storm Drainage Special Revenue Fund ......................................................................................  121  Combining Financial Statements and Supplemental Information:  Combining Balance Sheet – Nonmajor Governmental Funds .....................................................   126  Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes     in Fund Balances – Nonmajor Governmental Funds .................................................................   128  Combining Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund    Balances – Budget and Actual – Nonmajor Governmental Funds .............................................   130  Combining Statement of Net Position – Internal Service Funds .................................................   136  Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes     in Net Position – Internal Service Funds ....................................................................................   137  Combining Statement of Cash Flows – Internal Service Funds ...................................................   138  Combining Statements of Changes in Assets and Liabilities – All Agency Funds ........................   140    STATISTICAL SECTION  Net Position by Component ........................................................................................................   148  Change in Net Position ................................................................................................................   150  Fund Balance of Governmental Funds ........................................................................................   153  Changes in Fund Balance of Governmental Funds ......................................................................   154  Assessed Values of Taxable Property ..........................................................................................   156  Net Taxable Assessed Value History ............................................................................................   158  Property Tax Rates – Direct and Overlapping Governments ......................................................   159  Top Ten Property Taxpayers ........................................................................................................   160  Property Tax Levies and Collections ............................................................................................   161  Governmental Activities Tax Revenues by Source ......................................................................   162  Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type ............................................................................................   163  Ratios of General Bonded Debt Outstanding ..............................................................................   164  Computation of Direct and Overlapping Debt ............................................................................   165  Legal Debt Margin Information ...................................................................................................   166  Pledged Revenue Coverage .........................................................................................................   167     STATISTICAL SECTION, Continued                                                                                                                   Page  Demographic and Economic Statistics ........................................................................................  168  Principal Employers .....................................................................................................................   169  Full‐Time Equivalent City Government Employees by Function .................................................   170  Operating Indicators by Function ................................................................................................   172  Capital Asset Statistics by Function .............................................................................................   174  Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting      and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements         Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards ................................................   175    Comprehensive Annual Financial Report June 30, 2018 INTRODUCTORY SECTION  Comprehensive Annual Financial Report June 30, 2018 November 9, 2018  To the Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, and residents of Burlingame:  I am pleased to submit the City of Burlingame’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the  fiscal year ended June 30, 2018.  This financial report contains a complete set of audited financial  statements  prepared  in  accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting  Principles  (GAAP)  as  promulgated by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).  Responsibility for the accuracy of the data, and the completeness and fairness of the presentation,  including all disclosures, rests with the City, and in particular, the Finance Department.  Information  contained in this report is based upon a comprehensive framework of internal controls that has been  established for this purpose.  The objective of internal controls is to provide reasonable, rather than  absolute, assurance that the CAFR information is accurate in all material aspects.  The Management’s  Discussion and Analysis section of the financial report provides information on the City’s financial position  and should be read in conjunction with the financial statements.  As required by GAAP, the financial statements present the government and its component units that are  considered to be fiscally interdependent.  For financial reporting purposes, the City’s basic financial  statements  include  all  funds,  boards,  commissions,  and  authorities  that  are  controlled  by  or  are  dependent upon the Burlingame City Council.  The California Government Code requires an annual audit of the basic financial statements of the City.  The accounting firm Maze & Associates performed the audit for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018.  The  independent auditor’s report on the general purpose financial statements is included in the financial  section of this report and states that the City’s basic financial statements present fairly, in all material  respects, the financial position of the City as of June 30, 2018, and the results of its operations and the  cash flows of its proprietary fund types for the year then ended, in conformity with generally accepted  accounting principles.  For the year ended June 30, 2018, single audits were not required in accordance  with the provisions of the Single Audit Act, as threshold expenditure requirements from federal funding  were not reached during the fiscal year.  This transmittal letter is intended to provide an introductory profile of the City of Burlingame, its economy,  and other information useful in assessing its overall financial condition.  The transmittal letter is designed  to complement the Management’s Discussion & Analysis (MD&A), and should be read in conjunction with  it.  The MD&A, which can be found immediately following the independent auditor’s report in the financial  statement of the CAFR, provides a more comprehensive look at the City’s financial results.  i   Government Profile    The City of Burlingame is a California general law City incorporated in 1908 that operates under the  Council‐Manager form of government.  A five‐member City Council is elected at large to four‐year terms  and serves as the board of directors.  The City Council selects a Mayor and Vice Mayor from its members  annually.  A City Manager is appointed by the City Council and serves as the chief executive officer.  The  City Manager is responsible for all municipal functions.  A City Attorney is appointed by the City Council  to serve as chief legal advisor for the governing body and the administration.  The City’s municipal services  include: police and fire protection; public works; community development; parks and recreation; library  services; water, sewer, parking, solid waste, and storm drainage.  General government activities include  finance, human resources, legal services, and city administration.  The City employs approximately 212  full‐time employees.  An executive team helps the City Manager lead the City organization.  It includes  eight department directors, the City Attorney, and the City Clerk.    The Burlingame City limits contain approximately six square miles.  The City is located in San Mateo  County, on the western shore of the San Francisco Bay approximately 10 miles south of San Francisco.   According to the State Department of Finance, the population for the City of Burlingame is 30,294.  The  population has remained fairly level, increasing by 2.9% over the past five years.    Budget Process    The City adopts an annual budget for all funds.  Major funds include the General, Capital Projects, Debt  Service, Water, Sewer, Parking, Waste Management, Landfill, and Building Funds.  Budgets are prepared  on the same basis of accounting as the associated financial statements.    The City’s formal budget is employed as a management control device during the year, and it is adopted  annually  for  all  City  funds,  except  for  the  fiduciary  funds  and  certain  special  revenue  funds  where  appropriate. Consistent with most governmental entities, the City’s budget is based on a modified accrual  basis of accounting under which revenues are recognized in the period they become available and  measurable, and expenditures are recognized in the period the related liability is incurred.     The City budget includes information regarding estimated costs (or outlays) and revenue (or cash inflows)  for identified programs, projects, and levels of service to meet  the  needs  of  the  City.  All  annual  appropriations lapse at the end of the fiscal year except in the Capital Projects Fund, because capital  improvement projects typically span more than one fiscal year.  Appropriations for capital projects lapse  when projects are completed, placed into service, accounted for as capital assets, or abandoned at the  discretion of the City and/or City Council.    Budget amendments that increase a fund’s appropriations require majority approval by the City Council.  Certain  budgetary  re‐allocations  within  departments  require  approval  by  the  Finance  Director  and  department heads.  Budget amendments between departments are approved by the Finance Director and  City Manager.  A mid‐year budget status report and a long‐term financial forecast for the next five years  are  presented  to  the  City  Council  as  part  of  an  ongoing  assessment  and  evaluation  of  budgetary  performance, with special attention to the General Fund and certain other major funds.     The City Council encourages all Burlingame residents and business community members to participate in  the development of the City budget.  The Council holds three public meetings to provide guidance on the  ii budget:  a goal‐setting session in January, and budget study sessions in March and May.  The City Council  solicits input at each of the meetings.  Community members may also submit their ideas directly to the  City Council and/or City staff.   Under these policy directives and guidance, departments prepare their budget requests in support of their  programs for submission in early April.  Expenditure assumptions are based on known factors such as  collective bargaining agreements, current pay and benefit policies, consumer price indices, and other  information available from expert third‐parties or governing authorities.  The Finance Department reviews budget requests for technical compliance to City budget instructions.   The Proposed Budget is prepared and delivered to the City Council in May.  The City Council reviews the  Proposed Budget before the final budget is formally adopted in June at a public hearing, which gives  residents an additional opportunity to comment on the spending plan.  Assessment of Economic Condition  As with most cities along the San Francisco peninsula, the City has fully recovered from the 2008‐2010  recession, as evidenced by rebounds in the City’s largest revenue sources.  The City’s top three revenue  streams  (from  transient  occupancy tax, property tax, and sales taxes)  have  long  surpassed  pre‐ recessionary amounts, and now constitute over 85% of the City’s General Fund revenues.  Key indicators  of the City’s economic health are job growth, real estate values, and retail activity.  Employment  The San Francisco Bay Area continued to lead the state in job expansion; the unemployment rate remains  one of the lowest in the State of California, based upon recent Employment Development Department  (EDD)  data.    The  unemployment  rate in San Mateo County held steady  at  2.3%  in  August  2018.  Comparatively, the State of California’s unemployment rate stood at 4.3%.  At these healthy rates, which  effectively reflect full employment, the pace of job growth has leveled off significantly.  The region’s labor  market is showing signs of saturation after years of strong growth in professional, technological, and  business service employment.  Average salaries are well above the California average and are expected to  remain so in the near future.  Real Estate & Property Taxes  Property  taxes,  which  are  based  on  assessed  value,  are  one  of  the  City’s  largest  revenue  sources,  accounting for 28.3% of the City’s General Fund revenue.  Fiscal year 2017‐18 property tax receipts were  $20.3 million, up approximately 7.4% from the prior year.  According to data obtained from the San Mateo County Assessor, the City has 8,700 parcels with a net  total assessed value of nearly $10.4 billion—an increase of $647.0 million, or 6.66%, since last year.  Residential assessed values grew by 5.7%, while commercial assessed values grew by 11.5%.   The median price of homes sold in Burlingame during the month of August 2018 was $2.2 million, which  is an 11% decrease compared to the same time last year.  However, only 16 homes were sold.  County‐ wide, over 600 homes were sold, with a median value of $1.5 million, a 9.1% year‐over‐year increase in  sales price since August 2017.  Although home prices are starting to level off in the area, the housing  iii supply shortage is a primary driver of high housing costs.  Combined with the increase in real income, it is  increasingly apparent that lower‐income residents are getting priced out of the county.    Sales and Use Taxes    Burlingame is a highly desirable residential community and upscale commercial location with attractive  shopping districts. Burlingame borders the Town of Hillsborough, an affluent community that is 100%  residential.    Therefore,  in  many  cases,  Burlingame  businesses  have the opportunity to serve the  commercial needs of Hillsborough residents, and benefit from the additional disposable income from  neighboring communities.  Numerous national retailers are located in the Burlingame Avenue Business  District, making the area competitive with regional shopping malls.  In addition, the City is known for its  upscale restaurants and businesses that attract patrons from throughout the entire San Francisco Bay  Area.  The City owns and manages most of the parking spaces located within the shopping districts and  works with local merchants to maximize the shopping experience.      Sales and use taxes accounted for 17.9% of General Fund revenue in fiscal year 2017‐18.  Sales and use  tax revenues were $12.8 million, which is approximately 6% more than the prior year’s receipts of $12.1  million.  Part of the increase ($474,000) was attributable to the first quarter of Measure I revenues.    Measure I, which was approved by the voters in November 2017, enacted an additional ¼ cent transaction  to help fund street and sidewalk maintenance, enhance neighborhood police patrols and programs, and  support the cost of maintaining recreation programs and facilities.  The tax was effective April 1, 2018.   Without the inclusion of these new revenues, sales tax receipts increased 2.1%., only slightly higher than  was budgeted for the year.  The top 25 sales tax producers in Burlingame account for approximately 51.3%  of total sales tax revenue, and include several auto dealers, hotels, and retail stores.  Transactions in the  City’s Auto and Transportation sector continued to level off, though the slow‐down in demand has been  experienced nation‐wide. It is interesting to note that the City’s share of the countywide use tax pool  increased over 3.2% compared to the same 4 quarters in 2017.  The County distributes these taxes, which  do not involve a California “point of sale”, to each jurisdiction in the county on a pro rata share of taxable  sales.  While these receipts represent only about 18% of the total sales tax revenues (and are categorized  by major industry group along with point‐of‐sale receipts), the increase reflects a continued acceleration  of online shopping for merchandise shipped from out of state.    Tourism and Business Travel    Burlingame’s 12 major hotels provide convenient overnight accommodations for business travelers and  tourists using San Francisco International Airport (SFO), with a  total  of  approximately  3,707  rooms  available for rental.  Hotel occupancy rates are indicative of continued improvement in the economy.  As  the City’s largest revenue source, transient occupancy tax revenues account for nearly 39% of all General  Fund revenues, and grew by $1.7 million (6.4%) compared to the prior year.  Combined occupancy rates  increased from 84% in the prior fiscal year to over 87% in the year ended June 30, 2018.  Average room  rates within the city increased approximately 6.3%, thanks to the success of many Bay Area sports teams  and increased tourism. As reported by the San Francisco Airport, total domestic and international airport  passengers increased by 1.4% in calendar year 2017.    Financial Information    Accounting System, Budgetary Control & Fund Accounting: All governmental and fiduciary fund types  use the modified accrual basis of accounting.  Revenues are recorded when measurable and available,  iv rather than when received, and expenses are recorded when the liability is incurred, rather than when  paid.  Conversely, the accrual basis of accounting is used for proprietary funds.  All governmental fund  types are accounted for on a spending (or funds flow) measurement focus.  Only current assets and  current liabilities are generally included on the governmental fund balance sheets.   Internal Controls:  City management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal  controls to ensure that City assets are protected from loss, theft, or misuse and to assure that adequate  accounting data is compiled to allow for the preparation of financial statements that conform to generally  accepted accounting principles.  Internal controls are designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute  assurance that these objectives are met.  The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that the cost  of a control should not exceed the benefits to be derived, and that cost‐benefit analysis requires prudent  estimates and judgments by management.  The Finance Department establishes internal accounting controls to provide management reasonable  assurance regarding  the  safeguarding of assets and the reliability of financial records for preparing  financial statements and maintaining asset accountability.  The City’s finance staff and the independent  auditor consider the internal controls over financial reporting in planning and performing the annual  audit.  The independent auditors test the City’s internal controls and make inquiries into the staff’s  knowledge of fraud or the occurrence of fraud.    Cash Management:  The City pools cash from all operating sources to manage cash flow and invest idle  funds.  The Finance Director serves as the City’s Treasurer and, utilizing the services of a third‐party asset  management advisor, oversees the investment of funds in accordance with the City Council adopted  Investment Policy and Government Code Sections 53601 and 56535.  The Finance Director submits a  quarterly investment report to the Council.  The Council also reviews and approves the City’s Investment  Policy early in each fiscal year.  Risk  Management:    The  City  is  a  member  of  the  Pooled  Liability  Assurance  Network  Joint  Powers  Authority (PLAN JPA), a joint powers insurance authority that consists of 28 member cities in the San  Francisco Bay Area.  The PLAN JPA was established to provide liability insurance, claims, risk management,  and legal defense services to participating members.  The program provides the City with liability coverage  up to a maximum of $10 million, with the City maintaining a self‐insured retention of $250,000. The City  also maintains workers’ compensation coverage to a maximum of $5 million, with a self‐insured retention  of $500,000 per claim.  The City maintains reserves for all claims below its self‐insured retention in  separate Internal Service Funds, and charges the costs of the program to operating departments. An  actuarial study of the current obligations for the General Liability and Workers’ Compensation Funds was  completed in September 2018, and the related accruals for current and expected claims have been  included in the year‐end results for these funds.  The City has implemented and is in compliance with  Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 10, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Risk  Financing and Related Insurance Issues.   Debt Administration:  The City has an AA+ underlying general obligation credit rating, an AA+ rating for  its water and wastewater debt, and an A+ rating for the storm drain debt as issued by Standard & Poor’s  Rating Service. The AA+ general obligation credit rating was re‐affirmed in June 2016.  In fiscal year 2017‐ 18, the City had eleven outstanding bonds or loans, including a taxable bond issue for pension obligations,  two  loans  from  the  State  of  California  Water  Resources  Control Board  for  improvements  to  the  Burlingame Wastewater Treatment Plant, and a storm drain revenue bond issued under the Internal  Revenue Service’s Build  America Bond program.  The City annually evaluates each outstanding debt  v obligation that is subject to arbitrage rebate requirements and determined that there was no arbitrage  rebate liability as of June 30, 2018.  As of June 30, 2018, the City’s general obligation debt limit was $388 million, which represents 3.75% of  total assessed valuation based on assessments at 100% of full market value, in accordance with California  Government Code Section 43605.  With only the 2006 Pension Obligation Bonds ($9.0 million outstanding)  considered to be general obligation debt, the City’s legal debt margin was $379 million.  Additional information pertaining to the City’s outstanding long‐term debt can be found under Long‐Term  Debt (Note 6) in the Notes to the Basic Financial Statements and in the Statistical Section under Legal Debt  Margin information.  Certificate of Achievement  The Government  Finance  Officers  Association  of  the  United  States  and  Canada  (GFOA)  awarded  a  Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City for its comprehensive annual  financial report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017.  The City has received the award for 16 consecutive  years.  To receive the award, a government must publish a readable and well organized annual financial  report.    The  report  must  satisfy  both  generally  accepted  accounting  principles  and  applicable  legal  requirements.  The certificate is valid for one year.  Staff believes that the City’s current comprehensive  annual financial report continues to meet the Certificate of Achievement Program’s requirements.  Acknowledgments  The preparation of this report on a timely basis could not be accomplished without the dedicated service  of the entire staff of the Finance Department.  Each member of the department has our sincere  appreciation for the contributions made in furthering the fiscal year‐end audit, and for their continuing  efforts to improve the quality of this report.  The audit firm of Maze and Associates has also been very  helpful in meeting the City’s audit report requirements and financial reporting.   The City Council’s continued support in fiscal matters, especially in the maintenance of a long‐term,  sustainable financial vision, is essential and sincerely appreciated.  The financial health of the City is a  direct result of their vigilant fiduciary stewardship.  Respectfully submitted,  Lisa K. Goldman Carol Augustine   City Manager Finance Director & Treasurer vi Government Finance Officers Association Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financi al Reporting Presented to City of Burlingame California For its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fis cal Year Ended June 30, 2017 Executive Director/CEO vii   CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS  FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018      CITY COUNCIL  Michael Brownrigg, Mayor………………………………………………….November 2022  Donna Colson, Vice Mayor ……………….………….….…………..…….November 2019  Emily Beach ……………..……..………….……….…………………………....November 2019  Ricardo Ortiz.…….………………………….….……….…………..…………..November 2022  Ann Keighran ……………………..………….……….……….…..…………….November 2022    CITY MANAGER  Lisa K. Goldman    DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS  Community Development…………….…………..……........…….….…..Kevin Gardiner  Finance Director and Treasurer…………..………….……………..……Carol Augustine  Central County Fire (JPA) Chief…………………..………….……………John Kammeyer  Human Resources……………………………...……………..…….…..……..Sonya Morrison  Library………………………………….….………………….……….…..………Bradley McCulley  Parks and Recreation……………….………………..……….…………Margaret Glomstad  Police ……..………………………………..….….….…….……….……..…………..Eric Wollman  Public Works……………….………………..…………….……….……..…….…..Syed Murtuza    CITY CLERK  Meaghan Hassel‐Shearer    CITY ATTORNEY  Kathleen Kane    viii CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA ORGANIZATIONAL CHART ix   CITY OF BURLINGAME | FISCAL YEAR 2017-18 General Government     City Attorney  In‐house counsel, risk management, and  code enforcement    City Clerk  Elections, City records, public noticing, and  maintenance of municipal code    City Manager  Supervision of departments and  implementation of City policy and strategy    Finance   Revenue management, disbursements, Public Safety Police Community patrol, 911 communications and dispatch, crime prevention, special weapons and tactics (SWAT), K-9 Program, traffic safety, parking enforcement, and community outreach Central County Fire Department (JPA) Fire suppression and prevention, emergency medical services, and disaster preparedness for the City of Burlingame and the Town of Hillsborough; provision of service to the City of Millbrae via contract Public Works Engineering Administration of capital improvement program including major and minor repair and replacement of city infrastructure Water & Sewer Delivery of potable water, treatment and discharge of sanitary flows in accordance with environmental, health and safety guidelines Streets & Storm Drainage Street sweeping, transportation and regional shuttles, streetlights, and stormwater management and compliance Leisure and Neighborhood Services Library City literacy advocacy, circulation of written and digital media, special programs, and community education for citizens, children, and teens Parks Operation and maintenance of urban forest, landscaping, City parks, and infrastructure Recreation Recreational, educational and after-school programs for pre-school children, youth, and seniors General Government City Attorney In-house counsel, risk management, and code enforcement City Clerk Elections, City records, public noticing, and maintenance of municipal code City Manager Supervision of departments, implementation of City policy and strategy, management of City communications and sustainability programs Finance Revenue management, disbursements, budget and forecasting, payroll, financial reporting, treasury, purchasing, information technology, telecom and utility billing, business licenses, cashiering and front-desk customer service, and solid waste Human Resources Salary and benefits administration, employment, health and safety, employee training and wellness, and collective bargaining Community Development Building Plan checking, inspection, complaint response, development review and consultation, and building research and development Planning Public outreach, Climate Action Plan, land use, economic development, plan checks, and code and zoning enforcement   x CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA FINANCE DEPARTMENT ORGANIZATION CHART FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017‐18    Carol Augustine Finance Director Treasurer Renee Halcon Office Assistant II Finance/City Clerk Support Ed Gigliotti Interdepartmental Mail Agenda Delivery IT Services Provided through contract with Redwood City Karen Huang Deputy Finance Director Amy Bernardo Senior Accountant Sabrina Lee Accountant Geeta Nair‐Parsons Accounting Technician Payroll Margaret Ono Accounting Technician Revenues and A/R Lisa Rancatore Accounting Technician Disbursements and A/P Andrea Torres Accounting Technician Utility Billing, Business License and Customer Service Claudia Michaels Accounting Assistant I Utility Billing, Business License and Customer Service Elaine Wong Accounting Assistant I Utility Billing, Business License and Customer Service Jasmin Sutter Office Assistant I Customer Service xi xii FINANCIAL SECTION  Comprehensive Annual Financial Report June 30, 2018 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT  (Auditor Opinion) To the Honorable Members of the City Council  City of Burlingame, California  Report on the Financial Statements  We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business‐ type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Burlingame  as of and for the year ended June 30, 2018, and the related notes to the financial statements, which  collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements as listed in the Table of Contents.  Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements  Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in  accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes  the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair  presentation of the financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud  or error.  Auditor’s Responsibility  Our  responsibility  is  to  express  opinions  on  these  financial  statements based on our audit.  We  conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of  America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards,  issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.  Those standards require that we plan and  perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from  material misstatement.  An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in  the financial statements.  The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including the  assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or  error.  In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the City’s  preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that  are  appropriate  in  the  circumstances,  but  not  for  the  purpose  of  expressing  an  opinion  on  the  effectiveness of the City’s internal control.  Accordingly, we express no such opinion.  An audit also  includes  evaluating  the  appropriateness  of  accounting  policies used  and  the  reasonableness  of  significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of  the financial statements.    We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for  our audit opinions.  1 Opinions  In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the  respective  financial  position  of  the  governmental  activities,  the  business‐type  activities,  each  major  fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Burlingame as of June 30, 2018, and  the respective changes in financial position and, where applicable, cash flows thereof for the year then  ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.  Change in Accounting Principles  Management adopted the provisions of Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 75,  Accounting and Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions, which became  effective during the year ended June 30, 2018 and required a prior period adjustment to the financial  statements as discussed in Note 11G.  The emphasis of this matter does not constitute modifications to our opinion.  Other Matters  Required Supplementary Information  Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that Management’s  Discussion and Analysis and other required supplementary information as listed in the Table of Contents  be presented to supplement the basic financial statements.  Such information, although not a part of the  basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, who considers  it  to  be  an  essential  part  of  financial  reporting  for  placing  the  basic  financial  statements  in  an  appropriate operational, economic or historical context.  We have applied certain limited procedures to  the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in  the  United  States  of  America,  which  consisted  of  inquiries  of  management  about  the  methods  of  preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses  to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of  the basic financial statements.  We do not express an opinion or  provide  any  assurance  on  the  information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an  opinion or provide any assurance.  Other Information  Our  audit  was  conducted  for  the  purpose  of  forming  opinions  on the  financial  statements  that  collectively  comprise  the  City’s  basic  financial  statements.    The  Introductory  Section,  Supplemental  Information  and  Statistical  Section  listed  in  the  Table  of  Contents are presented for purposes of  additional analysis and are not required parts of the basic financial statements.  2 The Supplemental Information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates  directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements.  Such  information  has  been  subjected  to  the  auditing  procedures applied  in  the  audit  of  the  basic  financial  statements  and  certain  additional  procedures,  including  comparing  and  reconciling  such  information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial  statements  or  to  the  basic  financial  statements  themselves,  and  other  additional  procedures  in  accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America.  In our opinion,  the Supplemental Information is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial  statements as a whole.    The Introductory and Statistical Sections have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in  the audit of the basic financial statements and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any  assurance on them.  Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards  In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated October 26,  2018 on our consideration of the City’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its  compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other  matters.  The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over  financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on  internal control over financial reporting or on compliance.  That report is an integral part of an audit  performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal control  over financial reporting and compliance.  Pleasant Hill, California  October 26, 2018  3 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report June 30, 2018 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018    This is Management’s Discussion and Analysis of financial activities for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018.  This information should be read together with the transmittal letter, financial statements, and notes to the  basic financial statements to better understand the City of Burlingame’s (the City) financial position.    The  City  has  prepared  its  annual  financial  report  in  accordance  with  accounting  principles  generally  accepted in the United States of America (GAAP) and all Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB)  pronouncements that affect the City.    Financial Highlights for Fiscal Year 2017‐18 (ending June 30)    Key financial highlights for the year are as follows:     In total, City assets and deferred outflows of resources exceed liabilities and deferred inflows of  resources  by  $231  million,  which  is  a  $11.4  million  increase  compared  to  the  beginning  net  position.     Enterprise Fund net position increased by $6.8 million to nearly $110 million.  Of this amount, $31.8  million was unrestricted net position and available for use at the City’s discretion.     Governmental  fund  balances  increased  $10.2  million,  to  $111.5  million.      Of  this  amount,  approximately $12.0 million, or 10.8%, was unassigned fund balance and available for spending at  the City’s discretion.     General Fund revenues increased by $3.7 million in fiscal year 2017‐18, an increase of 5.4% over  the prior year’s total of $68.0 million. The increase in revenue was driven by a $1.6 million increase  in transient occupancy (hotel) tax, $1.4 million in property tax, and a $0.7 million increase in sales  tax.  These increases were partially offset by a $0.5 million reduction in charges for services.     Amendments to various revenue sources in the General Fund budget in the amount of $1.5 million  were authorized by the City Council at mid‐year, as the improved revenues became evident early  in the fiscal year.     The General Fund ending fund balance increased from $33.3 million to $36.4 million. Of this  amount, over $19.9 million has been assigned – intended to be used for specific purposes.    Overview of the Financial Statements    This section introduces the reader to the City’s three basic financial statements: 1) government‐wide  financial statements; 2) fund financial statements; and 3) notes to the basic financial statements. The  report also contains supplemental information to help the reader develop a full understanding of the City’s  financial activities.    Government‐Wide Statements  The government‐wide financial statements include the Statement of Net Position and the Statement of  Activities. These statements provide a broad overview of the City’s finances. They are presented in a  manner that is similar to private‐sector business.    5 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018  The Statement of Net Position presents complete information on the City’s assets and deferred outflows  of resources, as well as liabilities and deferred inflows of resources, with the difference reported as net  position. Changes in net position that occur over time may serve as an indicator of the City’s financial  position.    The Statement of Activities presents information showing how the City’s net position changed during the  most recent fiscal year. All changes in net position are reported using the “accrual basis of accounting.”  Changes are reported when the underlying event causing the changes occurs, regardless of the timing of  the related cash flows. Therefore, revenue and expenses are reported in this statement for some items  that will result in cash flows in future years, such as revenues related to uncollected taxes, or earned but  unused employee leave.    Both government‐wide financial statements distinguish between governmental activities, such as City  functions that are supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenue, and other activities that are self‐ supporting. The self‐supporting functions are called “business‐type activities” or enterprise funds. They are  intended to recover all or a significant portion of their costs through user fees and charges for services.    Governmental activities include general government administration, public safety (such as police, fire and  911‐dispatch),  public  works,  community  development,  parks,  recreation  and  library,  shuttle  bus  operations, and financing and other activities.  The self‐supporting, business‐type activities include water,  sewer service, parking, waste management, landfill and building inspection.    Fund Financial Statements    A fund is a grouping of related accounts that are used to maintain control over resources that have been  segregated for specific activities or objectives. The City uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate  compliance with finance‐related legal and accounting requirements. The City’s funds can be divided into  three categories: governmental, proprietary and fiduciary.    Governmental Funds    Governmental  funds  account  for  tax  supported  functions  reported  as  governmental  activities  in  the  governmental‐wide  financial  statements.  Governmental  funds  use the  “current  financial  resources”  measurement focus, with an emphasis on having sufficient resources to meet expenditures in the short‐ term – a 12 month fiscal year. These statements focus on how ca sh and other financial assets can be readily  converted to available resources for spending on City services. They also show fund balances that are left  at the end of the fiscal year and distinguish between amounts that are restricted versus funds that are  available for spending.    Because  the  focus  of  governmental  funds  is  narrower  than  that  of  the  government‐wide  financial  statements,  it  is  useful  to  compare  the  information  presented  for  governmental  funds  with  similar  information presented for governmental activities in the government‐wide financial statements. By doing  so, readers may better understand the long‐term impact of the City’s near‐term financing decisions. Both  the  Governmental  Funds  Balance  Sheet  and  the  Governmental  Funds  Statement  of  Revenues,  Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate this comparison between  governmental activities and governmental funds.     6 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018  The City has four major governmental fund types: General, Capital Projects, Storm Drainage and Debt  Service.  Information  is  presented  separately  in  the  Governmental  Funds  Balance  Sheet  and  in  the  Governmental Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances for these funds.  Financial  information  for  the  remaining  governmental  funds  is  combined  into  a  single,  aggregated  presentation called Non‐Major Governmental Funds. Individual fund data for each of these non‐major  governmental funds is provided in the form of combining statements located elsewhere in the report.    Proprietary Funds    Proprietary funds are used to account for services and activities for which a fee is charged to customers in  exchange  for  City  provided  goods  or  services.  Proprietary  funds  use  the  “economic  resources”  measurement focus, which concentrates on how transactions and events have affected the fund’s total  economic resources.  The City maintains two different types of proprietary funds.    Business‐Type Activities or Enterprise Funds: These are funds that are used to report business‐type activities  in the governmental‐wide financial statements. The City has six enterprise funds: Water, Sewer, Parking,  Waste Management, Landfill and the Building Fund.    Internal Service Funds: These funds are used to allocate costs internally among the City’s functions. The  City uses internal service funds to account for the maintenance and replacement of its fleet and rolling  stock;  maintenance  of  City  buildings  and  facilities;  general  liability;  workers’  compensation;  and  information  technology  and  administrative  support.  These  funds are  included  in  the  governmental  activities of the government‐wide financial statements because their activities support governmental  programs.  The internal service funds are then combined into a single, aggregated presentation in the  proprietary fund financial statements.  Individual data for the internal services funds is provided in the  form of combining statements.    Fiduciary Funds    Fiduciary funds are used to account for financial resources held for the benefit of parties outside the City  government. The City holds these funds in a custodial capacity or as an agent for individuals, private  organizations, or other governmental units such as the State of California or the United States.  Fiduciary  funds are not reflected in the government‐wide financial statements because the resources of these funds  are not available to support the City’s governmental activities.     7 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018  Government‐Wide Financial Analysis    All  financial  statements  are  presented  in  conformance  with  GASB Statement No. 34, Basic  Financial  Statements and Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) – for State and Local Governments. Prior  year information is made available for a comparative analysis of government‐wide data.    Analysis of Net Position    The City had a total net position of $231.0 million as of June 30, 2018.  Net position increased by 15.4%  from the beginning total net position of $200.2 million.  Assets and deferred outflows of resources as of  the end of June 30, 2018 were $454.2 million, reflecting a 8.3% positive change from the prior year due to  a $27.5 million increase in current assets and deferred outflows of resources as well as a $7.2 million  increase in capital assets.  Liabilities and deferred inflows of resources increased by 11.6% ($23.3 million).   Despite an $8.5 million decrease in long‐term debt, increases in the City’s net OPEB liability and net pension  liability ($23.0 million and $8.2 million, respectively) were responsible for the large increase in city‐wide  liabilities.    The largest portion (approximately two‐thirds) of the City’s net position is its net investment in capital  assets totaling $153.8 million. Capital assets are the aggregate value of land, buildings, and improvements  that are used to provide services.  Their value is reported net of related debt because the funds to repay  the debt come from other sources ‐ the capital assets themselves cannot be used to liquidate these  liabilities.  The City uses these capital assets to provide services to citizens; consequently, these assets are  not available for future spending.  An additional portion of the City’s net position, $39.1 million (16.9%)  represents resources that are subject to restrictions that may only be used for debt service, to construct  specified capital projects or within the confines of special revenue programs.      Unrestricted net position can be used to finance day‐to‐day operations without constraints established by  debt covenants or other legal requirements or restrictions.  The City’s unrestricted net position on June 30,  2018 was approximately $38.2 million, or 16.5% of total net position.    8 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018      2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 Assets: Current and other assets $137.04 $125.04 $66.76 $59.82 $203.80 $184.86 Capital assets 118.13 112.91 108.49 106.49 226.62 219.40 Total assets:255.17 237.95 175.25 166.31 430.42 404.26 Deferred Outflows:18.90 11.61 4.90 3.63 23.80 15.24 Liabilities: Current liabilities 7.00 9.34 5.60 5.11 12.60 14.45 Other liabilities 2.22 1.62 1.36 1.09 3.58 2.71 Long term liabilities 141.42 118.82 62.89 59.93 204.31 178.75 Total liabilities:150.64 129.78 69.85 66.13 220.49 195.91 Deferred Inflows:2.42 3.36 0.31 0.65 2.73 4.01 Net Position: Net investment in capital assets 87.69 82.63 66.08 61.07 153.77 143.70 Restricted 26.90 43.38 12.15 11.96 39.05 55.34 Unrestricted 6.41 (9.58) 31.76 30.13 38.17 20.55 Total net position:$121.01 $116.42 $109.99 $103.16 $231.00 $219.58 Activities Activities Totals City of Burlingame Comparative Statement of Net Position June 30, 2018 and 2017 (Amounts In Millions) Governmental Business‐Type 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018       2018   2017 2018   2017 2018   2017 Revenues: Program revenues:   Charges for services $10.36 $15.27 $42.86 $40.26 $53.22 $55.53   Operating grants and contributions 0.83 0.98 ‐                     ‐                     0.83 0.98   Capital grants and contributions 1.22 0.15 ‐                     ‐                     1.22 0.15 General revenues:   Property taxes 20.33 18.93 ‐                     ‐                     20.33 18.93   Sales taxes 12.82 12.09 ‐                     ‐                     12.82 12.09   Transient occupancy taxes 27.94 26.26 ‐                     ‐                     27.94 26.26   Other taxes 4.87 4.41 ‐                     ‐                     4.87 4.41   Other general revenue 0.38                      0.43 0.18                   0.14                   0.56                     0.57 Total revenues:78.75 78.52 43.04 40.40 121.79 118.92 Expenses: Governmental Activities   General government 5.78 4.76 ‐                     ‐                     5.78 4.76   Public safety 27.13 25.71 ‐                     ‐                     27.13 25.71   Public works 7.93 7.35 ‐                     ‐                     7.93 7.35   Community development 1.82 1.39 ‐                     ‐                     1.82 1.39   Parks, recreation and library 16.92 14.58 ‐                     ‐                     16.92 14.58   Shuttle operations 0.19 0.15 ‐                     ‐                     0.19 0.15   Financing and other activities 2.21 3.08 ‐                     ‐                     2.21 3.08 Business‐Type Activities   Water ‐                        ‐                      14.67 13.81 14.67 13.81   Sewer service ‐                        ‐                      11.21 10.35 11.21 10.35   Waste management ‐                        ‐                      0.79 0.68 0.79 0.68   Landfill ‐                        ‐                      0.40 0.08 0.40 0.08   Parking ‐                        ‐                      1.05 0.63 1.05 0.63   Building inspection ‐                        ‐                      1.58                   2.05                   1.58 2.05 Total expenses:61.98 57.02 29.70 27.60 91.68 84.62   Increase/(decrease) in net position     before transfers 16.77 21.50 13.34 12.80 30.11 34.30   Loss on disposal of capital assets (0.12)(0.12)0.00   Investment income (expenses)0.62 0.27 0.23 0.13 0.85 0.40   Transfers 2.86 2.73 (2.86)(2.73)‐                       ‐                    Change in net position:20.13 24.50 10.71 10.20 30.84 34.70 Net position ‐ beginning, as restated *100.87 91.92 99.28 92.96 200.15 184.88 Net position ‐ ending $121.00 $116.42 $109.99 $103.16 $230.99 $219.58 * Note that net position was restated as of June 30, 2017 for the implementation of GASB Statement No. 75.  Activities  Activities Total City of Burlingame Statement of Activities  For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2018 and 2017 (Amounts in millions) Governmental Businesss‐Type  10 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018  Governmental Activities    Governmental activities increased the City’s net position by $20.1 million, with a total net position of  $121.0 million at the end of the fiscal year.  The increase was attributable to total governmental revenues  that exceeded total expenses by $16.8 million, prior to net transfers in of nearly $2.9 million.  Program  revenues decreased nearly $4.0 million (25%), largely the result of specific, non‐recurring community  development fees that were received in the prior fiscal year.        General revenues rose by $4.2 million (6.8%).  The increase was the result of transient occupancy tax  receipts, which increased $1.7 million (6.4%) over the prior year, and property tax revenues which were  $1.4 million higher than in the prior year.  Local taxable sales activity remained strong, and the addition of  the first quarter of Measure I (effective April 1, 2018) revenues added $474,000 in the category of sales  taxes for the fiscal year.      Expenses from governmental activities increased nearly $5.0 million, for a total of $62.0 million for the  fiscal year.  Expenses in all functional areas were higher than incurred in the prior fiscal year. Spending in  the category of parks, recreation, and library increased by over $2.3 million.  Although an increase in  operational needs ($340,000) for the Parks Division was recognized in the non‐personnel costs of the  operating budget, largely to fund additional tree pruning and removal services, much of the increased  spending ($1.8 million) is reflected in capital improvements in the City’s parks and field facilities.      The majority of these governmental activities are financed from City taxes.  However, the $10.4 million  collected in charges for services (reported as program revenues) for these various activities served to offset  the  departmental  spending  associated  with  some  services.    Overall,  program  revenues  covered  approximately 20.0% of governmental expenses over the fiscal year.      0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0   General Government   Public Safety   Public Works   Community Development   Parks, Recreation, and Library   Shuttle Operations Governmental Activities Two‐Year Comparative  Program Revenues Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018 (Amounts in millions) 2017 2018 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018  Governmental Activities (Continued)        The above charts of expenses and net cost of the City’s various governmental activities have been derived  from the Statement of Activities.  The first pie chart reflects  expenses incurred in each area as a percentage  of the total expense of governmental activities ($62 million in fiscal year 2017‐18).  This compares with the  relative net cost after applying program revenues derived from each area’s activity shown in the second  chart.  The total net cost of governmental activities ($49.6 million in fiscal year 2017‐18) must be funded  out of the City’s general revenues – primarily taxes and investment earnings.  Areas with the highest  program revenues (i.e. Parks, Recreation and Library) are able to offset relatively more costs than activities  that have fewer opportunities to derive program revenues (such as Public Safety).    Business‐Type Activities    The net position for business‐type activities increased by $10.7 million, or 10.8%, from a beginning net  position of $99.3 million. The increase is largely a result of an increase in revenues needed to fuel future  utility infrastructure and improvements.  In fiscal year 2017‐18, enterprise operations produced total  operating revenue (consisting largely of revenues from charges for services) of $43.0 million, an increase  of $2.6 million, or a 6.6% increase from fiscal year 2016‐17 operating revenues.      Business‐type expenses totaled $29.7 million.  Operating expenses for these activities increased by $2.1  million or 7.7% from prior year expenses of $27.6 million. This increase was largely attributable to expenses  of the Water and Sewer activities.  The cost of supplies and contractual obligations of these relatively large  operations increased with demand for these utilities in both the residential and commercial sectors.      Capital investments in water and sewer infrastructure will also increase depreciation charges to these  activities going forward.    The  changes  in  net  position  reflected  a  healthy  increase  for  these  enterprise  activities.    Unlike  the  governmental activities, program revenues cover total expenses in the business‐type activities, with no  contribution from City taxes.  The City is able to adjust water, sewer, solid waste, parking rates, and building  permit fees to cover expenditures and future liabilities.      9.3% 43.8% 12.8%2.9% 27.3% 0.3%3.6% Governmental Expenses ‐ by Program Fiscal Year 2017‐18   General Government   Public Safety   Public Works   Community Development   Parks, Recreation, and Library   Shuttle Operations Financing and other activities 11.4% 51.9% 4.8%2.2% 25.0% 0.2%4.5%  General Government   Public Safety   Public Works   Community Development   Parks, Recreation, and Library   Shuttle Operations Financing and other activities Governmental Activities ‐ Net Expense  by Program  Fiscal Year 2017‐18 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018      Financial Analysis of City Funds    Governmental Funds    The Governmental Funds financial statements provide information on the short‐term inflows, outflows,  and balances of resources that are available for spending over the 12‐month fiscal period. The goals of the  funds are to have sufficient resources available to finance City services within each fiscal year. In particular,  the unassigned fund balance may serve as a measure of City funds that are available for spending in the  short‐term. The General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, and the Debt Service Funds, or collectively, the ‘major  funds’ are reported separately in the basic Financial Statements. A separate accounting of the City’s ten  non‐major  governmental  funds  can  be  found  in  the  Combining  Statements  located  in  the  Other  Supplementary Information section of the CAFR.          The General Fund is the City’s main operating fund. Revenues and expenditures are monitored year‐round  to  maintain  a  balanced  budget.  General  Fund  revenues  totaled  $71.2  million  in  fiscal  year  2017‐18,  reflecting a $3.7 million (5.4%) increase from the prior year’s performance of $68.0 million.  Expenditures  totaled  $53.6  million,  which  is  $3.9  million  more  than  in  the  prior  year.  Revenues  less  operating  expenditures before transfers were $18.1 million.  The General Fund transferred $5.6 million out to the  Debt Service Fund to pay for governmental debt, and $12.4 million to the Capital Projects Fund.  The large  contribution for capital spending was approved to pay for project‐related expenditures ($7.1 million), and  to bolster the Capital Investment Reserve ($5.3 million) established in past fiscal years in recognition of the  City’s large backlog of facility needs.  Detailed notes on the transfers can be found in the Interfund Transfer  section (Note 4) in the Notes to the Basic Financial Statements.    The General Fund balance as of June 30, 2018, was $36.4 million, representing an increase of $3.1 million  from the prior year fund balance of nearly $33.3 million.  The City Council assigned $19.4 million as reserves  for specific purposes as described in Note 12 of the Notes to the  Basic  Financial  Statements,  and  approximately $0.5 million represents contractual obligations (encumbrances) and reappropriations of  specific program funding which will carry forward to the next f iscal year.  $4.4 million of the ending General  Fund balance reflects the amount of cash and investments restricted as to use for specific purposes – this  is the amount held in the City’s § 115 Trust for Fund to pay required future pension contributions.  The  remaining $12.0 million represents unassigned amounts.        Fund Description 6/30/2018 Net Position/Fund  Balance 6/30/2018  Nonspendable 7/1/2017 Net Position/Fund  Balance  7/1/2017  Nonspendable Change ‐ Net  Position/Fund  Balance  General Fund $36.37 $0.06 $33.27 $0.21 $3.10 Capital Projects 52.80                  ‐                         42.86                  ‐                         9.94                 Storm Drainage 4.20                    ‐                         3.21                   ‐                         0.99                 Debt Service Fund 9.19                    ‐                         11.43                 ‐                         (2.23)                Non‐Major Funds 8.94                    ‐                         10.55                 ‐                         (1.61)                Total $111.50 $0.06 $101.31 $0.21 $10.19 Total Governmental Funds (Amounts In Millions) 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018    Governmental Funds (Continued)    Capital Projects Fund    The Capital Projects Fund accounts for the resources used to acquire, develop, and construct capital  improvements or to purchase major capital equipment for governmental activities.  The City capitalizes  equipment with a cost basis of at least $5,000 and has an estimated useful life in excess of one year.  Structures, improvements, and infrastructure with a value of at least $250,000 are also capitalized. All  capital  assets  are  valued  at  historical  cost.  Major  outlays  for capital assets and improvements are  capitalized as projects are constructed. For more information on capital assets, please refer to the Notes  to the Basic Financial Statements under Capital Assets (Note 5).    The Capital Projects Fund had revenues of nearly $1.5million, which is $1.4 million higher than the prior  year.  The higher amount was largely due to the receipt of two grant reimbursements:  $938,000 in federal  fund monies was received via a One Bay Area Grant, to fund bicycle and pedestrian improvements  associated with the Carolan Avenue Complete Street Improvement project; and $280,000 was funded  through a California Department of Conservation’s Sustainable Community  Planning  Grant, providing  funding and support for the City of Burlingame’s General Plan Update.  In fiscal year 2017‐18 projects were  financed mainly by $18.6 million in transfers from other funds to support ongoing construction costs and  to support previously appropriated projects.  In addition to the General Fund contribution of $12.4 million,  $2.5 million of Storm Drain bond proceeds, and $3.6 million from the Measure A and Gas Tax special  revenue funds were transferred into the Capital Projects Fund.    Capital  project  expenditures  totaled  over  $10.1  million,  an  increase  of  $3.2  million  from  prior  year  expenditures.  The Capital Projects fund balance at the end of the fiscal year was $52.8 million, an increase  of $9.9 million from the prior year ending balance.  Other than the $25.8 million reserve for Capital  Investment, which was increased by $5.3 million during the fiscal year, the entire fund balance is assigned  for the construction of specific capital projects.    During fiscal year 2017‐18, major governmental capital project expenses, exceeding $1 million included:     Carolan Avenue Complete Street Improvements ‐ $1.9 million   This project modified Carolan Avenue (a busy corridor and partial residential street) between  Broadway and Oak Grove Avenue to provide dedicated bike lanes, bulb outs at the intersection  corners and improved crosswalks, with associated storm drainage facilities and landscaping.     Neighborhood Storm Drain Project #9 ‐ $1.0 million   This project upgraded 24 storm drain inlets, removed and replace 1,147 linear feet of curb and  gutter, lined 453 linear feet of cure‐in‐place pipe, and constructed 125 linear feet of additional  pipe.  This project is a continuation of the neighborhood storm drain improvements that focus on  areas of concern due to inadequate capacity or areas of ponding.      Of the $1.8 million spent on Parks & Recreation projects, $680,000 was expended on renovations at Murray  Field.  The $2.3 million project allowed the newly turfed field, which is frequently used by AYSO, club soccer  and club lacrosse teams, to reopen in September 2018.  $350,000 was spent to cover the City’s contractual  obligation in the resurfacing two Burlingame School District fields as well.  Paloma Park was completely  renovated at a cost of over $300,000.    14 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018  General Governmental projects, including facilities and technology projects and studies, accounted for an  additional $1.9 million in spending in the 2017‐18 fiscal year.  Of these projects, the Police Station HVAC  Improvements project ($710,000) was completed and accepted by the Council just prior to the fiscal year  end.     Debt Service Fund    The Debt Service Fund is used to account for resources used to repay general long‐term debt and to record  the payment of principal and interest as well as other expenditures related to debt administration.    Principal payments on outstanding debt reduced general government debt by over $5.2 million.  The  General Fund contributed nearly $5.6 million to the Debt Service Fund for governmental debt service  payments, and the Storm Drainage Fund contributed the $2.1 million required to meet obligations relating  to the Storm Drain Revenue Bonds.  A significant portion of the  2010 Storm Drain Bonds were taxable Build  America  Bonds;  the  Internal  Revenue  Service  provided  an  annual interest  subsidy  of  approximately  $156,000 for this issuance. Debt service expenditures represent principal payments, interest charges, and  administrative costs of debt such as fiscal agent fees on existing governmental debt.    A more detailed description of the City’s outstanding debt and the long‐term obligations associated with  each issue can be found in the Notes to the Basic Financial Statements under Long‐Term Debt (Note 6).    Storm Drainage Fund    The Storm Drainage Fund was added as a special revenue fund in fiscal year 2009‐10 to fund needed  improvements to the City’s infrastructure and to pay debt service on certain revenue bonds issued to fund  storm  drain  capital  projects.  The  voter‐approved  initiative  requires  that  the  funds  be  accounted  for  separately, given their intended purpose. The voters approved the new fee in May 2009, and revenues are  collected through an assessment on property tax bills. The storm drain fee will sunset after 30 years.      Neighborhood storm drainage improvements continued in fiscal year 2017‐18. As in the prior year, the  storm drain fee generated about $2.8 million in revenue. The funds are dedicated to debt service on the  use of storm drain revenue bonds and to fund improvements on a pay‐as‐you‐go basis. Revenue bonds  issued with a pledge of storm drain fee revenues are used as a funding source for these projects in the  Capital Projects Fund.    The fund balance increased by nearly $1.0 million during the fiscal year, as revenues from  storm drain fees  and interest earnings were adequate to fund the $2.1 million debt service expense for the fiscal year.      Non‐Major Governmental Funds     15 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018  In fiscal year 2016‐17, the Development Fees Special Revenue Fund became the largest of the City’s non‐ major governmental funds, with approximately $5 million in public benefit charges.  Prior to last year, the  Measure A and Gas Tax Funds together provided the majority of the City’s non‐major funds’ balance.  While  Measure A revenues increased a healthy 7.4%, providing $858,000 in funding for transportation‐related  programs, Gas Tax revenues increased nearly $211,000 (to $795,000) with the first inflows of the 2017  Road Repair and Accountability Act (SB1) allocations from the State.  The first full year of SB1 funding will  be in fiscal year 2018‐19.  Together, Measure A and Gas Tax Funds together served to fuel nearly $3.7  million of traffic and street improvements.  Non‐major governmental fund balances in total decreased $1.6  million, as these transfers to the Capital Projects Fund exceeded the year’s Measure A and Gas Tax  revenues.  Revenues in most other non‐major governmental funds exceeded the expenditures associated  with the legally specified purpose of each fund.     Proprietary Funds    The City’s proprietary fund statements provide the same type of information found in the government‐ wide financial statements. Proprietary funds consist of the City’s six enterprise funds (Water, Sewer, Waste  Management, Landfill, Parking, and the Building Enterprise funds) and six Internal Service Funds (General  Liability,  Workers’  Compensation,  Facilities  Services,  Equipment Services, OPEB and Information  Technology Services funds).  Operations of the City’s Enterprise funds are accounted for as business  activities.         Water Fund    The Water Fund continues to maintain a stable financial position despite considerable variability in water  consumption and wholesale costs over recent years.  As a result of the end of six consecutive years of  drought, water consumption increased somewhat, though certainly not to the level of pre‐drought years.   Revenues of the utility increased by over $2.2 million (13.7%), a result of this higher water consumption  combined with the rate increases put in place for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 calendar years.  Expenses of  the fund increased by $0.9 million, with $342,000 of the increase due to the cost of wholesale water.  The  City continues to invest in updates to the aging water system.  Total spending on capital projects ($3.1  million) included nearly $2.5 million on the South Rollins Road Neighborhood improvements project.  Note  that Water Fund revenues include monthly reimbursements from the City’s facilities for water.       Fund Description 6/30/2018 Net Position  6/30/2018  Net Investment  in Capital Assets  7/1/2017 Net Position  7/1/2017 Net Investment  in Capital Assets Yr‐over‐Yr  Change ‐ Net  Position Water $26.67 $14.66 $23.93 $12.42 $2.74 Sewer 59.07 44.26 55.42 41.35 3.64 Waste Management 3.86 ‐                    3.90 ‐                    (0.04)                Landfill (1.77)‐                    (1.84)‐                    0.06 Parking 14.86 7.16 13.38 7.30 1.48 Building 7.31 ‐                    4.48 ‐                    2.83 Total $109.99 $66.08 $99.29 $61.06 $10.70 Total Enterprise Funds (Amounts In Millions) 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018  The net position of the water enterprise fund increased by $2.7 million, to $26.7 million.  The largest  portion of net position ($14.7 million) relates to the net investment in capital assets, representing 55.0%  of the utility’s total net position.  Approximately 28.8% of the fund’s net annual revenue is irrevocably  pledged to the prompt payment of debt service relating to future payments of principal and interest on  revenue bonds previously issued.          Sewer Fund    The Sewer Fund continues to be financially stable as in the prior year. The fund’s overall net position  (including capital assets) increased from $55.4 million to slightly over $59 million due largely to operating  income.  A concerted effort to increase the fund’s net investment in capital assets through improvements  to the City’s waste water collection system and the treatment plant will advance the fund’s position further  in the near future.  Note that the largest portion of net position  ($44.3  million)  relates  to  this  net  investment in capital assets, representing 74.9% of the utility’s total net position.  Approximately 28.7% of  the fund’s net revenue is irrevocably pledged to the prompt payment of debt service relating to future  payments of principal and interest on revenue bonds previously issued.    As a large portion of sewer charges are based on water consumption, sewer service revenues increased  only slightly (<2%).  There has been no annual rate increase for sewer service imposed in calendar years  2012 through 2018.  Total expenses of the Sewer Fund, however, increased 9.6%; most of the increased  spending occurred in the operation and maintenance of the wastewater treatment plant.    As with the Water Fund, the Sewer Fund will also finance future capital improvements on a pay‐as‐you‐go  basis. The sewer rate structure includes an annual set‐aside of $4.7 million to pay for capital improvements  to the Burlingame Wastewater Treatment Plant and repair and maintenance of the sewer collection  system.  Total actual spending on capital projects ($4.1 million) included over $3.1 million on the Easton  Addition and Ray Park Neighborhood Sewer Improvements project.    $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 $16 $18 $20 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 Millions Water Fund Historical Financial Performance Last 5 Fiscal Years Total Revenue: Total Expenses: Net Position, excluding net investment in capital assets and capital projects: 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018      Parking Fund    The objectives of the Parking Fund are to cover the costs of operating and improving the City’s parking  districts  and  to  produce  sufficient  revenue  to  re‐invest  in  the capital assets of the Burlingame and  Broadway Avenue shopping districts, which are served by the City’s parking lots.  The fund’s overall ending  net position, including capital assets, increased nearly $1.5 million over the prior year ending net position  of $13.4 million.  Because much of the fund ($7.2 million) is invested in capital assets, the increase is  reported in unrestricted net position, and largely reflected in higher cash balances.     Revenue in the Parking Fund was fairly level with the prior year, increasing only $56,000 (2%).  This  stabilization reflects a familiarity with the change from regular coin meters to smart meters in the summer  of 2016, which served to increase parking activity in the prior fiscal year.  The slight increase is also  indicative of sustained economic growth in the City’s retail centers.  Operating expenses increased by 66%  (approximately $418,000) due to the equipment maintenance contract for an increased number of parking  meters, and an associated growth in credit card fees.      Waste Management and Landfill Funds    The City is a member of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA), a joint powers  authority that contracts with external vendors for solid waste collection and disposal as well as collection  of inert recyclable materials, yard waste and other organic materials. The Waste Management Fund  accounts for certain other services that are provided or paid for directly by the City.  The costs of these  services, which include the cleaning of sidewalks, parking lots and garbage cans/liners, hazardous waste  disposal and street sweeping, are built into garbage collection rates for both residential and commercial  customers.  Operating revenues of the Waste Management fund totaled $0.8 million.  This amount is only  slightly lower than that reported in the prior fiscal year, as the revenues that previously fueled the fund’s  rate stabilization reserve were needed to first pay the growing contractual services of collection, recycling  and  disposal.    The  fund’s  net  position  decreased  slightly,  reflecting  a  continued  draw  on  the  rate  stabilization reserve.  $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 $16 $18 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 Millions Sewer Fund Historical Financial Performance Last 5 Fiscal Years Total Revenue: Total Expenses: Net Position, excluding net investment in capital assets and capital projects: 18 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018  A  surcharge  on  garbage  collection  rates  funds  the  costs  associated  with  the  long‐term  monitoring  requirements of the former city landfill.  The surcharge yielded $465,000 in fiscal year 2017‐18.  The Landfill  Fund continues to report a deficit position of nearly $1.8 million due to the status of the City’s obligation  to mediate closure and post‐closure activities relating to the City’s old landfill.  On an annual basis, the City  reports to CalRecycle (Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery) the estimated costs of post‐ closure  and  corrective  action  as  adjusted  for  inflation  and  current  year  expenditures  pertaining  to  mediation.  The landfill closure and post closure liability increased ($0.3 million) during the fiscal year due  largely to the inflationary factors prescribed by CalRecycle, but the fund’s ending net position remained  level when compared to the prior year.    Internal Service Funds    The Internal Service Funds (ISFs) are allocated among the City’s various functions and are therefore  considered to account for governmental activities for financial statement purposes.  The internal service  funds as a whole experienced an increase in net position of over $1.6 million, but this amount reflects a  wide variation in the change of net position of the various funds.  The General Liability fund net position  increased $0.9 million, with only modest increases in liabilities when compared to the prior year, and no  large claims pay‐outs.  (Claims and litigation liabilities were adjusted based on an actuarial study completed  in September 2018).  The OPEB fund, which accounts for the cost of the City’s retiree medical program,  shows a balance of $425,000 due to amounts accrued for contribution to the OPEB trust fund, but not yet  paid out at the end of the fiscal year.  Although the Facilities Service and Equipment Services ISFs showed  very little change in net position from operations, the inclusion of net OPEB liabilities drove the beginning  (restated) net position of each of these internal service funds down an average of $615,000.    General Fund Budgetary Highlights    Detailed information on budget variances can be found in the General Fund Statement of Revenues,  Expenditure and Changes in Fund Balance, Budget and Actual. The adopted fiscal year 2017‐18 General  Fund budget assumed fairly robust gains in operating revenue, based on the economic recovery evidenced  in recent years.  Revenue growth of 4.7% was forecast over the revenues anticipated in the prior year’s  adopted budget.  Final collections totaled over $71.7 million, an increase of 5.4% over prior year actual  revenues.    Several key revenue budgets were adjusted upward at mid‐year to reflect improvements in General Fund  receipts.  Still, overall revenues exceeded the year’s adjusted budget by 1.8% (nearly $1.3 million).  The  positive variance is due in part to the inclusion of revenues ($474,000) from Measure I.  Measure I, a retail  transactions and use tax of ¼ percent, effectively increased the sales tax rate in Burlingame from 8.75  percent to 9 percent.  The tax was approved by voters in November 2017, and went into effect on April 1,  2018, but not included in the City’s adjusted revenue projections.  While accounted for separately, Measure  I activities are included in the General Fund for financial statement purposes.                  FY14           FY15           FY16           FY17           FY18 Total Revenue $55.63 $61.91 $66.16 $68.04 $71.72 Dollar Change 4.34 6.28 4.25 1.89 3.68 Percentage Change 8.46% 11.29% 6.86% 2.85% 5.40% City of Burlingame Historical General Fund Revenues (Amounts In Millions) 19 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018  The performance of the top three revenue sources compared to the adjusted budget is as follows:     Transient occupancy tax revenue for the year increased nearly 6.4% over prior year results, almost  2% higher than forecast at midyear.     Property tax revenues came in slightly over budget (< 1%), a 7.4% growth over prior year results.       Sales and use tax revenue ended the year at $12.8 million, $615,000 higher than forecast in the  adjusted budget, largely due to the first quarter of revenues from the new Measure I transaction  tax.  Receipts reflected a 2.1% growth in taxable sales transactions when compared to the prior  fiscal year.    These General Fund revenues are expected to remain relatively strong over the next fiscal year as the  economy continues to improve, albeit more modestly than in the past few years.  Burlingame’s fiscal health  relies largely on growth in the travel and tourism industry, and increased consumer confidence.          The fiscal year 2017‐18 adopted General Fund budget assumed operating expenditures of nearly $55.6  million, a growth of 6.2% from the prior year budget.  During the fiscal year, the City had few significant  budget adjustments; budgets were closely monitored City wide, as reflected in positive budget variances  in all functional areas.  Actual expenditures totaled $53.6 million; total budgetary (expenditure) savings for  the fund were nearly $2.6 million, or 4.6%.                  FY14           FY15           FY16           FY17           FY18 Total Operating Expenditures $40.14 $44.41 $47.46 $49.71 $53.64 Dollar Change 2.53 4.27 3.05 2.25 3.93 Percentage Change 6.72% 10.63% 6.88% 4.74% 7.91% (Amounts In Millions) City of Burlingame Historical General Fund Expenditures $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45 $50 $55 $60 $65 $70 $75 $80           FY14           FY15           FY16           FY17           FY18 General Fund Historical Revenues & Expenditures Last 5 Fiscal Years Total Revenue Total Operating ExpendituresMillions 20 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018  General Fund Reserve Policy     The chart below illustrates the amounts of General Fund balance assigned as various reserves for the past  five years.  In January 2015, the Council adopted a General Fund Reserve Policy which established reserve  levels based on an analysis of risks specific to the City, including vulnerability to extreme events and public  safety concerns, revenue source stability, expenditure volatility,  liquidity,  leverage,  and  adequacy  of  infrastructure funding.  The policy established targeted levels for an Economic Stability Reserve and a  Catastrophic Reserve (24% and 2%‐9% of budgeted revenues, respectively), as well as a Contingency  Reserve amount of $0.5 million.  Based on an updated risk analysis, the policy was revised in October 2015  to replace the initial range for the Catastrophic Reserve to a fixed $2 million.  The actual reserve levels are  adopted by resolution with each annual budget, but may be modified by resolution throughout the year  based on recommendations by the Finance Director as economic forecasts or other changes dictate.  Each  reserve is reported as an assignment of the City’s General Fund balance.        As a measure of the General Fund liquidity, it is useful to compare its unrestricted fund balance (including  commitments and assignments of fund balance) to annual operating expenditures.  As of June 30, 2018,  the unrestricted fund balance of $32.0 million ($36.4 million less non‐spendable and restricted fund  balance of $4.4 million) represents 67.8% of General Fund operating expenditures of $53.6 million.           FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 Economic Stability Reserve $6.00 $13.30 $15.70 $16.20 $16.91 Catastrophic Reserve 2.00 4.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 OPEB Reserve ‐                  ‐                 ‐                 ‐                 ‐                  General Plan Reserve 0.50 ‐                 ‐                 ‐                 ‐                  Contingency Reserve 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50                            Total Reserves  9.00 18.30 18.20 18.70 19.41 Encumbrances and Reappropriations 0.41 0.47 0.44 0.69 0.52 Total Assigned Fund Balance   $9.41 $18.77 $18.64 $19.39 $19.93 City of Burlingame City Council Assigned General Fund Reserves (Amounts In Millions)    FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 Expenditures:  $40.14 $44.41 $47.46 $49.71 $53.64 Fund Balance:  22.89                29.46                29.98                33.27                36.37                %  of Expenses:  57.0% 66.3% 63.2% 66.9% 67.8% City of Burlingame General Fund Balance as a Percentage of Operating Expenditures  (Amounts In Millions) 21 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018  Capital Assets and Debt Administration    Capital Assets    Improvements that lengthen an asset’s useful life are not capitalized unless the improvements increase its  service potential.  Furthermore, maintenance costs are expensed  in the period incurred. The City maintains  an inventory of roads and parking lots and performs periodic assessments to establish the condition levels.   The City uses the modified approach for roads and parking lots as alternative to depreciation. Additional  information can be found in the CAFR’s Required Supplementary Information, Note 4 ‐ Modified Approach  for the City’s Infrastructure.    As reported in the Statement of Net Position, capital assets for the governmental and business‐type  activities totaled $226.6 million on June 30, 2018, net of depreciation. Capital assets increased by 3.3%  from prior fiscal year.  The investments in capital assets include: land, construction in progress, buildings,  improvements, machinery and equipment, facilities, roads, streets, utilities infrastructure, and storm  drains.      All depreciable capital assets were depreciated from their acquisition date to the end of the current fiscal  year for the government‐wide financial statement presentation.  Governmental fund financial statements  record capital asset purchases as expenditures during the year. Ongoing projects are accounted for as  “construction in progress.” Additional information about Capital Assets can be found in the Notes to the  Basic Financial Statements under Note 5 – Capital Assets.    Long‐Term Obligations    For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018, the City implemented (GASB) Governmental Accounting Standards  Board's Statement No. 75 rules for postemployment benefits other than pensions (OPEB).  This standard  requires the reporting of OPEB liabilities, which for the City comprises retiree healthcare benefits, on the  face of the statement rather than in the footnotes.  Although the City utilizes a trust mechanism to  systematically  fund  these  liabilities,  this  presentation  significantly  decreases  the  City’s  net  position.   However, the implementation of this accounting standard does not reflect an actual change in financial  condition.  As of June 30, 2018, the net OPEB liability for the City was computed to be $38.9 million.     2018 2017 % Change 2018 2017 % Change 2018 2017 % Change Land and other assets     not being depreciated $43.99 $42.03 4.6% $10.80 $7.24 49.2% $54.78 $49.27 11.2% Facilities, infrastructure     and equipment $74.15 $70.88 4.6% $97.70 $99.25 ‐1.6% $171.84 $170.131.0% Total $118.12 $112.91 4.6% $108.49 $106.49 1.9% $226.63 $219.40 3.3% Capital Assets, Net of Accumulated Depreciation June 30, 2018 (Amounts In Millions) Governmental Activities Business‐Type Activities Total 22 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018  Due to the implementation of the GASB’s pension reporting rules encapsulated in GASB Statements and  68 and 71, effective June 30, 2014, the City’s Statement of Net Position also reflects unfunded pension  liabilities.  The GASB standards require the City to compute its unfunded liabilities by ascertaining “net  pension liability” or the difference between a plan's total pension liability and the assets available to pay  for such liability at a specific time.  As of June 30, 2018, the net pension liability for the City was computed  to be $65.9 million, an $8.2 million increase over the prior year.  The increase was proportionately the  same (14.2%) for both governmental and business‐type activities and was due largely to assumption  changes within the actuarial evaluations of the City’s pension plans.  A detailed explanation of the changes  in the pension liabilities associated with the City’s Safety and Miscellaneous Employee pension plans can  be found in the Notes to the Basic Financial Statements under Notes 9 and 10, respectively.    Concerned over growing pension liabilities and in response to the sharply increasing employer rates to  support the pensions provided by CalPERS (projected by the City’s actuary), the City implemented a plan,  beginning in 2017‐18, to annually set aside additional funding in a 115 trust, at a rate that would smooth  the projected increased employer contributions to CalPERS over the next 10‐15 years.  The balance in the  pension trust fund as of June 30, 2018 was slightly over $4.8 million.  Trust fund contributions are not  shown as expenditures, but are reflected in each operating fund as restricted cash and investments.    As of June 30, 2018, the City had total long‐term obligations of $210.1 million, an increase of $23.1 million  from the prior year. Bonded debt outstanding was reduced by nearly $8.5 million due largely to regular  debt service payments.  More than half ($48.6 million) of the City’s total long‐term outstanding debt relates  to storm drain revenue bond financing and other governmental activities; the remainder ($44.0 million) is  comprised of loans and revenue bonds previously issued to support various capital projects overseen by  the Water and Sewer enterprises.  Short of additional debt financings, bonded debt obligations will  decrease over time as principal amounts are paid off.    In addition, the City has several other long‐term obligations.  Landfill closure and post‐closure liabilities are  determined in order to capture the estimated cost of municipal solid waste landfill closure and post‐closure  care as required by federal and state regulations.  Funds are then set aside to ensure adequate funding for  the post‐closure costs of the former Burlingame landfill, including the annual costs of monitoring and  maintaining the former landfill, as the costs are incurred.  Funding for this liability is currently provided  through a portion of solid waste rates charged to City ratepayers.  Additional information about the City’s  long term obligations can be found in the Notes to the Basic Financial Statements under Note 6 – Long  Term Debt and Note 7 – Other Long‐Term Liabilities.   2018 2017 % Change 2018 2017 % Change 2018 2017 % Change Bonds Due in More than One Year $46.13 $48.86 ‐5.6% $41.50 $44.67 ‐7.1% $87.63 $93.53 ‐6.3% Bonds Due Within One Year 2.47 5.12 ‐51.7% 2.53 2.45 3.1% 5.00 7.57 ‐34.0% Claims and Litigation 6.67 6.54 2.0% ‐         ‐        0.0% 6.67 6.54 2.0% Landfill Closure ‐         ‐         0.0% 3.23 2.95 9.4% 3.23 2.95 9.4% Net OPEB Liability (1)31.46 12.98 142.3% 7.45 2.94 153.2% 38.90 15.94 144.1% Net Pension Liability 55.25 48.36 14.2% 10.66 9.33 14.3% 65.91 57.68 14.3% Compensated Absences 2.45 2.51 ‐2.6% 0.33 0.31 3.6% 2.76 2.83 ‐2.3% Total: $144.43 $124.37 16.1% $65.68 $62.66 4.8% $210.11 $187.03 12.3% Governmental Activities Business‐Type Activities Total (1) During fiscal year 2017‐18, the City implemented GASB Statement No. 75, which requires the recording of net OPEB liability and related deferred inflows  and outflows of resources on the financial statements. Outstanding Long‐Term Obligations June 30, 2018 (Amounts In Millions) 23 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018  Economic Factors and Next Year’s Budget and Rates  The following factors were taken into consideration in preparing the fiscal year 2018‐19 budget:  Revenue Projections: Each Year, City staff prepares a five‐year forecast of revenues and expenditures for  the General Fund early in the budget process.  The adopted budget for 2018‐19 assumed growth of  approximately $6 million, or 8.7% in total General Fund revenue before transfers compared to the prior  year adopted budget, largely due to positive changes in the economy evident in the 2017‐18 fiscal (prior)  year to date, as well as the addition of a full year of Measure I revenues ($1.8 million).    Expenditures: General Fund operating expenditures are expected to grow approximately 3.7%.  Fiscal year  2018‐19  departmental  budgets  of  $58.3  million  provide  for  increases  in  pension  costs,  health  care  premiums for active employees, and slight increases in capital outlay.  Overall appropriations including  transfers ($68.4 million) reflect a 3.8% increase from the 2017‐18 adopted budget.    The City Council approved a set aside of $3 million to fuel the City’s Capital Investment Reserve within the  Capital Projects Fund.  In addition, the amount of contributions to the § 115 Trust fund established to  smooth future pension rate increases from CalPERS was determined to be $3.4 million City wide for the  2018‐19 fiscal year.  The General Fund contribution to this additional funding is $2.8 million.  General Fund Capital Improvements: The City Council earmarked over $7.2 million in the 2018‐19 fiscal  year General Fund budget for capital improvements in the Five Year CIP Plan, including $2.8 million for  facilities improvement, and $3.1 million for parks projects.  Water and Sewer Rate Adjustments:  The most recent rate study for the water utility was completed in  the fall of 2016.  At that time, the drought that had begun in 2011 had worsened and state‐wide water  restrictions had reduced water consumption to record lows.  Based  on  the  increased  cost  of  water  purchased from the San Francisco Public Utility Commission (SFPUC), and to upgrade and maintain the  aging water system, the City approved water rates increases for each of the years beginning January 1,  2017, 2018 and 2019. The winter of 2016‐17 turned out to be the wettest on record in Northern California,  and consumption has trended upward since that time, easing the cost of wholesale water for both water  and sewer operations for the City.  Beyond the water utility rate increases approved in 2016, no further  rate adjustments are foreseen at this time.    Solid Waste Rate Adjustments:  The City provides solid waste services through a joint exercise of powers  agreement (JPA) and a franchise with a private contractor. Rates are adjusted each calendar year based on  updated costs of solid waste collection and material processing service, including landfill post‐closure costs,  street sweeping, recycling and other diversion programs.  Due to significant upheaval in global market  conditions for recyclables, changes in both commercial and residential waste streams, a scarcity of landfill  options, and increased diversion requirements and environmental regulation from the State, the cost of  solid waste services has risen in recent years.  Although a rate stabilization reserve within the City’s Solid  Waste Fund has allowed services to continue without a rate increase since 2012, incremental solid waste  rate adjustments will be proposed for calendar years 2019, 2010 and 2021.  24 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018  Requests for Information  The financial report is designed to provide our citizens, taxpayers, investors, and creditors with a general  overview of the City’s finances and to demonstrate the City’s accountability for the money it receives.  Individuals are encouraged to make inquiries or requests for additional financial information at:  Burlingame Department of Finance  City Hall  501 Primrose Road,  Burlingame, CA 94010  (650) 558‐7200 25 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report June 30, 2018 Governmental Business‐Type Activities Activities Total ASSETS Cash and investments   116,426,779$         59,442,210$       175,868,989$     Receivables (net of uncollectible amounts) Due from consumers 187,544 5,430,856 5,618,400 Due from other governments 2,740,353 547,247 3,287,600 Other receivables 3,859,888 374,641 4,234,529 Inventory 47,893 47,893 Prepaid items and deposits 6,041 6,041 Cash and investments, restricted 13,768,826 967,868 14,736,694 Internal balance 6,286 (6,286) Capital assets: Land and other assets not being depreciated 43,985,307 10,798,547 54,783,854 Facilities, infrastructure, and equipment, net of depreciation 74,146,675 97,695,652 171,842,327 Total assets 255,175,592 175,250,735 430,426,327 DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES Deferred amount of bond refunding 1,160,102 1,160,102 Deferred outflows related to OPEB 4,040,212 956,340 4,996,552 Deferred outflows related to pension 14,856,361 2,783,644 17,640,005 Total deferred outflows of resources 18,896,573 4,900,086 23,796,659 LIABILITIES Accounts payable 2,485,053 2,183,391 4,668,444 Retentions payable 127,450 55,942 183,392 Accrued payroll 695,443 695,443 Accrued interest 685,245 559,261 1,244,506 Deposits 2,061,944 1,317,915 3,379,859 Unearned revenue 154,770 41,398 196,168 Claims and litigation Due in one year 130,000 130,000 Due in more than one year 6,535,000 6,535,000 Compensated absences Due in one year 407,912 59,577 467,489 Due in more than one year 2,039,155 265,561 2,304,716 Landfill closure and post closure costs Due in one year 215,251 215,251 Due in more than one year 3,013,509 3,013,509 Long‐term debt Due in one year 2,472,529 2,525,020 4,997,549 Due in more than one year 46,133,157 41,500,142 87,633,299 Net OPEB liability, due in more than one year 31,464,635 7,447,849 38,912,484 Net pension liability, due in more than one year 55,249,198 10,663,140 65,912,338 Total liabilities 150,641,491 69,847,956 220,489,447 DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES Deferred inflows related to OPEB 167,019 39,535 206,554 Deferred inflows related to pension 2,258,285 270,814 2,529,099 Total deferred inflows of resources 2,425,304 310,349 2,735,653 NET POSITION Net investment in capital assets 87,689,174 66,077,123 153,766,297 Restricted for: Pension and employee benefit program 4,575,948 519,884 5,095,832 Debt service 9,187,451 9,187,451 Capital projects 4,195,033 11,635,081 15,830,114 Development fees 6,259,267 6,259,267 Burlingame Avenue Special Assessment District 405,117 405,117 Shuttle, Access TV and community programs 1,313,561 1,313,561 Street and sidewalk repair and maintenance 964,997 964,997 Total restricted net position 26,901,374 12,154,965 39,056,339 Unrestricted 6,414,822 31,760,428 38,175,250 Total net position 121,005,370$        109,992,516$    230,997,886$     CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA STATEMENT OF NET POSITION June 30, 2018 See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 27 Operating Capital Charges for Grants and Grants and Functions/Programs Expenses Services Contributions Contributions Total Governmental activities: General government 5,784,916$       119,436$           119,436$            Public safety 27,129,165 1,139,168 275,042$        1,414,210 Public works 7,928,544 4,186,489 139,033 1,218,493$              5,544,015 Community development 1,816,592 702,324 12,500 714,824 Parks, recreation, and library 16,924,681 4,209,063 307,271 4,516,334 Shuttle operations 191,468 95,750 95,750 Interest 2,209,949 Total governmental activities 61,985,315 10,356,480 829,596 1,218,493 12,404,569 Business‐type activities: Water 14,670,807 18,623,425 18,623,425 Sewer 11,206,359 15,835,790 15,835,790 Waste management 789,262 700,491 700,491 Landfill 405,971 464,656 464,656 Parking 1,052,646 2,820,386 2,820,386 Building 1,579,510 4,413,374 4,413,374 Total business‐type activities 29,704,555 42,858,122 42,858,122 Total government‐wide 91,689,870$     53,214,602$     829,596$        1,218,493$              55,262,691$      General revenues: Taxes: Property taxes Sales taxes Transient occupancy tax Other taxes Other general revenue Total general revenues Loss on disposal of capital assets Investment income (expense) Transfers Total general revenues and transfers Change in net position Net position ‐ beginning, as restated Net position ‐ ending Program Revenues See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA Statement of Activities For the year ended June 30, 2018 28 Governmental Business‐type Activities Activities Total (5,665,480)$           (5,665,480)$           (25,714,955) (25,714,955) (2,384,529) (2,384,529) (1,101,768) (1,101,768) (12,408,347) (12,408,347) (95,718)(95,718) (2,209,949)(2,209,949) (49,580,746)(49,580,746) 3,952,618$           3,952,618 4,629,431 4,629,431 (88,771)(88,771) 58,685 58,685 1,767,740 1,767,740 2,833,864 2,833,864 13,153,567 13,153,567 (49,580,746) 13,153,567 (36,427,179) 20,334,818 20,334,818 12,819,794 12,819,794 27,935,991 27,935,991 4,868,723 4,868,723 380,522 184,679 565,201 66,339,848 184,679 66,524,527 (114,831)(114,831) 623,854 234,649 858,503 2,863,673 (2,863,673) 69,712,544 (2,444,345) 67,268,199 20,131,798 10,709,222 30,841,020 100,873,572 99,283,294 200,156,866 121,005,370$       109,992,516$       230,997,886$        Net (Expense) Revenue and Changes in Net Position 29 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report June 30, 2018 GOVERNMENTAL FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS  The General  Fund accounts for all financial resources necessary to carry out basic  governmental  activities of the City that are not accounted for in another fund.  The General Fund supports essential  City services such as police and fire protection, street maintenance, libraries, parks, and recreation.  The Storm Drainage Fund – This fund is to account for the storm drainage fees collected due to an  assessment approved by the majority of the parcel owners in the City voting at a special election on May  5, 2009.  The Debt Service Fund is used to account for the accumulation of resources for, and the payment of,  general  long‐term  debt  principal,  interest,  and  related  costs  (other  than  those  paid  for  by  the  Proprietary Funds).  The Capital  Projects  Fund  accounts  for  City  capital  projects  funded  by  the  General  Fund or  other  governmental funds, or any projects funded by multiple sources.  31 Storm Capital  Nonmajor Total General Drainage Debt Service Projects Governmental Governmental Fund Fund Fund Fund Funds Funds Assets: Cash and investments 29,864,637$      4,086,400$     256,724$         53,945,326$      8,706,666$     96,859,753$          Accounts receivable 3,451,844 107,814 148,222 326,359 4,034,239 Due from other governments 2,432,771 819 97,501 2,531,091 Due from other funds 20,785 6,286 268,437 295,508 Prepaids and deposits 6,041 6,041 Cash and investments, restricted 4,390,537 9,192,878 13,583,415 Total assets 40,166,615$      4,195,033$     9,455,888$     54,459,486$      9,033,025$     117,310,047$       Liabilities: Accounts payable 846,146$           1,325,825$        21,740$           2,193,711$            Due to other funds 268,437$         20,785 289,222 Retentions payable 127,450 127,450 Accrued payroll 695,443 695,443 Deposits 2,061,944 2,061,944 Unearned revenue 154,770 154,770 Total liabilities 3,758,303 268,437 1,453,275 42,525 5,522,540 Deferred Inflows: Unavailable revenue 36,131 201,397 47,558 285,086 Total deferred inflows 36,131 201,397 47,558 285,086 Fund Balances: Nonspendable 6,041 6,041 Restricted 4,390,537 4,195,033$     9,187,451 8,942,942 26,715,963 Committed 27,004,814 27,004,814 Assigned 19,929,904 25,800,000 45,729,904 Unassigned 12,045,699 12,045,699 Total fund balances 36,372,181 4,195,033 9,187,451 52,804,814 8,942,942 111,502,421 fund balances 40,166,615$      4,195,033$     9,455,888$     54,459,486$      9,033,025$     117,310,047$       CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA BALANCE SHEET GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS June 30, 2018 See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements Total liabilities, deferred inflows and 32 Fund balance – total governmental funds 111,502,421$        Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of net assets are different because: CAPITAL ASSETS    Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources and, therefore, are not  reported in the funds.116,475,401          LONG TERM LIABILITIES Long‐term liabilities are not due and payable in the current period and, therefore, are not reported  in the funds. Compensated absences (2,383,250)             Long‐term debt (48,605,686)           Net OPEB Liability ($30,036,547) Net Pension Liability (53,418,613)           Interest on long‐term debt is not accrued in the funds, but rather is recognized as an expenditure  when due.(685,245)  DEFERRED INFLOWS AND OUTFLOWS Deferred outflows are not current assets or financial resources; and deferred inflows are not due  and payable in the current period and are therefore not reported in the governmental funds Deferred Outflows  18,235,320            Deferred Inflows (2,371,231)             Unavailable revenues 285,086  ALLOCATION OF INTERNAL SERVICES FUND NET ASSETS Internal service funds are used by management to charge the costs of fleet management, building  maintenance, information technology and risk management to individual funds.  The assets and  liabilities of the internal service funds are included in the governmental activities in the statements  of net assets.$12,007,714 Net assets of governmental activities 121,005,370$        CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet to the Statement of Net Position June 30, 2018 See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements. 33 Storm Capital Nonmajor Total General  Drainage Debt Service Projects Governmental Governmental Fund Fund Fund Fund Funds Funds REVENUES: Property taxes 20,334,818$      20,334,818$        Sales and use taxes 12,819,794 12,819,794 Transient occupancy taxes 27,935,991 27,935,991 Other taxes 3,216,203 3,216,203 Charges for services ‐ fees 5,515,803 2,959,633$      274,016$            547,286$          9,296,738 Charges for services ‐ licenses and permits 82,622 82,622 Fines, forfeitures, and penalties 977,121 977,121 Investment income 332,714 53,331 125,833$            35,455 547,333 Intergovernmental taxes 1,652,520 1,652,520 Grant revenue 284,839 1,218,493 544,759 2,048,091 Other revenue 223,078 155,108 378,186 Total revenues 71,722,983 3,012,964 280,941 1,492,509 2,780,020 79,289,417 EXPENDITURES: Current: General government 5,132,951 28,297 397,132 45,285 5,603,665 Public safety 26,361,307 6,919 80,329 26,448,555 Public works 5,624,681 991,994 6,616,675 Community development 1,799,124 12,500 1,811,624 Parks, recreation, and library 14,546,580 833,877 261,396 15,641,853 Shuttle operations 159,868 159,868 Capital Outlay 172,615 7,907,859 8,080,474 Debt service: Principal 5,245,933 5,245,933 Interest 2,364,243 2,364,243 Total expenditures 53,637,258 7,638,473 10,137,781 559,378 71,972,890 REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 18,085,725 3,012,964 (7,357,532)(8,645,272) 2,220,642 7,316,527 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES): Transfers in 3,194,673 44,829 7,634,227 18,591,015 140,000 29,604,744 Transfer out (18,180,617) (2,074,239) (2,516,215)(3,970,000) (26,741,071) Total other financing (uses) sources (14,985,944) (2,029,410) 5,118,012 18,591,015 (3,830,000) 2,863,673 Net change in fund balances 3,099,781 983,554 (2,239,520) 9,945,743 (1,609,358) 10,180,200 FUND BALANCES: Beginning of year 33,272,400 3,211,479 11,426,971 42,859,071 10,552,300 101,322,221 End of year 36,372,181$      4,195,033$      9,187,451$        52,804,814$      8,942,942$      111,502,421$      See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018 GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS 34 Net change in fund balances – total governmental funds 10,180,200$        Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of activities are different because: CAPITAL ASSETS TRANSACTIONS Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However, in the statement of activities,  the cost of those assets is allocated over their estimated useful lives and reported as depreciation  expense.   The capital outlay expenditures are added back to fund balance 8,080,474 Expenses being added due to difference in capital outlay and capital asset additions 30,479 Retirements are deducted from fund balance (146,536) Depreciation expense on capital assets is reported in the Government‐Wide Statement of Activities  and Changes in Net Assets, but they do not require the use of current financial resources.  Therefore,  depreciation expense is deducted from the fund balance. (3,152,226) DEFERRED REVENUE Under the full accrual method of accounting, State Proposition 1A revenue is recognized as revenue in  the year it is earned rather than the year of receipt. Therefore, it is not reported as revenue, but  rather as a reduction of receivable. LONG TERM DEBT PROCEEDS AND PAYMENTS Long‐term liabilities are not due and payable in the current period and, therefore, are not reported  in the governmental funds. Accrued interest calculated on bonds payable 27,753 Amortization of bond premium 127,471 The repayment of the principal of long‐term debt consumes the current financial resources of  governmental funds.  This transaction, however, has no effect on net assets: Principal payments 5,245,000 ACCRUAL OF NON‐CURRENT ITEMS Some expenses reported in the statement of activities do not require the use of current financial  resources and, therefore, are not reported as expenditures in governmental funds.   This change reflects a increase in compensated absences that occurred during the year 74,407 Pension Expense (2,445,036) Net other post‐employment benefits obligation expense 891,578 Unavailable revenues recognized as revenue in prior year (414,090) ALLOCATION OF INTERNAL SERVICE FUND ACTIVITY Internal Service funds are used by management to charge the costs of certain activities, such as fleet  management, building maintenance, information technology and risk management to individual  funds.  The portion of the net revenue (expense) of these Internal Service Funds arising out of their  transactions with governmental funds is reported with governmental activities, because they service  those activities. Change in net position ‐ All Internal Service Funds 1,632,324 Change in net position of governmental activities 20,131,798$        See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA RECONCILIATION OF THE STATEMENT OF REVENUES EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES OF FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018 GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS TO THE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES 35 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report June 30, 2018 PROPRIETARY FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS  The Water Fund is used to account for the provision of water services to residents of Burlingame and  some residents of areas adjacent to the City.  All activities necessary  to  provide  such  services  are  accounted  for  in  this  fund,  including  administration,  operations,  maintenance,  financing,  and  billing/collections.  The Sewer Fund is used to account for the provision of sewer services to the residents of Burlingame  and some residents of areas adjacent to the City.  All activities necessary to provide such services are  accounted  for  in  this  fund,  including  administration,  operations,  maintenance,  financing,  and  billing/collections.  The Waste  Management  Fund is used to account for the provision of solid waste services to  the  residents  of  Burlingame,  excluding  the  revenues  and  expenditures  associated  with  the  collection,  processing, and disposal of solid waste and recyclable materials which are provided by a solid waste  provider servicing member cities of the South Bay Waste Management Authority.  The Landfill Fund is used to account for the landfill closure costs and post‐closure monitoring services.  The Parking Fund is used to account for the activities of the City’s parking districts.  The Building  Fund  was  established  to  account  for  the  activities  of  the  City’s  building  permits  and  inspection division.  37 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA STATEMENT OF NET POSITION PROPRIETARY FUNDS June 30, 2018 Enterprise Funds Waste Water Sewer Management Fund Fund Fund ASSETS AND DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES Current assets: Cash and investments 15,931,557$            17,235,521$            4,656,102$                Receivables (net of uncollectible amounts): Due from other governments 3,663 543,584 Due from consumers 2,848,793 2,582,063 Other receivables 81,524 85,852 73,906 Prepaids and deposits Inventory Total current assets 18,865,537 20,447,020 4,730,008 Noncurrent assets: Cash and investments, restricted 209,024 620,599 30,603 Capital assets: Land and other assets not being depreciated 535,503 4,488,744 Facilities, infrastructure, and equipment, net of depreciation 33,354,686 62,958,318 Total noncurrent assets 34,099,213 68,067,661 30,603 Total assets 52,964,750 88,514,681 4,760,611 Deferred outflows of resources: Deferred amount on bond refunding 665,652 494,450 Deferred outflows related to pensions 983,107 826,751 134,592 Deferred outflows related to OPEB 388,232 315,782 55,462 Total deferred outflows of resources 2,036,991 1,636,983 190,054 LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS  OF RESOURCES, AND FUND BALANCES Current liabilities: Accounts payable 1,111,390$               726,937$  125,146$   Due to other funds 3,143 3,143 Accrued interest 184,288 374,973 Retentions payable 8,515 47,427 Deposits 16,650 Unearned revenue 41,398 Claims and litigation due in one year Bonds payable due in one year 1,023,672 1,501,348 Compensated absences due in one year 30,536 18,689 455 Landfill closure and post‐closure liability due in one year Total current liabilities 2,419,592 2,672,517 125,601 Noncurrent liabilities: Bonds payable 18,872,243 22,627,899 Landfill closure and post closure liability Claims and litigation Compensated absences 137,111 65,245 4,858 Net pension liability 3,765,929 3,166,986 515,572 Net OPEB liability 3,023,500 2,459,269 431,929 Total noncurrent liabilities 25,798,783 28,319,399 952,359 Total liabilities 28,218,375 30,991,916 1,077,960 DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES Deferred inflows related to pensions 95,644 80,433 13,094 Deferred inflows related to OPEB 16,049 13,054 2,293 Total deferred inflows of resources 111,693 93,487 15,387 NET POSITION Net investment in capital assets 14,659,926$            44,260,249$             Restricted for capital projects 4,351,232 6,871,032 Restricted for pension and benefits program 209,024 172,615 30,603$   Unrestricted 7,451,491 7,762,365 3,826,715 Total net position 26,671,673$            59,066,261$            3,857,318$                See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 38 Enterprise Funds Governmental Activities‐ Landfill Parking Building Internal Fund Fund Fund Total Service Funds 1,479,480$                9,240,078$                10,899,472$             59,442,210$             19,567,026$             547,247 33,629 5,430,856 45,077 42,627 45,655 374,641 188,826 47,893 1,524,557 9,282,705 10,945,127 65,794,954 19,837,374 4,815 19,436 83,391 967,868 185,411 5,774,300 10,798,547 1,382,648 97,695,652 1,656,581 4,815 7,176,384 83,391 109,462,067 1,841,992 1,529,372 16,459,089 11,028,518 175,257,021 21,679,366 1,160,102 1,608 450,687 386,899 2,783,644 477,879 8,994 34,976 152,894 956,340 183,374 10,602 485,663 539,793 4,900,086 661,253 12,731$  19,532$  187,655$  2,183,391$               291,342$   6,286 559,261 55,942 1,301,265 1,317,915 41,398 130,000 2,525,020 9,897 59,577 9,794 215,251 215,251 227,982 19,532 1,498,817 6,964,041 431,136 41,500,142 3,013,509 3,013,509 6,535,000 19,983 38,364 265,561 54,023 6,161 1,726,421 1,482,071 10,663,140 1,830,585 70,042 272,387 1,190,722 7,447,849 1,428,088 3,089,712 2,018,791 2,711,157 62,890,201 9,847,696 3,317,694 2,038,323 4,209,974 69,854,242 10,278,832 156 43,846 37,641 270,814 46,492 372 1,446 6,321 39,535 7,581 528 45,292 43,962 310,349 54,073 7,156,948$               66,077,123$            1,656,581$                412,817 11,635,081 4,815$  19,436 83,391$  519,884 185,411 (1,783,063)7,271,936 7,230,984 31,760,428 10,165,722 (1,778,248)$             14,861,137$            7,314,375$               109,992,516$          12,007,714$             39 Waste Water Sewer Management Fund Fund Fund OPERATING REVENUES: Water sales 18,405,535$           Sewer service charges: City of Burlingame users 14,515,024$           Other agencies 1,320,766 Special surcharges 700,491$                Parking fees Charges for services 217,890 Other revenue 11,867 31,000 81,729 Total operating revenues 18,635,292 15,866,790 782,220 OPERATING EXPENSES: Salaries and benefits 2,698,574 2,231,997 433,688 Retiree medical benefit Supplies and services 1,281,300 4,946,986 354,429 Water purchases 7,785,754 Depreciation 2,061,678 2,979,213 Insurance claims and expenses 78,195 242,448 1,145 Total operating expenses 13,905,501 10,400,644 789,262 Operating income 4,729,791 5,466,146 (7,042) NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES): Investment income 67,316 70,666 19,022 Interest expense (765,306) (805,715) Net nonoperating revenues (expenses)(697,990) (735,049) 19,022 Income before transfers 4,031,801 4,731,097 11,980 Transfers out (1,293,887) (1,085,859) (58,000) Net change in net position 2,737,914 3,645,238 (46,020) NET POSITION: Net position ‐ beginning (deficit), as restated 23,933,759 55,421,023 3,903,338 Net position ‐ end of year (deficit) 26,671,673$           59,066,261$           3,857,318$             See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements Enterprise Funds CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET POSITION PROPRIETARY FUND FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018 40 Governmental Activities‐ Landfill Parking Building Internal Fund Fund Fund Total Service Funds 18,405,535$           14,515,024 1,320,766 464,656$                1,165,147 2,820,386$             2,820,386 4,413,374$             4,631,264 11,138,848$           1,624 58,459 184,679 34,041 464,656 2,822,010 4,471,833 43,042,801 11,172,889 34,346 335,193 1,002,752 6,736,550 1,331,469 4,322,881 371,625 568,452 573,617 8,096,409 2,129,152 7,785,754 148,282 5,189,173 560,945 719 3,141 325,648 1,272,639 405,971 1,052,646 1,579,510 28,133,534 9,617,086 58,685 1,769,364 2,892,323 14,909,267 1,555,803 5,300 33,846 38,499 234,649 76,521 (1,571,021) 5,300 33,846 38,499 (1,336,372)76,521 63,985 1,803,210 2,930,822 13,572,895 1,632,324 (326,927)(99,000) (2,863,673) 63,985 1,476,283 2,831,822 10,709,222 1,632,324 (1,842,233) 13,384,854 4,482,553 99,283,294 10,375,390 (1,778,248)$           14,861,137$          7,314,375$            109,992,516$        12,007,714$           Enterprise Funds 41 Waste Water Sewer Management Fund Fund Fund CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: Receipts from customers  18,196,831$      15,503,955$      795,673$            Receipts from other funds Payments to other funds (708) (708) Payments to suppliers (9,053,022) (4,921,265) (300,117) Payments to retirees and trust Payments to claims Receipts from claims and litigation Payments to employees for services (2,554,103) (2,171,764) (396,582) Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities 6,588,998 8,410,218 98,974 CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES: Transfers from other funds Transfers to other funds (1,293,887) (1,085,859) (58,000) Net cash provided by (used in) noncapital financing activities (1,293,887)(1,085,859)(58,000) CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES: Acquisition and construction of capital assets (2,989,538) (4,202,466) Principal paid on long‐term debt (1,366,328) (1,731,845) Interest paid on long‐term debt (772,042) (828,865) Net cash provided by (used in) capital and related financing activities (5,127,908)(6,763,176) CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: Interest received on investments 67,316 70,666 19,022 Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities 67,316 70,666 19,022 Net increase (decrease)  in cash and equivalents 234,519 631,849 59,996 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS: Beginning of year 15,906,062 17,224,271 4,626,709 End of year 16,140,581$      17,856,120$      4,686,705$        RECONCILIATION OF CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS TO THE NET CASH PROVIDED BY (USED IN) OPERATING ACTIVITIES: Operating income 4,729,791$       5,466,146$       (7,042)$               Adjustments for noncash activities: Depreciation and amortization 2,061,678 2,979,213 Changes in assets and liabilities: Receivables (440,328)(362,835)13,453 Prepaid / Inventories Deferred outflows (476,221)(397,014)(75,434) Due to other funds (708)(708) Accounts payable 204,953 350,811 55,457 Retentions and Deposits payable (112,726)(82,642) Unearned revenue 1,867 Compensated absences 25,764 (18,760)(237) Claims and litigations liabilities Net pension liabilities 470,685 395,825 64,439 Net OPEB Liabilities 241,392 179,142 64,281 Deferred inflows (117,149)(98,960)(15,943) Total adjustments 1,859,207 2,944,072 106,016 Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities 6,588,998$       8,410,218$       98,974$              RECONCILIATION OF CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS  TO THE STATEMENT OF NET POSITION Cash and investments – current 15,931,557$     17,235,521$     4,656,102$        Cash and investments, restricted 209,024 620,599 30,603 Cash and cash equivalents on statement of cash flows 16,140,581$     17,856,120$     4,686,705$        Non‐cash transactions Amortization of Bond Premiums 186,328$            138,213$            PROPRIETARY FUNDS STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements Enterprise Funds FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018 42 Governmental Activities‐ Landfill Parking Building Internal Fund Fund Fund Total Service Funds 460,868$            2,810,416$        4,446,418$           42,214,161$         11,179,007$        (1,416) (378,900) (579,073) (268,765) (15,501,142) (2,680,462) (4,322,881) (549,967) (29,173) (259,018) (947,366) (6,358,006) (1,281,439) 52,795 1,972,325 3,230,287 20,353,597 2,344,258 (89,175) (326,927) (99,000) (2,863,673) (326,927)(99,000)(2,863,673)(89,175) (4,941)(7,196,945) (974,993) 277,280 (2,820,893) (1,600,907) 277,280 (4,941)(11,618,745)(974,993) 5,300 33,846 38,499 234,649 76,521 5,300 33,846 38,499 234,649 76,521 335,375 1,674,303 3,169,786 6,105,828 1,356,611 1,148,920 7,585,211 7,813,077 54,304,250 18,395,826 1,484,295$        9,259,514$        10,982,863$         60,410,078$         19,752,437$        58,685$             1,769,364$       2,892,323$           14,909,267$        1,555,803$          148,282 5,189,173 560,945 (3,788)(20,165)(25,415)(839,078)6,118 8,571 8,571 (47,893) (9,232)(101,851)(210,304)(1,270,056)(254,283) (1,416) (7,275)(9,902)40,871 634,915 89,255 267,122 71,754 1,867 470 14,030 21,267 (55,687) 130,000 770 215,776 185,236 1,332,731 228,795 13,481 21,397 112,522 632,215 188,370 154 (59,617)(46,098)(337,613)(57,165) (5,890)202,961 337,964 5,444,330 788,455 52,795$             1,972,325$       3,230,287$           20,353,597$        2,344,258$          1,479,480$       9,240,078$       10,899,472$        59,442,210$        19,567,026$        4,815 19,436 83,391 967,868 185,411 1,484,295$       9,259,514$       10,982,863$        60,410,078$        19,752,437$        324,541$              Enterprise Funds 43 Agency Funds ASSETS Cash and investments 624,180$   Accounts receivable 802,010 Total assets 1,426,190$               LIABILITIES Accounts payable 589,513$   Due to other governmental units 836,677 Total liabilities 1,426,190$               See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA STATEMENT OF NET POSITION FIDUCIARY FUNDS June 30, 2018 44 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS   JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES  NOTE 1 A. Definition of the Reporting Entity The  City  of  Burlingame  (the  City)  was  incorporated  in  1908  as  a  California  general  law  city. Burlingame is a full‐service city providing all municipal services, including police, fire, library, parks, recreation, street and storm drain maintenance, and water and sewage treatment. It is governed by a five member City Council, whose members are each elected to a four year term. The Mayor of the City is a one‐year rotating chair of the City Council. As a government agency, the City is exempt from both federal income taxes and state franchise taxes. The accompanying financial statements present the City and its component units, entities for which the City is considered to be financially accountable. Blended component  units,  although  legally separate entities are, in substance, part of the City’s operations and so data from these units are combined with data of the City as the primary government. For financial reporting purposes, the City’s  financial  statements  include  all  funds,  boards  and  commissions,  and  authorities  that  are controlled by or are dependent on the City’s legislative branch, the City Council. Control by or dependence  on  the  City  was  determined  on  the  basis  of  budget  adoption,  taxing  authority, outstanding debt, or the City’s obligation to fund any deficits that may occur. Blended Component Units The following unit is a legally separate component unit for which the City is financially accountable, and therefore, the related financial activities have been blended with the City’s financial reporting: Burlingame Financing Authority In  November 1995,  the  City  formed  an  authority  known  as  the  Burlingame  Financing  Authority (Authority). The Authority provides services entirely to the City. The purpose of this Authority is to issue bonds to finance the construction of public capital improvements through the lease of certain land and existing improvements or a pledge of revenue. Facilities are leased by the Authority to the City pursuant to lease agreements. The Authority is comprised of members of the City Council. The City and the Authority have a financial and operational relationship and the financial activities of the Authority have been included in the financial statements of the City as a blended component unit.  The  Authority’s  financial activities are presented in the Debt Service Fund as part of the governmental fund statements.  The books and records of the Authority are maintained by the City. Additional financial data for the Authority may be obtained from the Finance Department, 501 Primrose  Road,  Burlingame,  CA 94010. 45 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)  A. Definition of the Reporting Entity (Continued) Non‐Disclosed Organizations There are other agencies that provide services within the City, which are independently governed, and also maintain financial books and records that are separate from the City. Agency Funds The fiduciary fund consists of various agency funds, which account for various programs, activities, or funds held by the City in a custodial capacity or as an agent for individuals, private organizations, and other government units. The City’s basic financial statements, except for certain cash held by the City as a fiscal agent, do not reflect, for example, the operations of the Burlingame School District, the Burlingame Library Trustees, nor the Hotel and Business  Improvement  Districts.  A complete listing of agency funds can be found in the Fiduciary Fund Financial Statements. Central County Fire Department Effective July 1, 2010, City fire employees became employees of Central County Fire Department (CCFD).  CCFD is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) which provides fire, emergency medical, and disaster preparedness  services  to  the  City  and  the  Town  of  Hillsborough.  CCFDS  also  provide  fire  and emergency medical services to the City of Millbrae through a contract. CCFD is governed by a four member board of directors and a Chief Administrative Officer. As  members  of  the  CCFD  JPA, Burlingame and Hillsborough fund 70% of the direct costs in support of the ongoing operations and maintenance of CCFD based on a 60/40 cost allocation as outlined in the JPA. The remaining 30% is funded by the City of Millbrae. The Town of Hillsborough maintains the books and records of the CCFD which is subject to a separate annual audit. This cost allocation is reflected as a receivable (if total actual direct costs are less than budgeted or expected direct costs) or payable (if total actual direct costs exceed budgeted or expected direct costs) on the City’s Statement of Net Position. CCFD is  a  stand‐alone  employer  recognized  by  the  California  Public  Employees’  Retirement  System (CalPERS). B. Basis of Accounting, Measurement Focus, and Presentation The City’s basic financial statements are prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is the  acknowledged  standard  setting  body  for  establishing  accounting  and  financial  reporting standards followed by governmental entities. 46 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)  B. Basis of Accounting, Measurement Focus, and Presentation (Continued) GASB requires that the accounts of the City be organized on the basis of funds, each of which is considered  a  separate  accounting  entity.    Fund  accounting  segregates  funds  according  to  their intended purpose and is used to aid management in demonstrating compliance with finance‐related legal and contractual provisions. The operations of each fund are accounted for in a separate set of self‐balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues, and expenditures or expenses, as appropriate.  City resources are allocated to and accounted for in individual funds based upon the purpose for which they are to be spent and the means by which spending activities are controlled. Financial reporting standards established by GASB require that the financial statements described below be presented. Government‐Wide Financial Statements The Government‐Wide Financial Statements include a Statement of Net Position and a Statement of Activities.  These statements present summaries of Governmental and Business‐Type Activities, and represent a consolidation of all financial activities for the entire City.  Fiduciary activities of the City are not included in these statements. The Government‐Wide Financial Statements are presented on an economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting, as are the proprietary funds.  Accordingly, all of the City’s current and long‐term assets and liabilities, including capital assets, infrastructure assets, and long‐ term liabilities, are included in the accompanying Statement of Net Position as of June 30.  The Statement of Activities presents changes in net position since July 1, the beginning of the fiscal year. Under the accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized in the period in which they are earned while expenses are recognized in the period in which the liability is incurred, regardless of the timing of the related cash flows.  For example, property tax revenue is recognized in the year of levy,  and  all  other  revenue  is  recognized  when  services  have  been rendered. The types of transactions reported as program revenues for the City are reported in three categories: 1) charges for services, 2) operating grants and contributions, and 3) capital grants and contributions. Governmental Fund Financial Statements Governmental Fund Financial Statements include a Balance Sheet and a Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances for all major governmental funds and nonmajor funds aggregated. An accompanying schedule is presented to reconcile and explain the differences in net position as presented in these statements to the net position presented in the Government‐Wide Financial Statements.  The City has presented all major funds that met the qualifications for major fund reporting. 47 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)  B. Basis of Accounting, Measurement Focus, and Presentation (Continued) Governmental Fund Financial Statements (Continued) Major  funds  are  funds  whose  revenues,  expenditures/expenses,  assets,  or  liabilities  (excluding extraordinary items) are at least 10% of corresponding totals for all governmental or enterprise funds and at least 5% of the aggregate amount for all governmental and enterprise funds. The identification and separate reporting of major funds serves to highlight financial activities which may be particularly important to financial statement users. Nonmajor funds are reported in aggregate in a separate column in the Balance Sheet and the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances. The City reports the following major governmental funds: The General Fund is the general operating fund of the City. It is used to account for all financial  resources and transactions except those required to be accounted for in another fund.  The  Storm  Drainage  Special  Revenue  Fund  is  used  to  account  for the  storm  drainage  fees  collected as a result of an assessment approved by the majority of the parcel owners in the City  voting at a special election on May 5, 2009.  The Debt Service Fund is used to account for the accumulation of resources for, and the  payment of, general long‐term debt principal, interest, and related costs (other than those paid  by the proprietary funds).  The Capital Projects Fund is used to account for resources used to acquire or develop facilities or  major capital improvements.  All governmental funds are accounted for on a spending or current financial resources measurement  focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Accordingly, only current assets and current  liabilities are included on the Balance Sheet. The Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes  in  Fund  Balances  presents  increases  (revenues  and  other  financing  sources)  and  decreases  (expenditures and other financing uses) in current net position.   Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized in the accounting period in  which they become both measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period.  Accordingly, revenues are recorded when received in cash, except that revenues subject to accrual  (generally 60 days after year‐end) are recognized when due.    The primary revenue sources, which have been treated as susceptible to accrual by the City, are  taxpayer‐assessed tax revenues (such as property taxes, sales taxes, transient occupancy taxes, and  franchise taxes), certain grant revenues, and earnings on investments.    48 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)  B. Basis of Accounting, Measurement Focus, and Presentation (Continued) Governmental Fund Financial Statements (Continued) Expenditures are recorded in the accounting period in which the related fund liability is incurred, except  for  principal  and  interest  on  general  long‐term  debt,  claims  and  judgments,  and compensated absences, which are recognized as expenditures to the extent they have matured. General capital asset acquisitions are reported as expenditures in governmental funds. Proceeds of general  long‐term  debt  and  acquisitions  under  capital  leases  are  reported  as  other  financing sources. Non‐exchange transactions, in which the City gives or receives value without directly receiving or giving equal value in exchange, include property taxes, grants, entitlements, and donations. On an accrual basis of accounting, revenue from property taxes is recognized in the fiscal year for which the taxes are levied. Revenue from grants, entitlements, and donations is recognized in the fiscal year in which all eligibility requirements have been satisfied. Other revenues which may be accrued include other taxes, intergovernmental revenues, interest, and charges for services. Again, grant revenues are recognized in the fiscal year in which all eligibility requirements are met. Under the terms of grant agreements, the City may fund certain programs with a combination of cost‐reimbursement  grants  and  general  revenues.  Thus,  both  restricted  and  unrestricted  net position may be available to finance program expenses. It is the City’s policy to first apply restricted resources to such programs, followed by unrestricted resources if necessary. Proprietary Fund Financial Statements Proprietary  Fund  Financial  Statements  include  a  Statement  of  Net  Position;  a  Statement  of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Net Position; and a Statement of Cash Flows for each major proprietary fund. A column representing internal service funds is also presented in these statements.  However,  internal  service  fund  balances  and  activities  are  combined  with  the Governmental Activities in the Government‐Wide Financial Statements. The City reports the following major proprietary (enterprise) funds: The Water Fund is used to account for the activities of the City’s water supply system.  The Sewer Fund is used to account for the activities of the City’s sewage collection system and  the Wastewater Treatment Plant.  The  Waste  Management  Fund  is  used  to  account  for  the  activities  of  the  City’s  franchised  garbage collections and recycling program.  49 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)  B. Basis of Accounting, Measurement Focus, and Presentation (Continued) Proprietary Fund Financial Statements (Continued) The Landfill Fund is used to account for the landfill closure costs and post‐closure monitoring  services. The Landfill Fund was created in 2014 by separating landfill activities from the Waste  Management Fund.   The Parking Fund is used to account for the activities of the City’s Parking Districts.  The Building Fund is used to account for activities of the City’s building division.  Proprietary  funds are accounted for using the economic resources measurement focus  and the  accrual basis of accounting. Accordingly, all assets and liabilities (whether current or noncurrent) are  included on the Statement of Net Position. The Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in  Fund  Net  Position  present  increases  (revenues)  and  decreases  (expenses)  in  total  net  position.  Under the accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized in the period in which they are  earned while expenses are recognized in the period in which the liability is incurred. In these funds,  receivables  have  been  recorded  as  revenue  and  provisions  have  been  made  for  uncollectible  amounts.  Operating  revenues  in  the  proprietary  funds  are  those  revenues that are generated from the  primary  operations  of  the  fund.  The  primary  operating  revenues of the City’s enterprise and  Notfunds include water and sewer service, connection fees, sewer discharge permits, garbage and  recycling  collection  surcharges,  building  inspections,  parking fees  and  permits,  information  technology support, vehicle and facilities maintenance, and risk management activities provided to  the various departments in the City. All other revenues are reported as non‐operating revenues.  Operating expenses are those expenses that are essential to the primary operations of the fund. All  other expenses are reported as nonoperating expenses.  The Internal Service Funds are used to account for the servicing of self‐insurance, allocation of  funding for the retiree medical benefit trust fund, vehicle maintenance and acquisition, facilities  maintenance, and information technology maintenance and acquisitions made for City departments  or agencies on a cost‐reimbursement basis.  Fiduciary Fund Financial Statements  The Fiduciary Funds are used to account for the resources held by the City in a custodial capacity or  as  an  agent  for  individuals,  private  organizations,  other  government  units  such  as  the  State  of  California,  and/or  other  funds  The  City  maintains  agency  funds for  the  Library  Trustees;  Hotel,  Downtown and Broadway Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) fees; and the elementary and high  school  district  developer  fees.  Fiduciary  Fund  Financial  Statements include a Statement of Net  Position and represent the related activity for the City’s Agency Funds. 50 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)  C. Fair Value Hierarchy Fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in  an  orderly  transaction  between  market  participants  at  the  measurement  date.    The  City categorizes its fair value measurements within the fair value hierarchy established by generally accepted  accounting  principles.    The  fair  value  hierarchy  categorizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value into three levels based on the extent to which inputs used in measuring fair value are observable in the market. Level 1 inputs are quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.  Level 2 inputs are inputs – other than quoted prices included within level 1 – that are observable  for an asset or liability, either directly or indirectly.  Level 3 inputs are unobservable inputs for an asset or liability.  If the fair value of an asset or liability is measured using inputs from more than one level of the fair  value hierarchy, the measurement is considered to be based on the lowest priority level input that is  significant to the entire measurement.  D. Deferred Outflows and Inflows of Resources In addition to assets, the statement of financial position or balance sheet reports a separate section for deferred outflows of resources.  This separate financial statement element, deferred outflows of resources,  represents  a  consumption  of  net  position  or  fund  balance  that  applies  to  a  future period(s) and so will not be recognized as an outflow of resources (expense/expenditure) until then. In addition to liabilities, the statement of financial position or balance sheet reports a separate section  for  deferred  inflows  of  resources.    This  separate  financial  statement  element,  deferred inflows of resources, represents an acquisition of net position or fund balance that applies to a future period(s) and so will not be recognized as an inflow of resources (revenue) until that time. E. Capital Assets Capital assets, which include land, roads and parking lots, buildings and structures, improvements other than buildings, machinery and equipment, infrastructure assets, and construction in progress, are reported in the applicable governmental or business‐type activities columns in the government‐  wide financial statements. The City capitalizes equipment and improvements having an estimated useful life in excess of one year and acquisition cost of at least $5,000. 51 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)  F. Inventories and Prepaid Items Inventories are reported at a cost basis. The cost is recorded, using a weighted average, as an expenditure at the time an individual item is consumed rather than when purchased.  Inventories are  reflected  as  nonspendable  in  the  General  Fund  balance  and  are,  therefore,  unavailable  for appropriation. The City’s inventory consists of small tools, auto shop supplies, and fuel. Certain payments to vendors reflect costs applicable to future accounting periods and are recorded as prepaid items in both the government‐wide and fund financial statements. The  inventories  and  prepaid  items  recorded  in  the  governmental funds  do  not  reflect  current appropriable resources and, thus, are reported as part of nonspendable fund balance. G.Property Taxes Property taxes are collected for a twelve‐month period effective July 1 by the County Tax Collector. Property tax is levied each September 1 on the assessed values as of the prior January 1 for all real and personal property located in the City. Once the levy rates are approved, the actual claim to property taxes arises and is enforceable. Taxes are billed once a year in late October and are payable in two equal installments due by December 10 and April 10 (of the following year). Taxes are considered delinquent if paid after the due dates. As a result of the implementation of Article XIII (a) of the California State Constitution in fiscal year 1978‐1979, the City does not have the power to levy property taxes or to set property tax rates based on the financial requirements of the various funds. Instead, the City receives remittances from the County. These remittances are based either on a flat 1% rate applied to the fiscal year 1975‐1976  full  value  of  the  property,  or  on  1%  of  the  sales  price  of  the  property  on  sales transactions  and  construction  which  occur  after  the  fiscal  year  1975‐1976  valuation.  Values  on properties  (exclusive  of  increases  related  to  sales  transactions  and  construction)  can  rise  at  a maximum of 2% per year or the amount of increases to the California  Consumer  Price  Index, whichever is less. City property tax revenues are recognized when levied to the extent that they result in current receivables. Article XIII (a), Section 1B, of the California State Constitution allows property taxes in excess of the 1% limit to fund general obligation bond debt service when such bonds are approved by two‐thirds of the local voters. On October 12, 1993, the County Board of Supervisors adopted and implemented the Alternative Method of Tax Apportionment (Teeter Plan). The Teeter Plan applies to secured taxes only and provides a consistent predictable cash flow for taxes since they are apportioned to the City as if the tax levy had been collected in full. In 2009, the State shifted 8% of local property tax revenue as part of a long‐term borrowing tactic to balance the State budget, under Proposition 14. 52 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)  H.Use of Estimates and Reclassifications The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts and disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates. NOTE 2 – BUDGETS AND BUDGETARY ACCOUNTING  NOTE 2 A.Basis of Budgeting A formal budget is employed as a management control device during the year for the City, and is adopted annually for all City funds, except for the fiduciary funds, Debt Service Fund and certain special revenue funds where appropriate. Consistent with most governmental entities, the City’s budget is based on a modified accrual basis of accounting under which revenues are recognized in the period they become available and measurable, and expenditures are recognized in the period the related liability is incurred. Budgets for the General Fund and Special Revenue Funds are adopted on a basis consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (GAAP). The City budget includes information regarding estimated costs (or outlays) and revenue (or cash inflows) for identified programs, projects, and levels of service to meet the needs of the City. All annual appropriations lapse at the end of the fiscal year except in the Capital Projects Fund because capital improvement projects typically span more than one fiscal year. Appropriations for capital projects lapse when projects are completed, placed into service, accounted for as capital assets, or abandoned at the discretion of the City and/or City Council. Budget amendments that increase a fund’s appropriations require majority approval by the City Council. Certain  budgetary  re‐allocations  within  departments  require  approval  by  the  Finance Director and department heads. Budget amendments between departments are approved by the Finance Director and City Manager. A mid‐year budget status report and long‐term financial forecast for the  next  five  years  is  presented to the City Council as part  of  an  ongoing  assessment  and evaluation of budgetary performance, with special attention to the General Fund and certain other major funds. Budgetary financial data is included in the required supplementary information for the General Fund and Storm Drainage Fund. Final budgetary data excludes the amount reserved for encumbrances in order to properly compare these amounts to actual expenditures. 53 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 2 – BUDGETS AND BUDGETARY ACCOUNTING (Continued)  A. Basis of Budgeting (Continued) Budget Development and Adoption The  City Council  encourages  all  Burlingame  residents  and  business  community  members  to participate in the development of the City budget. The Council holds public meetings to provide guidance on the budget. Under these policy directives and guidance, departments prepare their budget requests in support of their programs in January for submission in early April. Expenditure assumptions are based on known factors such as collective bargaining agreements, current pay and benefit policies, consumer price indices, and other information available from expert third‐parties or governing authorities. Budget requests are reviewed by the Finance Department for technical compliance to City budget instructions. The Proposed Budget is prepared and delivered to the City Council in May. The City Council reviews the Proposed Budget before the final budget is formally adopted in June at a public hearing, which gives residents an additional opportunity to comment on the spending plan. A separate publication presenting this information is available from the City of Burlingame, Finance Department, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. General Fund and Storm Drainage Fund Budgetary Comparison Schedules are also included in the Required  Supplementary Information, which has information regarding budget to actual performance for the General Fund and Storm Drainage Fund. NOTE 3 – CASH AND INVESTMENTS  NOTE 3 The City maintains a cash and investment pool, which includes cash balances and authorized investments  of all funds.  This pooled cash is invested to enhance interest earnings in accordance with City investment  policy guidelines established by the City Treasurer.  The pooled interest earned is allocated to the funds  based on cash and investment balances in these funds at the end of each accounting period.   The City has the following cash and investments at June 30, 2018:   Government‐Wide Statement of Net Position Governmental Business‐Type Activities Activities Fiduciary Funds Total Cash and investments 116,426,779$   59,442,210$    624,180$           176,493,169$   Cash and investments, restricted 447,984 447,984       Cash and investments, restricted,    held with fiscal agents 13,768,826   519,884      14,288,710      Total cash and investments 130,195,605$  60,410,078$    624,180$           191,229,863$   54 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018      NOTE 3 – CASH AND INVESTMENTS (Continued)    The City’s cash and investments at June 30, 2018 in more detail:     Fair Value Cash and Investments Held with Treasury Deposits Deposits ‐ unrestricted $12,573,580 Deposits ‐ restricted 14,288,710            Total deposits 26,862,290            Investments ‐unrestricted U.S. Treasury Bond/Note 24,811,106            Supranational Agency Bond/Note 6,881,204              Federal Agency Obligations 29,603,184            Certificates of Deposit 19,833,489            Asset‐Backed Security/Collaterized Mortgage 2,649,335              Corporate notes 23,503,322            California Asset Management Program 23,149,118            California Local Agency Investment Funds 33,936,815            Total investments 164,367,573         Unrestricted, held with Treasury 176,493,169         Restricted, held with Treasury 447,984                  Total Cash and Investments Held With Treasury 176,941,153         Restricted Cash and Investment Held with Fiscal Agent Investment held with Pension Trust ‐ PARS 4,812,540              Cash held by fiscal agent ‐ Bank of New York 9,192,878              Cash held by fiscal agent ‐ J. P. Morgan Chase 85,195                    Cash held by fiscal agent ‐ Bank of America 198,097                  Total restricted cash and investments held with fiscal  agent 14,288,710            Total Cash and Investments 191,229,863$         55 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 3 – CASH AND INVESTMENTS (Continued)  A. Deposits Custodial Credit Risk Custodial credit risk for deposits is the risk that the City will not be able to recover its deposits or will not be able to recover collateral securities in the possession of an outside party if a depository institution fails.  The California Government Code and the City’s investment policy do not contain legal  or  policy  requirements  that  would  limit  exposure  to  custodial credit risk for deposits or investments, other than the following provision applicable to deposits. The California Government Code requires California banks and savings and loan associations to secure the City’s cash deposits by pledging securities as collateral.  This code states that collateral pledged  in  this  manner  shall  have  the  effect  of  perfecting  a  security  interest  in  such  collateral superior to those of a general creditor.  Thus, collateral for cash deposits is considered to be held in the City’s name. The fair value of pledged securities must equal at least 110% of the City’s cash deposits. State law also allows institutions to secure City deposits by pledging first trust deed mortgage notes having a value of 150% of the City’s total cash deposits. The City may waive collateral requirements for cash deposits, which are fully insured up to $250,000 by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.  The City, however, has not waived the collateralization requirements. The carrying amounts of the City’s cash deposits were $12,573,580 at June 30, 2018.  Bank balances before  reconciling  items  were  $13,267,605.    At  that  date,  the  total  amount  of  which  was collateralized or insured with securities held by the pledging financial institutions in the City’s name as discussed above. The City follows the practice of pooling cash and investments of all funds, except for funds required to be held by fiscal agents under the provisions of bond indentures.  Interest income earned on pooled cash and investments is allocated on an accounting period basis to the various funds based on the period‐end cash and investment balances.  Interest income from cash and investments with fiscal agents is credited directly to the related fund. B. Investments Pooled Investments and Investment by City Treasury Cash of the respective funds is pooled and invested principally in U.S. Treasury and agency securities and short‐term investments such as the State of California (State) Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and the California Asset Management Program (CAMP). 56 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018      NOTE 3 – CASH AND INVESTMENTS (Continued)    B.  Investments (Continued)    The LAIF is a pool of State cash and investments and those of California cities and local agencies. The  State’s  investment  policy  is  consistent  with  the  City’s  policy,  and,  although  State  and  City  investments  are  pooled,  the  State does not have access to City funds.  The  State  Treasurer  administers LAIF, which charges for the service by retaining a percentage of investment earnings.   State regulations permit the City to place up to $65,000,000 in LAIF, plus any bond proceeds related  to construction of a City facility.    Valuation    For the purposes of the Statement of Cash Flows, the City considers cash and cash equivalents to be  cash on hand, demand deposits, and highly liquid investments with original maturities of three  months or less at the time of acquisition. In accordance with GASB Statement No. 31, Accounting  and Financial Reporting for Certain Investments and for  External Investment Pools, highly liquid  market investments with maturities of one year or less at time of purchase are stated at amortized  cost.  All other investments are stated at fair value.  Market value is used as fair value for those  securities for which market quotations are readily available.  Interest income from investment of  pooled cash is allocated to the funds based on monthly cash balances.    Investments  are  presented  at  fair value except as noted below. The  fair  value  of  participants’  position in the investment pools is the same as the value of the investment pools’ shares and  investment  income  includes  changes  in  fair  value  (i.e.,  realized  and  unrealized  gains  or  losses).  Money  market  funds  (such  as  short‐term,  highly  liquid  debt  instruments  including  bankers’  acceptances and securities notes, bills, and bonds of the U.S. government and its agencies), and  participating  interest‐earning  investment  contracts  (such  as  negotiable  certificates  of  deposit,  certificates of deposit, and repurchase agreements) that have a remaining maturity at the time of  purchase of one year or less, are carried at amortized cost which approximates fair value.    Certain disclosure requirements, if applicable, for deposits and investment risks such as interest rate  risk and custodial credit risk are required to be disclosed in the financial statements.       57 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 3 – CASH AND INVESTMENTS (Continued)  B.Investments (Continued) Fair Value Hierarchy Interest Rate Risk Credit Risk o Overall o Custodial Credit Risk o Concentrations of Credit Risk In addition, other disclosures are specified, including use of certain methods to present deposits and  investments, highly sensitive investments, credit quality at year‐end, and other disclosures.  For  purposes  of  the  Statement  of  Cash  Flows  of  the  proprietary fund  types,  cash  and  cash  equivalents include all investments, as the City operates an internal cash management pool which  maintains the general characteristics of a demand deposit account.  Fair Value Hierarchy  The City categorizes its fair value measurements within the fair  value  hierarchy  established  by  generally accepted accounting principles.  The hierarchy is based on the valuation inputs used to  measure fair value of the assets.  Level 1 inputs are quoted prices in an active market for identical  assets; Level 2 inputs are significant other observable inputs; and Level 3 inputs are significant  unobservable inputs.  The following is a summary of the fair value hierarchy of the fair value of cash and investments of  the City as of June 30, 2018:  Level 1 Level 2 Total Investments by Fair Value Level: U.S. Treasury Bond/Note 24,811,106$     24,811,106$     Supranational Agency Bond/Note 6,881,204$       6,881,204    Federal Agency Obligations 29,603,184  29,603,184   Asset‐Backed Security/ Collaterized Mortgage 2,649,335    2,649,335    Corporate notes 23,503,322  23,503,322   Total Investments 24,811,106$    62,637,045$    87,448,151   Investments measured at Amortized Cost: California Local Agency Investment Fund 33,936,815   California Asset Management Program 23,149,118   Certificates of Deposit 19,833,489   Total Cash and Investments 164,367,573$   58 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 3 – CASH AND INVESTMENTS (Continued)  B. Investments (Continued) Investments classified in Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy are valued using quoted prices in active markets. Federal agency securities, Certificates of Deposit, Commercial paper totaling and Corporate notes classified in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy, are valued using matrix pricing techniques maintained by various pricing vendors.  Matrix pricing is used to value securities based on the securities’ relationship to benchmark quoted prices.  The California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) is classified as exempt in the fair value hierarchy, as it is valued at amortized cost, which is exempt from being classified under GASB 72.  Fair value is defined as the quoted market value on the last trading day of the period.  These prices are obtained from various pricing sources by the custodian bank. Concentration of Credit Risk The investment policy of the City contains limitations on the amount that can be invested in any one issuer.  The City has the following investments in one issuer (other than money market funds and an external investment pool) that represent 5% or more of total City investments: Investment Issuer Type Amount Fannie Mae Federal Agency Securities 19,223,067$         Interest Rate Risk  To minimize exposure to fair value losses caused by rising interest rates and to meet the liquidity  needs of the City, the City’s investment policy limits its investment portfolio to a maturity of less  than 5 years.    12 Months 13 to 24 25 to 60 Percentage Investment Type or less Months Months Total of Portfolio U.S. Treasury Bond/Note 1,179,766$     23,631,340$   24,811,106$    15.09% Supranational Agency Bond/Note 6,881,204     6,881,204 4.19% Federal Agency Obligations 10,015,764 19,587,420  29,603,184 18.01% Corporate notes 4,545,487$     4,229,946   14,727,889  23,503,322 14.30% Asset‐Backed Security/ Collaterized Mortgage 2,649,335 2,649,335 1.61% Certificates of Deposit 6,180,309 10,242,580 3,410,600 19,833,489 12.07% California Asset Management Program 23,149,118 23,149,118 14.08% California Local Agency Investment Fund 33,936,815 33,936,815 20.65% Total Investments 67,811,729$   25,668,056$   70,887,788$   164,367,573$  100.00% 59 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 3 – CASH AND INVESTMENTS (Continued)  B. Investments (Continued) Credit Risk State law limits investments in commercial paper and corporate bonds to be rated in a category “A” or its equivalent or better by nationally recognized statistical rating organizations (NRSROs).  It is the City’s policy to limit its investments in these investment types to the top rating issued by NRSROs, including raters Standard & Poor’s, Fitch Ratings, and Moody’s Investors Service (Moody’s). Investment Type:Fair Value: Moody's Rating U.S. Treasury Bond/Note 24,811,106$    Aaa Federal Agency Obligations 29,603,184 Aaa Supranational Agency Bond/Note 6,881,204 Aaa Asset‐Backed Security/ Collaterized Mortgage 2,649,335 Aaa Corporate Notes: Wells Fargo & Company Notes 1,764,118  A2  JP Morgan Securities 1,028,129  A3  American Express (Callable)1,753,240  A1  Bank of New York Mellon (Callable)1,775,340  A1  American Express Credit (Callable)1,282,944  A2  John Deere Capital Securities 215,242  A2  JP Morgan Chase (Callable)956,420  A3  Walmart Stores Corp Notes 1,812,512  Aa2  Wells Fargo Corp Notes 943,464  A2  Toyota Motor Credit Corp Notes 920,233  Aa3  Bank of New York Mellon (Callable)1,963,194  A1  Bank of America Corp Notes 903,787  A3  Morgan Stanley Corp Notes 898,553  A3  Goldman Sachs Corp Notes 899,693  A3  Branch Banking & Trust Corp Notes 1,449,411  A2  Citigroup Inc. Corp Notes (Callable)901,255  Baa1  IBM Corp Bonds 1,954,452  A1  Walt Disney Company Notes 1,031,855  A2  Home Depot Inc. Corp Notes 1,049,480  A2  Certificates of Deposit 19,833,489 FDIC Insured California Asset Management Program 23,149,118 Not Rated California Local Agency Investment Fund 33,936,815 Not Rated 164,367,573$   Custodial Credit Risk  For  an investment,  custodial  credit  risk  is  the  risk  that,  in  the  event  of  the  failure  of  the  counterparty, the City will not be able to recover the value of its investments or collateral securities  that are held by the counterparty.  All of the City’s investments in securities are held in the name of  the City.  The City’s custody agreement policy prohibits counterparties holding securities not in the  City’s name. 60 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 3 – CASH AND INVESTMENTS (Continued)  C. Investments in LAIF The City is a participant in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) that is regulated by California Government Code Section 16429 under the oversight of the Treasurer of the State of California.  The City reports its investment in LAIF at the fair value amount provided by LAIF, which is the same as the value of the pool share.  The balance available for withdrawal is based on the accounting records maintained  by  the  State,  which  are  recorded  on  an  amortized  cost  basis.    Included  in  LAIF’s investment  portfolio  are  collateralized  mortgage  obligations,  mortgage‐backed  securities,  other asset‐backed  securities,  loans  to  certain  state  funds,  floating  rate  Securities  issued  by  federal agencies,  government‐sponsored  enterprises,  United  States  Treasury  Notes  and  Bills  and corporations. As of June 30, 2018, these investments have an average maturity of 193 days. D. California Asset Management Program The City is a voluntary participant in the California Asset Management Program (CAMP). CAMP is an investment pool offered by the California Asset Management Trust (the Trust). The Trust is a joint powers authority and public agency created by a Declaration of Trust and established under the provisions of the California Joint Exercise of Powers Act (California Government Code Sections 6500 et seq., or the "Act") for the purpose of exercising the common power of its participants to invest certain proceeds of debt issues and surplus funds. The Pool's investments are limited to investments permitted by subdivisions (a) to (n), inclusive, of Section 53601 of the California Government Code. The City reports its investments in CAMP at the fair value amounts provided by CAMP, which is the same as the value of the pool share. At June 30, 2018, the fair value approximated was the City's cost. 61 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 4 – INTERFUND TRANSFERS AND TRANSACTIONS  NOTE 4  A.Transfers Between Funds With Council approval, resources may be transferred from one City fund to another.  The purpose of the majority of transfers is to allocate resources from the fund that receives them to the fund where they will be spent without a requirement for repayment.  Less often, a transfer may be made to open or close a fund. Transfers between funds for the year ending June 30, 2018, are as follows: Transfers Out General Fund  Debt Service  Fund Capital Projects  Fund Non Major Storm Drain  Fund Total Out General Fund ‐$         5,574,988$   12,420,800$   140,000$   44,829$      18,180,617$  (c)(d) Storm Drain Fund 15,000$      2,059,239    ‐$          ‐$        2,074,239   (d) Debt Service Fund ‐$         ‐$           2,516,215  ‐$        2,516,215   (b) Non Major 316,000  ‐$           3,654,000  ‐$        3,970,000   (b) Water Fund 1,293,887     ‐$           ‐$          ‐$        1,293,887   (a) Sewer Fund 1,085,859     ‐$           ‐$          ‐$        1,085,859   (a) Waste Management Fund 58,000    ‐$           ‐$        ‐$          ‐$        58,000        (a) Parking Fund 326,927  ‐$           ‐$          ‐$        326,927      (a) Building Enterprise Fund 99,000    ‐$           ‐$        ‐$          ‐$        99,000        (a) Total In 3,194,673$      7,634,227$   18,591,015$   140,000$   44,829$      29,604,744$   (a) To fund debt service and administrative support (b) To fund capital projects (c) To fund capital projects and various City services (d) To fund debt service Transfer In 62 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 4 – INTERFUND TRANSFERS AND TRANSACTIONS (Continued)  B. Interfund Receivables and Payables During  the  course  of  operations,  transactions  may  occur  between  funds  to  account  for  goods received or services rendered. Transactions between funds that are representative of lending or borrowing  arrangements  outstanding  at  the  end  of  the  fiscal  year  are  referred  to  as  advances to/from  other  funds,  which  represent  the  noncurrent  portion  of any  interfund  loans.  All  other outstanding balances between funds are reported as due to/from other funds. Any other residual balances outstanding between the governmental activities and business‐type activities are reported in the government‐wide financial statements as internal balances. C. Internal Balances Internal balances are presented only in the government‐wide financial statements. They represent the net interfund receivables and  payables remaining after  the elimination  of all such balances within governmental and business‐type activities. Debt Service Non‐major Water  Sewer Total Due Due From Fund Funds Fund  Fund  From Capital Projects Fund 268,437$        268,437$         Debt Service Fund 3,143$        3,143$        6,286     General Fund 20,785$          20,785       Totals 268,437$        20,785$          3,143$        3,143$        295,508$         Due To 63 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 5 – CAPITAL ASSETS  NOTE 5  All capital assets are valued at historical cost or estimated historical cost if actual historical cost is not  available. Contributed capital assets are valued at their estimate  acquisition  value  on  the  date  contributed.  Furthermore,  the  book  value  of  grant‐funded  assets  is  shown  net  of  any  grant  reimbursement revenue. Capital outlay is recorded as expenditures in the General, Capital Projects, and  other governmental funds and as an asset in the government‐wide financial statements to the extent  that the City’s capitalization threshold is met. Major outlays for capital assets and improvements are  capitalized as projects are constructed. The costs of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to  the value of the asset or materially extend assets lives are not capitalized. Interest incurred during the  construction phase of the capital assets of business‐type activities is reflected in the capitalized value of  the asset constructed, net of interest earned on the invested proceeds over the same period.  Except for roads and parking lots covered by the modified approach, depreciation has been provided on  capital assets excluding land and construction in progress. Depreciation of all capital assets is charged as  an expense against operations each year and the total amount of depreciation taken over the years,  called accumulated depreciation, is reported on the Statement of Net Position as a reduction in the  book value of capital assets.  Depreciation is provided using the straight‐line method which means the cost of the asset is divided by  its expected useful life in years and the result is charged to expense each year until the asset is fully  depreciated. The City has assigned the useful lives listed below to capital assets.  Type of Asset Years Buildings and structures 10‐100 Improvements 10‐100 Machinery and equipment 5‐15 Infrastructure 10‐100 The modified approach is an alternative to depreciation that may be applied for eligible infrastructure  capital assets. The City has elected to follow the modified approach for paved roads and parking lots. No  depreciation is reported for these assets nor are amounts capitalized in connection with improvements  that lengthen the lives of the roads and parking lots, unless the improvements also increase their service  potential. Rather, costs for both maintenance and preservation of these assets are expensed in the  period incurred. The City maintains an inventory of the roads and parking lots and performs periodic  condition assessments to establish the condition levels of the systems.  Additional information regarding  the condition of paved roads can found in the required supplementary information.  64 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 5 – CAPITAL ASSETS (Continued)  Intangible Assets  In 2010, the City adopted GASB Statement No. 51, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Intangible  Assets.  GASB  Statement  No.  51  established  accounting  and  financial  reporting  requirements  for  intangible assets to reduce inconsistencies, enhancing the comparability of the accounting and financial  reporting of such assets among state and local governments. The statement also provides authoritative  guidance that specifically addresses the nature of the intangible assets that are internally created by the  governmental entity. Examples of intangible assets include easements, land use rights, and computer  software.  The  City  capitalizes  intangible  assets  with  an  acquisition  cost  of  at  least  $5,000  and  an  estimated useful life in excess of one year.   Artwork and historical artifacts of the City held for public exhibition or promotion of education and  public service rather than financial gain are not capitalized and are expensed when incurred.  As of June  30, 2018, the City does not have intangible assets.  A.Capital Asset Activity from Governmental Activities Capital asset activity for the year ended June 30, 2018, relating to governmental activities was as follows: Total Governmental Activities Balance Balance July 01, 2017 Increases Decreases Transfers June 30, 2018 Capital assets not being depreciated: Land 6,407,198$       ‐$ ‐$ ‐$  6,407,198$         Pavement accounted for using the  modified approach 32,947,987       ‐$ ‐$ ‐$  32,947,987         Construction in progress 2,679,647         7,907,864$    ‐$ (5,957,389)$   4,630,122           Total capital assets, not being depreciated 42,034,832       7,907,864      ‐$ (5,957,389)      43,985,307         Capital assets being depreciated: Buildings and structures 42,049,932       50,480             42,100,412         Improvements other than buildings 36,494,510       21,024            (161,945)$    2,830,424       39,184,013         Machinery and equipment 19,496,559       1,157,058      (487,747)       938,892          21,104,762         Infrastructure 54,849,098       ‐$ ‐$ 2,137,593       56,986,691         Total capital assets, being depreciated 152,890,099    1,178,082      (649,692)       5,957,389       159,375,878      Less accumulated depreciation for: Buildings and structures 17,458,316       823,168         ‐$  18,281,484         Improvements other than buildings 28,556,943       664,287         (45,884)         ‐$  29,175,346         Machinery and equipment 16,717,478       1,353,360      (457,272)       ‐$  17,613,566         Infrastructure 19,286,451       872,356         ‐$  20,158,807         Total accumulated depreciation 82,019,188       3,713,171      (503,156)       ‐$  85,229,203         Total capital assets, being depreciated, net 70,870,911       (2,535,089)     (146,536)$    5,957,389       74,146,675         Governmental activities capital assets, net 112,905,743$  5,372,775$    (146,536)$    ‐$  118,131,982$    65 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 5 – CAPITAL ASSETS (Continued)  B. Capital Asset Activity from Business‐Type Activities Capital asset activity for the year ended June 30, 2018, relating to business‐type activities was as shown below. Total Business‐type Activities Balance Balance July 01, 2017 Increases Transfers June 30, 2018 Capital assets not being depreciated: Land 6,357,188$         ‐$  ‐$  6,357,188$           Construction in progress 880,330  6,937,053$    (3,376,024)$    4,441,359             Total capital assets, not being depreciated 7,237,518  6,937,053   (3,376,024)  10,798,547           Capital assets being depreciated: Buildings and structures 3,924,051           ‐$  3,924,051             Improvements other than buildings 167,716,031  200,209  3,376,024   171,292,264        Machinery and equipment 7,299,409           59,683 7,359,092             Total capital assets, being depreciated 178,939,491  259,892  3,376,024   182,575,407        Less accumulated depreciation for: Buildings and structures 1,420,471           80,136 ‐$  1,500,607             Improvements other than buildings 73,015,356   4,782,932              ‐$  77,798,288           Machinery and equipment 5,254,755  326,105 ‐$  5,580,860             Total accumulated depreciation 79,690,582   5,189,173              ‐$  84,879,755           Total capital assets, being depreciated, net 99,248,909   (4,929,281)  3,376,024   97,695,652           Business‐type activities capital assets, net 106,486,427$    2,007,772$           ‐$  108,494,199$      C.Depreciation Expense Depreciation expense was charged to functions and programs based on their usage of the related assets. The amounts allocated to each function or program for the current year were as follows: Depreciation Less: ISF Net Governmental activities:  General government 122,084$            ‐$ 122,084$           Public safety 622,887              ‐$ 622,887             Public works 1,845,451  (560,945)$     1,284,506          Parks, recreation, and library 1,122,749           ‐$ 1,122,749                Total depreciation expense ‐ governmental activities 3,713,171$        (560,945)$     3,152,226$      Business‐type activities:  Water 2,061,678$          Sewer 2,979,213             Parking 148,282                     Total depreciation expense ‐ business‐type activities 5,189,173$         66 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 6 – LONG‐TERM DEBT  NOTE 6  Government‐Wide Financial Statements  In  the  government‐wide  financial  statements,  long‐term  debt  and  other  financial  obligations  are  reported as liabilities in the appropriate activities or proprietary funds. Bond premiums, discounts, and  deferred gains and losses at refunding are deferred and amortized over the life of the bonds using the  straight‐line method. Issuance costs are expensed in the year incurred.   Governmental Fund Financial Statements  The governmental fund financial statements do not present long‐term debt, which is shown in the  Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet to the Government‐Wide Statement of Net  Position.  Governmental funds recognize bond premiums and discounts, as well as bond issuance costs, during the  current period.  The face amount of debt issued is reported as other financing sources.  Premiums  received on debt issuance are reported as other financing sources while discounts on debt issuance  reported  as  other  financing  uses.    Issuance  costs,  whether  or  not  withheld  from  the  actual  debt  proceeds received, are reported as debt service expenditures.  67 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 6 – LONG‐TERM DEBT (Continued)  The following is a summary of changes in long‐term debt related to governmental and business‐type  activities during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018:   Beginning Ending  Amounts Balance Balance Due Within Description June 30, 2017 Reductions June 30, 2018 One Year Governmental Activities: Pension Obligation Bonds, Series 2006 12,145,000$            (3,175,000)$        8,970,000$       460,000$         Storm Drainage Revenue Bonds, Series 2010 8,245,000    (250,000)   7,995,000         265,000   ‐ Unamortized Premium 157,450     (7,790)  149,660             (7,790)   Storm Drainage Revenue Bonds, Series 2012 9,375,000    (300,000)   9,075,000         310,000   ‐ Unamortized Premium 229,133     (10,657)   218,476             (10,657)    Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2010 4,280,000       (1,020,000)   3,260,000         1,050,000   ‐ Unamortized Premium 217,459     (54,365)   163,094             (54,365)    Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2012 9,070,000    (225,000)   8,845,000         235,000   ‐ Unamortized Premium 205,673     (8,066)  197,607             (8,066)   Storm Drainage Revenue Bonds, Series 2016 9,075,000    (275,000)   8,800,000         280,000   ‐ Unamortized Premium 978,442     (46,593)   931,849             (46,593)    Total Governmental Activities 53,978,157$            (5,372,471)$        48,605,686$     2,472,529$         Business‐Type Activities: State Water Resource Loan ‐ 2003 6,249,638$              (557,835)$           5,691,803$       571,781$         State Water Resource Loan ‐ 2010 4,559,731    (240,797)   4,318,934         247,780   Water and Wastewater Refunding Bonds, Series 2011 4,210,000    (300,000)   3,910,000         310,000    ‐ Unamortized Premium 381,937     (34,722)   347,215             (34,722)    Water and Wastewater Refunding Bonds, Series 2013 11,345,000              (755,000)   10,590,000       785,000    ‐ Unamortized Premium 1,082,595    (90,216)   992,379             (90,216)    Water and Wastewater Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 16,500,000              (920,000)   15,580,000       935,000    ‐ Unamortized Premium 2,794,434    (199,603)   2,594,831         (199,603)     Total Business‐Type Activities 47,123,335$            (3,098,173)$        44,025,162$     2,525,020$         68 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 6 – LONG‐TERM DEBT (Continued)  A. Long‐Term Debt from Governmental Activities Pension Obligation Bonds, 2006 Series A Bonds – Original Issue $32,975,000 In September 2006, the City issued $32,975,000 in taxable pension obligation bonds.  The City is obligated to make payments to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) as a result of retirement benefits accruing to members of CalPERS.  The  City’s  statutory  obligation includes, among others, the requirement to amortize the unfunded accrued actuarial liability (UAAL) and to make contributions with respect to such retirement benefits.  The proceeds of the bonds were used to provide funds to allow the City to refund its current UAAL with respect to retirement benefits accruing to members of CalPERS and to prepay a portion of its contribution to CalPERS for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007. The obligation of the City to make payments with respect to the bond  is  an  absolute  and  unconditional  obligation  of  the  City,  and  payment  of  principal  and  of interest is not limited to any special source of funds. Principal on the bonds is payable annually on June 1.  Interest on the bonds is payable semi‐annually June 1 and December 1.  During fiscal year 2017‐18,  the  City  made  principal  and  interest  payments  totaling  $3,175,000  and  $670,225, respectively. The bonds mature on June 1, 2036, and the underlying serial and term bonds carry an interest rate that varies from 5.2% to 5.5%. For The Year  Ending June 30 Principal Interest Total 2019 460,000$       496,648$    956,648$     2020 505,000 471,500 976,500 2021 555,000 443,891 998,891 2022 605,000 413,550 1,018,550 2023 660,000 379,966 1,039,966 2024‐2028 2,455,000 1,373,318 3,828,318 2029‐2033 2,080,000 820,438 2,900,438 2034‐2036 1,650,000 187,624 1,837,624 8,970,000$      4,586,935$    13,556,935$     69 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 6 – LONG‐TERM DEBT (Continued)  A.Long‐Term Debt from Governmental Activities (Continued) Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2010 – Original Issue $8,205,000 In 2010, the Authority issued $8,205,000 of Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2010 to refund and defease all of the Authority’s outstanding Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2001, which financed certain improvements to the City’s Corporation Yard and paid the costs of issuance of the bonds. The bonds are limited obligations of the Authority payable solely from revenues, consisting primarily of base rental payments to be made by the City, and amounts on deposit in certain funds and accounts on deposit in certain funds and accounts held under the trust agreement.  A premium of $579,892 was paid and will be amortized over the life of the bonds. The transaction resulted in an economic  gain  of  $1,150,926  and  a  reduction  of  $2,575,952  in  future  debt  service  payments. Principal is due annually on June 1, commencing on June 1, 2007. Interest on the bonds is payable semiannually on June 1 and December 1, commencing on December 1, 2010.  During fiscal year 2017‐18,  the  City  made  principal  and  interest  payments  totaling  $1,020,000  and  $144,875, respectively. The bonds mature on June 1, 2021, and the underlying serial and term bonds carry an interest rate that varies from 2.5% to 4.0%. For The Year  Ending June 30 Principal Interest Total 2019 1,050,000$     114,275$          1,164,275$       2020 1,085,000  82,775  1,167,775     2021 1,125,000  39,375  1,164,375     3,260,000  236,425    3,496,425     Plus: Unamortized    premium 163,094      163,094   3,423,094$     236,425$          3,659,519$       70 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 6 – LONG‐TERM DEBT (Continued)  A.Long‐Term Debt from Governmental Activities (Continued) Storm Drainage Revenue Bonds, Series 2010 –   Original Issue $9,805,000 Series 2010A‐1 Tax‐Exempt $2,635,000  Series  2010A‐2  Taxable  –  Build  America  Bonds  $7,170,000  The Authority issued Storm Drainage Revenue Bonds, Series 2010 to provide funds to the City to  finance certain improvements to the City’s Storm Drainage System and fund a reserve account for  the  bonds.    The  bonds  are  limited  obligations  of  the  Authority payable  solely  from  revenues  generally consisting of installment payments to be made by the City and from amounts on deposit in  certain funds and accounts held under the trust agreement.  The installment payments are special  obligations of the City under the 2010 Installment Sale Agreement and are separately secured by a  pledge of the system revenues of the Storm Drainage System. System revenues are required to be at  least equal to 110% of the maximum annual debt service for all outstanding installment payments  and all outstanding parity obligations during each fiscal year. The system revenues consist primarily  of Storm Drainage Fees approved by a majority of the parcel owners in the City voting at a special  election May 5, 2009.  The bonds include $2,635,000 in tax‐exempt bonds and $7,170,000 in taxable  Build America Bonds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act).   Pursuant to the Recovery Act, the City expects to receive a cash subsidy payment from the United  States Treasury up to 35% of the interest payable on the Series 2010A‐2 bonds on or about each  interest payment date.  The Refundable Credits received by the City constitute system revenues and  are pledged to the payment of installment payments under the Installment Sale Agreement.  The  tax‐exempt series was issued at a premium of $210,326, which will be amortized over the life of the  bonds. Principal is due annually on July 1, commencing July 1, 2011.  Interest on the bonds is  payable semiannually on January 1 and July 1, commencing on January 1, 2011. During fiscal year  2017‐18, the City made principal and interest payments on the tax‐exempt series totaling $250,000  and $46,725 respectively. Principal and interest payments on  the taxable series totaled $0 and  $475,245 respectively, net of the Build America Bonds interest subsidy. The bonds mature on July 1,  2038, and the underlying serial and term bonds carry interest rates which vary from 3.0% to 6.8%.  71 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 6 – LONG‐TERM DEBT (Continued)  A.Long‐Term Debt from Governmental Activities (Continued) Storm Drainage Revenue Bonds, Series 2010 (continued) For The Year  Ending June 30 Principal Interest Total 2019 265,000$      34,225$      299,225$        2020 275,000 20,975 295,975 2021 285,000 9,975 294,975 825,000 65,175 890,175 Plus: Unamortized   premium 149,660     ‐   149,660 974,660$      65,175$      1,039,835$     Storm Drainage ‐ Series 2010A‐1 ‐ Tax Exempt Governmental For The Year  Ending June 30 Principal Interest Subsidy Total 2019 475,245$                  (156,023)$                 319,222$     2020 475,245 (156,023) 319,222 2021 475,245 (156,023) 319,222 2022 295,000$                475,245 (156,023) 614,222 2023 310,000 457,377 (150,157) 617,220 2024‐2028 1,740,000 1,984,794 (651,608)3,073,186 2029‐2033 2,155,000 1,358,117 (445,870)3,067,247 2034‐2038 2,670,000 559,815 (183,787)3,046,028 7,170,000$    6,261,083$             (2,055,514)$            11,375,569$      Governmental Storm Drainage ‐ Series 2010B Taxable ‐ Build America Bonds 72 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 6 – LONG‐TERM DEBT (Continued)  A. Long‐Term Debt from Governmental Activities (Continued) Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2012 – Original Issue $10,030,000 In December 2012, the Authority issued the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2012 to finance certain improvements  to  Downtown  Burlingame  Avenue  in  accordance  with  the  City’s  Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Project and to pay the costs of issuance of the bonds.  The bonds are limited obligations of the Authority payable solely from revenues, consisting primarily of base rental payments to be made by the City, pursuant to a facilities sublease dated October 2, 2012. The bonds were issued at a premium of $237,936, which will be amortized over the life of the bonds. Principal and interest are due annually on June 1, commencing on June 1, 2013. During fiscal year 2017‐18,  the  City  made  principal  and  interest  payments  totaling  $225,000  and  $324,888, respectively. The bonds mature on June 1, 2042, and the underlying serial and term bonds carry an interest rate that varies from 2.0% to 5.0%. For The Year  Ending June 30 Principal Interest Total 2019 235,000$         315,888$     550,888$      2020 245,000      306,488  551,488   2021 250,000      296,688  546,688   2022 265,000      286,688  551,688   2023 275,000      276,088  551,088   2024‐2028 1,560,000  1,181,826   2,741,826    2029‐2033 1,835,000 913,118 2,748,118    2034‐2038 2,160,000 585,550 2,745,550    2039‐2042 2,020,000 179,725 2,199,725    8,845,000  4,342,059   13,187,059       Plus: Unamortized     premium 197,607      ‐$      197,607   9,042,607$      4,342,059$     13,384,666$        73 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 6 – LONG‐TERM DEBT (Continued)  A. Long‐Term Debt from Governmental Activities (Continued) Storm Drainage Revenue Bonds, Series 2012 – Original Issue $10,615,000 In December 2012, the Authority issued Storm Drainage Revenue Bonds, Series 2012 to provide funds to the City to finance certain improvements to the City’s Storm Drainage System and fund a reserve account for the bonds.  The bonds are limited obligations of the Authority payable solely from  revenues  generally  consisting  of  installment  payments  to  be  made  by  the  City  and  from amounts on deposit in certain funds and accounts held under the trust agreement.  The installment payments are special obligations of the City under the 2012 Installment Sale Agreement and are separately  secured  by  a  pledge  of  the  system  revenues  of  the  Storm  Drainage  System.  System revenues are required to be at least equal to 110% of the maximum annual debt service for all outstanding installment payments and all outstanding parity obligations during each fiscal year. The system revenues consist primarily of Storm Drainage Fees approved by a majority of the parcel owners in the City voting at a special election May 5, 2009.  Principal is due annually on July 1, commencing  July  1,  2013.  Interest  on  bonds  is  payable  semiannually on January 1 and July 1, commencing  on  July  1,  2013.    During  fiscal  year  2017‐18,  the  City  made  principal  and  interest payments totaling $300,000 and $323,544 respectively. The bonds mature on July 1, 2038, and the underlying serial and term bonds carry interest rates which vary from 2.0% to 5.0%. For The Year  Ending June 30 Principal Interest Total 2019 310,000$             311,544$      621,544$        2020 325,000       299,144 624,144 2021 340,000 286,144 626,144 2022 360,000 269,144 629,144 2023 370,000 251,144 621,144 2024‐2028 2,105,000 1,019,195 3,124,195 2029‐2033 2,430,000 690,175 3,120,175 2034‐2038 2,835,000 282,427 3,117,427 9,075,000   3,408,917     12,483,917      Plus: Unamortized   premium 218,476       ‐$        218,476   9,293,476$         3,408,917$         12,702,393$        74 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 6 – LONG‐TERM DEBT (Continued)  A. Long‐Term Debt from Governmental Activities (Continued) Storm Drainage Revenue Bonds, Series 2016– Original Issue $9,855,000 In February 2016, the Authority issued Storm Drainage Revenue Bonds, Series 2016 to provide funds to the City to finance certain improvements to the City’s Storm Drainage System and fund a reserve account for the bonds.  The bonds are limited obligations of the Authority payable solely from revenues generally consisting of installment payments to be made by the City and from amounts on deposit in certain funds and accounts held under the trust agreement.  The Installment Payments are special obligations of the City under the 2016 Installment Sale Agreement and are secured by a pledge of the System Revenues of the Storm Drainage System on a parity with the installment payments under the 2010 Installment Sale Agreement and the 2012 Installment Sale Agreement. System revenues are required to be at least equal to 110% of the maximum annual debt service for all outstanding installment payments and all outstanding parity obligations during each fiscal year. The system revenues consist primarily of Storm Drainage Fees approved by a majority of the parcel owners in the City voting at a special election May 5, 2009.  Principal is due annually on July 1, commencing  July  1,  2016.  Interest  on  bonds  is  payable  semiannually on January 1 and July 1, commencing  on  July  1,  2017.  During  fiscal  year  2017‐18,  the  City  made  principal  and  interest payments totaling $275,000 and $377,325, respectively. The bonds mature on July 1, 2038, and the underlying serial and term bonds carry interest rates which vary from 2.0% to 5.0%. For The Year  Ending June 30 Principal Interest Total 2019 280,000$    369,075$      649,075$       2020 295,000 357,875 652,875 2021 305,000 346,075 651,075 2022 310,000 333,875 643,875 2023 335,000 318,375 653,375 2024‐2028 1,925,000 1,325,625 3,250,625 2029‐2033 2,435,000 835,275 3,270,275 2034‐2038 2,915,000 383,225 3,298,225 8,800,000  4,269,400  13,069,400   Plus: Unamortized   premium 931,849  931,849   9,731,849$    4,269,400$    14,001,249$      75 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 6 – LONG‐TERM DEBT (Continued)  B.Long‐Term Debt from Business‐Type Activities State Water Resources Control Board Loan, 2003 – Principal $10,743,788 In 2003, the City entered into an agreement with the State of California Water Resources Control Board (CWRCB) to receive financial assistance for the improvement of the wastewater treatment plant which consists of upgrading the performance of several unit processes and increasing their reliability to help the plant meet discharge requirements. The loan is due in annual installment payments at an interest of 1.5%.  Installment payments will start August 2007 and shall be fully amortized August 2026. The City is required to maintain compliance with all provisions of the loan. During fiscal  year  2017‐18,  the  City  made  principal  and  interest  payments  of  $557,835 and $156,241 respectively. For The Year  Ending June 30 Principal Interest Total 2019 571,781$        142,295$    714,076$         2020 586,075 128,001 714,076 2021 600,727 113,349 714,076 2022 615,745 98,331 714,076 2023 631,139 82,937 714,076 2024‐2027 2,686,336 169,968 2,856,304 5,691,803$    734,881$    6,426,684$           76 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 6 – LONG‐TERM DEBT (Continued)  B. Long‐Term Debt from Business‐Type Activities (Continued) State Water Resources Control Board Loan, 2010 – Principal $5,605,800 In 2010, the City entered into an agreement with CWRCB to receive financial assistance for the Influent Storm Water Retention Basin project at the City’s wastewater treatment facility, which involves  the  construction  of  an  influent  storm  water  retention  basin  and  associated  pumping system, commencing in July 2011. The loan is due in annual installments payments at an interest of 2.9%, and the net revenues of the Sewer Fund are pledged for the prompt payment of debt service on the loan. Installment payments commenced July 2012 and shall be fully amortized in July 2031. The City is required to maintain compliance with all provisions of the loan. During fiscal year 2017‐ 18, the City made principal and interest payments of $240,797 and $132,232, respectively. For The Year  Ending June 30 Principal Interest Total 2019 247,780$    125,249$     373,029$     2020 254,966 118,063 373,029 2021 262,360 110,670 373,030 2022 269,968 103,062 373,030 2023 277,797 95,232 373,029 2024‐2028 1,514,605 350,542 1,865,147 2029‐2032 1,491,458 114,508 1,605,966 4,318,934$    1,017,326$     5,336,260$       77 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 6 – LONG‐TERM DEBT (Continued)  B.Long‐Term Debt from Business‐Type Activities (Continued) Water and Wastewater Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2011 – Original Issue $5,935,000 In 2011,  the  Authority  issued  $5,935,000  of  Water  and  Wastewater  Refunding  Revenue Bonds, Series 2011  to  refund  and  defease  all  of  the  Authority’s  outstanding  Water  and  Wastewater Revenue  Bonds,  Series  2003,  which  financed  certain  improvements to the City’s water and wastewater  system,  and  to  pay  the  costs  of  issuance  of  the  bonds.  The bonds are a limited obligation of the Authority payable solely from revenues generally consisting of separate installment payments to be made by the City which are secured by a pledge of the net revenue generated from the water system, wastewater system, and from amounts on deposits in certain funds and held under the trust agreement. Net system revenues will be equal to at least 120% of the installment payments  and  debt  service  on  any  parity  obligations  during  each  fiscal  year,  and  net system revenues (excluding connection fees and money transferred from any rate stabilization fund) will be equal to at least 100% of the installment payments and debt service on other parity obligations during each fiscal year.  Principal is payable annually on April 1, commencing April 1, 2012. Interest on the bonds is payable semiannually on April 1 and October 1, commencing April 1, 2012. The bonds mature on April 1, 2028, with an interest rate that varies from 4.00 to 4.75%. A premium of $575,800 was paid and will be amortized over the life of the bond.  The refunding transaction resulted in an economic gain of $450,734 and a reduction of $1,429,732 in future debt service payments. For the current year, principal and interest paid on the Water and Wastewater Bonds, Series 2011  were  $300,000  and  $196,751,  respectively.    Of  this amount,  principal  and interest payments made by the Water Enterprise Fund were $190,000 and $125,263. Principal and interest payments made by the Sewer Enterprise Fund were $110,000 and $71,488. For The Year  Ending June 30 Principal Interest Total 2019 310,000$        187,751$         497,751$          2020 330,000 172,251 502,251 2021 345,000 155,751 500,751 2022 360,000 138,501 498,501 2023 380,000 120,501 500,501 2024‐2028 2,185,000 311,455 2,496,455 3,910,000 1,086,210 4,996,210 Plus: Unamortized   premium 347,215 347,215 4,257,215$    1,086,210$     5,343,425$       78 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 6 – LONG‐TERM DEBT (Continued)  B.Long‐Term Debt from Business‐Type Activities (Continued) Water and Wastewater Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2013 – Original Issue $14,260,000 In 2013, the Authority issued $14,260,000 of Water and Wastewater Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2013 to advance refund the Authority’s outstanding Water and Wastewater Revenue Bonds, Series 2004, which financed certain improvements to the City’s water and wastewater system, and to pay the costs of issuance of the bonds.  The bonds are a limited obligation of the Authority payable solely from revenues generally consisting of separate installment payments to be made by the  City  which  are  secured  by  a  pledge  of  the  net  revenue  generated  from  the  water  system, wastewater system, and from amounts on deposit in certain funds and held under the trust agreement. Net system revenues will be equal to at least 120% of the installment payments and debt service on any parity obligations during each fiscal year, and net system revenues (excluding connection fees and money transferred from any rate stabilization fund) will be equal to at least 100% of the installment payments and debt service on other parity obligations during each fiscal year. Principal is payable annually on April 1, commencing April 1, 2013. Interest on the bonds is payable semi‐annually on April 1 and October 1, commencing October 1, 2013. During fiscal year 2017‐18, the City made principal and interest payments of $755,000 and $449,901, respectively.  Of this amount, principal and interest payments made by the Water Enterprise Fund were $505,000 and $299,038. Principal and interest payments made by the Sewer Enterprise Fund were $250,000 and $150,863.   The bonds mature on April 1, 2029, with underlying serial and term bonds carrying an interest rate that varies from 2.00% to 5.00%. The bond was issued a premium of $1,533,676 which  will  be  amortized  over  the  life  of  the  bond.   The  refunding  transaction  resulted  in  an economic gain of $584,903. For The Year  Ending June 30 Principal Interest Total 2019 785,000$    419,701$    1,204,701$        2020 815,000 388,301 1,203,301 2021 845,000 359,776 1,204,776 2022 875,000 325,976 1,200,976 2023 910,000 290,976 1,200,976 2024‐2028 5,190,000 827,630 6,017,630 2029 1,170,000 38,026 1,208,026 10,590,000 2,650,386 13,240,386 Plus unamortized    premium 992,379 992,379 11,582,379$  2,650,386$     14,232,765$       79 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 6 – LONG‐TERM DEBT (Continued)  B.Long‐Term Debt from Business‐Type Activities (Continued) Water and Wastewater Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 – Original Issue $17,585,000 In July 2016, the Authority issued $17,585,000 of Water and Wastewater Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 to advance refund the Authority’s outstanding Water and Wastewater Revenue Bonds, Series 2007, which financed certain improvements to the City’s water and wastewater system, and to pay the costs of issuance of the bonds.  The bonds are a limited obligation of the Authority payable solely from revenues generally consisting of separate installment payments to be made by the  City  which  are  secured  by  a  pledge  of  the  net  revenue  generated  from  the  water system, wastewater system, and from amounts on deposit in certain funds and held under the trust agreement. Net system revenues will be equal to at least 120% of the installment payments and debt service on any parity obligations during each fiscal year, and net system revenues (excluding connection fees and money transferred from any rate stabilization fund) will be equal to at least 100% of the installment payments and debt service on other parity obligations during each fiscal year. Principal is payable annually on April 1, commencing April 1, 2017. Interest on the bonds is payable semi‐annually on April 1 and October 1, commencing October 1, 2016. During fiscal year 2017‐18, the City made principal and interest payments of $920,000 and $667,200, respectively.  Of this amount, principal and interest payments made by the Water Enterprise Fund were $485,000 and $348,450. Principal and interest payments made by the Sewer Enterprise Fund were $435,000 and $318,750.   The bonds mature on April 1, 2031, with underlying serial and term bonds carrying an interest rate that varies from 2.00% to 5.00%. The bond was issued a premium of $2,994,038 which will be amortized over the life of the bond. For The Year  Ending June 30 Principal Interest Total 2019 935,000$        648,800$         1,583,800$          2020 950,000 630,100 1,580,100 2021 985,000 592,100 1,577,100 2022 1,035,000 552,700 1,587,700 2023 1,080,000 500,950 1,580,950 2024‐2028 6,210,000 1,679,200 7,889,200 2029‐2031 4,385,000 355,400 4,740,400 15,580,000 4,959,250 20,539,250 Plus: Unamortized     premium 2,594,831 ‐    2,594,831 18,174,831$  4,959,250$     23,134,081$           80 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018      NOTE 6 – LONG‐TERM DEBT (Continued)    C.  Future Debt Requirements    The future outstanding debt of the City, net of amortized costs  as  of  June  30,  2018,  for  governmental activities is as follows:    For The Year  Ending June 30 Principal Interest Total 2019 2,600,000$          1,960,877$          4,560,877$           2020 2,730,000            1,857,979             4,587,979             2021 2,860,000            1,741,370             4,601,370             2022 1,835,000            1,622,479             3,457,479             2023 1,950,000            1,532,793             3,482,793             2024‐2028 9,785,000            6,233,150             16,018,150           2029‐2033 10,935,000          4,171,253             15,106,253           2034‐2038 12,230,000          1,814,854             14,044,854           2039‐2043 2,020,000            179,725                2,199,725             46,945,000          21,114,480          68,059,480           Plus: Unamortized       premium 1,660,686            1,660,686             48,605,686$        21,114,480$        69,720,166$        The future outstanding debt of the City, net of amortized costs as of June 30, 2018, for business‐ type activities is as follows:    For The Year  Ending June 30 Principal Interest Total 2019 2,849,561$    1,523,796$     4,373,357$              2020 2,936,041 1,436,716 4,372,757 2021 3,038,087 1,331,646 4,369,733 2022 3,155,713 1,218,570 4,374,283 2023 3,278,936 1,090,596 4,369,532 2024‐2028 17,785,941 3,338,795 21,124,736 2029‐2032 7,046,458 507,934 7,554,392 40,090,737 10,448,053 50,538,790 Plus unamortized       premium 3,934,425 3,934,425 44,025,162$  10,448,053$   54,473,215$             81 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 6 – LONG‐TERM DEBT (Continued)  D. Arbitrage Rebate Liability Under U.S. Treasury Department regulations, all government tax – exempt debt issued after August 31, 1986, is subject to arbitrage rebate requirements. The requirements stipulate, in general, that the excess of earnings from the investment of tax‐exempt bond proceeds over related interest expenditure on the bonds must be remitted to the federal government on every fifth anniversary of each  bond  issue.  The  city  has  valuated  each  outstanding  debt  obligation  that  is  subjected  to arbitrage rebate requirement and has determined that there is no arbitrage rebate liability as of June 30, 2018. E. Credit Rating The City carried underlying ratings of AA+ for the Water and Sewer Funds, AA+ for the Storm Drainage Fund, and AA+ as the City’s institutional credit rating for general obligation debt. These ratings were most recently affirmed by Standard & Poor’s in June 2016. F. Revenue Pledge The City has pledged future revenues to debt service on previously issued revenue bonds to finance the capital programs related to the Water and Sewer Funds or defease previously issued revenue bonds:  (1)  Water  and  Wastewater  Revenue  Bonds,  Series  2011;  (2)  Water  and  Wastewater Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2013; (3) Water and Wastewater Refunding  Revenue  Bonds, Series 2016. Debt service on certain bonds are payable solely through the net revenue of the activities of the Water and Sewer Funds. G. Revenue Pledge Under the provisions of GASB Statement No. 48, the City’s net revenue for the year ended June 30, 2018, and net amounts available to pay debt service on the revenue bonds are as follows: Water Fund Sewer Fund Pledged revenue required for future principal and interest 22,701,498$    27,837,292$    Principal and interest paid during the year 1,952,751     2,423,206   Net revenue, excluding depreciation and amortization 6,791,469     8,446,134   Percentage of revenue pledged 28.75% 28.69% Term of commitment 2031 2031   82 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 6 – LONG‐TERM DEBT (Continued)  H.Debt Service Coverage Under  the  terms  of  the  City’s  Indenture,  the  Water  and  Sewer  Funds are required to collect sufficient net revenues each fiscal year, which may include any other unappropriated enterprise funds available for expenditure on debt service. The Indenture requires that net revenues are, at minimum, equal to 1.20 times annual debt service for the applicable fiscal year. For the year ended June 30, 2018, the Water and Sewer Funds had sufficient net revenues to satisfy the requirements of the Indenture. Under the terms of the City’s Indenture, the Storm Drainage Fund is required to collect sufficient net revenues  each  fiscal  year,  which  may  include  any  other  unappropriated  funds  available for expenditure on debt service. The Indenture requires that net revenues are, at minimum, equal to 1.10 times annual debt service for the applicable fiscal year. For the year ended June 30, 2018, the Storm Drainage Fund had sufficient net revenues to satisfy the requirements of the Indenture. Other obligations relating to governmental activities are paid solely from available revenue of the City, such as the Lease Revenue Bonds Series 2010 and the Pension Obligation Bonds Series 2006, which are subordinate to previously issued parity debt relating to the Water and Sewer Funds. The following table summarizes debt service coverage levels for the Water Fund for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018: Gross operating revenue 18,635,292$   Less: Operating expenses, except depreciation and amortization (11,843,823)   Net revenue 6,791,469    Debt Service Water Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 833,450    Water Refunding Bonds, Series 2011 315,263    Water Refunding Bonds, Series 2013 804,038    Parity Debt Service 1,952,751    Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2010 384,409    Pension Obligation Bond, Series 2006 480,653    Total Debt Service 2,817,813$     Parity Debt Service Coverage 3.48 Total Debt Service Coverage 2.41 Water Fund 83 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 6 – LONG‐TERM DEBT (Continued)  H. Debt Service Coverage (Continued) The following table summarizes debt service coverage levels for the Sewer Fund for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018: Sewer Fund Gross operating revenue 15,866,790$    Less: Operating expenses, except depreciation and amortization (7,420,656)       Net revenue 8,446,134         Debt Service State Water Resource Board Loan, 2003  714,076$          Wastewater Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 753,750             State Water Resource Board Loan, 2010 373,029             Wastewater Refunding Bonds, Series 2011 181,488             Wastewater Refunding Bonds, Series 2013 400,863             Parity Debt Service 2,423,206         Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2010 384,409             Pension Obligation Bond, Series 2006 480,653             Total Debt Service 3,288,268$       Parity Debt Service Coverage 3.49 Total Debt Service Coverage 2.57 The following table summarizes debt service coverage levels for the Storm Drainage Fund for the  fiscal year ending June 30, 2018:  Storm Drainage Fund Net Revenue, Excluding Depreciation and Amortization 3,012,964$     Debt Service Storm Drain Revenue Bond, Series 2010 771,970 Storm Drain Revenue Bond, Series 2012 623,544    Storm Drain Revenue Bond, Series 2016 652,325    Parity Debt Service 2,047,839$     Parity Debt Service Coverage 1.47 84 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018      NOTE 7 – OTHER LONG‐TERM LIABILITIES  NOTE 7  A.  Compensated Absences    The  City’s  compensated  absences  consist  of  accumulated  vacation,  compensatory  time,  and  administrative leave for management employees.  The estimated unpaid compensated absences at  June 30, 2018 are recorded in the government‐wide and proprietary fund financial statements.      The City permits its employees to accumulate vacation hours up to a maximum of two years of  annual accrual.  Depending on the bargaining unit, Sick leave is accumulated up to 2000 or 2080  hours. Upon retirement unused sick leave is reported to CalPERS and converted to service credit in  accordance with CalPERS rules and procedures.  Depending on the bargaining unit, an employee  may elect to be compensated for up to 600 hours of unused sick leave and the remainder can be  reported to CalPERS for conversion to service credit.    At  retirement  or  termination,  employees  receive  compensation  for  any  unused  vacation  leave  balance,  any  accrued  compensatory  time,  and  administrative  leave  for  management  employees.   Such  cash  payments  are  recognized  as  expenditures  of  the  government‐wide  and  proprietary  funds.  The  General  Fund  has  been  primarily  used  to liquidate  the  liability  for  compensated absences.    Governmental Business Total Balance on June 30, 2017 2,512,435$         303,871$           2,816,306$          Additions 1,887,108           369,178             2,256,286            Payments (1,952,476) (347,911) (2,300,387) Balance on June 30, 2018 2,447,067$         325,138$           2,772,205$          Due Within One Year 407,912$            59,577$             467,489$             Noncurrent Portion 2,039,155$         265,561$           2,304,716$             B.  Pollution Remediation Obligation     Landfill Closure and Post‐Closure Costs    The  City  closed  the  Burlingame  Landfill  located  on  Airport  Boulevard  in  accordance  with  the  California  Code  of  Regulations  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  California  Integrated  Waste  Management Board in 1987.  The landfill had been filled to capacity and has been reconstructed as a  multi‐use recreational facility.    State  and  federal  laws  and  regulations  require  that  the  City  perform  certain  maintenance  and  monitoring functions at the landfill site. These same regulations require the City to make annual  contributions and/or provide an alternative funding mechanism to finance closure and post‐closure  costs. The City has collected a surcharge on solid waste collection fees in order to cover these costs.  The City was also required by the Bay Area Air Quality Management Board to install a gas collection  system.  85 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 7 – OTHER LONG‐TERM LIABILITIES (Continued)  In 1997, the City developed a post‐closure plan that met all regulatory requirements. The post‐ closure estimate was $3,660,000. In 2008, the City recognized an additional liability, as required by  the State, for corrective action. The corrective action cost estimate was $733,100. Consequently, the  City recorded 100% of its closure and post‐closure costs based upon these estimates. At June 30,  2018,  the  City’s  outstanding  future  post‐closure  and  corrective action costs were estimated at  $3,228,760. This estimate is based upon the original estimates for post‐closure and corrective action  costs as reported to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) as  adjusted,  based  on  changes  in  the  implicit  price  deflator  for  the  gross  national  product  in  accordance with Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations, reduced by any permitted 15 year  amortization  of  post‐closure  costs,  and  adjusted  for  incurred  costs and expected costs of  remediation.  The City will fund ongoing post‐closure costs with a combination of revenues from the surcharge  and interest earnings. However, if these revenues are inadequate or additional post‐closure care  requirements are determined, these costs may need to be covered by additional garbage surcharges  or from future tax revenue.  NOTE 8 – RISK MANAGEMENT  NOTE 8  A.Self‐Insurance and Contingent Liabilities Effective July 1, 1976, and December 2, 1976, respectively, the City implemented a self‐insurance program for  workers’  compensation  and  general  liability.  The  City  is  a  member  of  the Pooled Liability Assurance Network Joint Powers Authority (PLAN JPA), a joint powers insurance authority which  consists  of  28  member  cities  in  the  San  Francisco  Bay  Area.  PLAN  JPA  provides  liability insurance with coverage, claims management, risk management services, and legal defense to its participating members. PLAN JPA is governed by a board of directors, which comprises officials appointed by each participating member. Premiums paid to PLAN JPA are subject to possible refund based on the results of actuarial studies and approval by PLAN JPA’s board of directors. Premiums are  assessed  to  the  participants  based  on  their  individual  loss experience. The PLAN JPA claim administrators set the reserve levels for known liability claims.  General liability insurance coverage has been purchased by PLAN JPA for losses exceeding $250,000 up to a maximum of $10,000,000. The workers’ compensation program is administered by a third‐party administrator (TPA).  The TPA sets reserve levels for reported claims. Excess workers’ compensation insurance has been purchased by the City for losses exceeding $500,000 up to the maximum statutory limit. The City’s liabilities are reported when it is both probable that a loss has occurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The claims and litigation liabilities are reported in the governmental activities of the government‐wide financial statements and in the internal service fund and include an amount for claims that have been incurred but not reported. The liabilities are re‐evaluated annually using the results of actuarial studies. The estimated liability for claims and litigation is calculated considering recent claim settlement trends, amounts for claims incurred but not reported, current settlements, frequency of claims, past experience, and economic factors. 86 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 8 – RISK MANAGEMENT (Continued)  A.Self‐Insurance and Contingent Liabilities (Continued) Changes in the balances of the City’s claims liabilities were as follows: Current Year Payments for Claims and Current and Balance Changes in Prior Fiscal Balance July 1 Estimates Years June 30 2010‐2011 6,640,000$        2,524,265$       (2,524,265)$       6,640,000$        2011‐2012 6,640,000 1,516,265 (1,085,265) 7,071,000 2012‐2013 7,071,000 1,595,000 (1,892,000) 6,774,000 2013‐2014 6,774,000 2,813,959 (1,692,959) 7,895,000 2014‐2015 7,895,000 911,838 (1,791,838) 7,015,000 2015‐2016 7,015,000 910,959 (1,507,959) 6,418,000 2016‐2017 6,418,000 1,675,414         (1,558,414) 6,535,000   2017‐2018 6,535,000 1,591,781         (1,461,781) 6,665,000   There have been no significant reductions in any insurance coverage, nor have there been any  insurance related settlements that exceeded insurance coverage during the past eight fiscal years.  In September 2016, an actuarial review was conducted and completed to identify the estimated  liability for the City’s Self‐Insured General Liability Program as well as determine the various funding  confidence levels to cover that liability.  The study estimated the expected liability for outstanding  claims to be $823,000 as of June 30, 2018.  The study recommends that the City set aside an amount  in addition to the discounted expected loss costs to be set aside as a margin for contingencies. As of  June 30, 2018, the City has funded the general liability program at the 90% confidence level noted in  the actuarial report, or $823,000.  In September 2016, an actuarial review was conducted and completed to identify the estimated  liability for the City’s Self‐Insured Workers’ Compensation Program as well as determine the various  funding confidence levels to cover that liability as of June 30, 2018.  The study estimated that the  outstanding claims at June 30, 2018, were $5,842,000.  The study also recommends that an amount  be set aside as a margin for contingencies.  As of June 30, 2018, the City has funded the workers’  compensation program at the 70% confidence level noted in the actuarial report, or $5,842,000.   87 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 9 – PENSION PLANS – COST‐SHARING  NOTE 9  A. General information about the Safety Pension Plan The City’s Safety Plan is part of the public agency cost‐sharing multiple‐employer defined benefit pension plan, which is administered by CalPERS.  The Plan consists of a miscellaneous pool and a safety  pool  (also  referred  to  as  “risk  pools”),  which  are  comprised  of  individual  employer miscellaneous and safety rate plans, respectively.  Individual employers may sponsor more than one miscellaneous  and  safety  rate  plan.   The  employer  participates  in  one  cost‐sharing  multiple‐ employer  defined  benefit  pension  plan  regardless  of  the  number of  rate  plans  the  employer sponsors.  The City sponsors two rate plans (Police Classic tier and Police PEPRA tier) within the safety risk pool. Plan Descriptions – All qualified permanent and probationary employees are eligible to participate in the City’s separate Safety Employee Pension plan, cost‐sharing multiple‐employer defined benefit pension plans administered by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), which acts as a common investment and administrative agent for its participating member employers. Benefit provisions under the Plans are established by State statute and the City’s resolution. CalPERS issues publicly available reports that include a full description of the pension plans regarding benefit provisions, assumptions and membership information that can be found on the CalPERS website. Benefits Provided – CalPERS provides service retirement and disability benefits, annual cost of living adjustments and death benefits to plan members, who must be public employees and beneficiaries. Benefits are based on years of credited service, equal to one year of full time employment. Members with five years of total service are eligible to retire at age 50 with statutorily reduced benefits. All members are eligible for non‐duty disability benefits after 10 years of service. The death benefit is one of the following: the Basic Death Benefit, the 1957 Survivor Benefit, or the Optional Settlement 2W Death Benefit. The cost of living adjustments for each plan are applied as specified by the Public Employees’ Retirement Law.  The Pension  Reform  Act  of  2013  (PEPRA),  Assembly  Bill  340,  is applicable to employees new to CalPERS and hired after December 31, 2012. The Plan’s provisions and benefits in effect at June 30, 2018, are summarized as follows: Classic PEPRA Hire date Prior to  January 1, 2013 On or after  January 1, 2013 Benefit formula 3.0% @ 50 2.7% @ 57 Benefit vesting schedule 5 years service 5 years service Benefit payments monthly for life monthly for life Retirement age 50 ‐ 55 50 ‐ 57 Monthly benefits, as a % of annual salary 3% 2.0 % ‐ 2.7% Required employee contribution rates 9% 12.25% Required employer contribution rates 21.418% 12.729% Safety 88 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 9 – PENSION PLANS – COST‐SHARING (Continued)  A. General information about the Safety Pension Plan (Continued) Beginning in fiscal year 2017, CalPERS collects employer contributions for the cost‐sharing plan as a percentage of payroll for the normal cost portion as noted in the rates above and as a dollar amount for contributions toward the unfunded liability and side fund.  The dollar amounts are billed on a monthly basis.  The City’s required contribution for the unfunded liability was $1,136,668 in fiscal year 2018. Contributions – Section 20814(c) of the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law requires that the employer contribution rates for all public employers be determined on an annual basis by the actuary and  shall be effective on the July 1 following notice  of  a  change  in  the  rate.    Funding contributions for the Plan are determined annually on an actuarial basis as of June 30 by CalPERS. The actuarially determined rate is the estimated amount necessary to finance the costs of benefits earned by employees during the year, with an additional amount to finance any unfunded accrued liability.  The City is required to contribute the difference between the actuarially determined rate and the contribution rate of employees. For the year ended June 30, 2018, the contributions recognized as part of pension expense for each Plan were as follows: Safety ‐ Classic Safety ‐ PEPRA Contributions ‐ employer 2,007,570$           98,691$                B. Pension  Liabilities,  Pension  Expenses,  and  Deferred  Outflows/Inflows  of  Resources  Related  to Pensions As of June 30, 2018, the City reported net pension liabilities for its proportionate shares of the net pension liability of the Plan as follows: Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability Safety 27,003,552$          The net pension liability of the Plan is measured as of June 30, 2017, and the total pension liability  for the Plan used to calculate the net pension liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of  June 30, 2016, rolled forward  to  June 30, 2017,  using standard update  procedures.    The  City’s  proportion  of  the  net  pension  liability  was  based  on  a  projection of City’s long‐term share of  contributions  to  the  pension  plan  relative  to  the  projected  contributions  of  all  participating  employers, actuarially determined.  For governmental funds, the General Fund has been primarily  used to liquidate pension liabilities.  89 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 9 – PENSION PLANS – COST‐SHARING (Continued)  B.Pension  Liabilities,  Pension  Expenses,  and  Deferred  Outflows/Inflows  of  Resources  Related to Pensions (Continued) The City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability for the Plan as of June 30, 2017 and 2018, was as follows: Safety Proportion ‐ June 30, 2017 0.45659% Proportion ‐ June 30, 2018 0.45193% Change ‐ Increase (Decrease) ‐0.00466% For the year ended June 30, 2018, the City recognized a pension expense of $3,207,319 for the  Safety Plan.  At June 30, 2018, the City reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows  of resources related to pensions for the Safety Plan from the following sources:  Deferred Outflows Deferred Inflows of Resources of Resources Pension contributions subsequent to measurement date 2,106,261$             Differences between actual and expected experience 271,718 (70,84 4)$                  Changes in assumptions 3,940,589 (302,333)  Net differences between projected and actual earnings on  plan investments 859,203 Change in proportion 304,979 (497,477)  Differences between actual contributions and  proportionate share of contributions (670,267)  Total 7,482,750$            (1,540,921)$            $2,106,261 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to contributions subsequent to the  measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in the year ended  June 30, 2018.  Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of  resources related to pensions will be recognized as pension expense as follows:  Year Ended Annual June 30 Amortization 2019 646,446$        2020 2,318,680 2021 1,373,192 2022 (502,750) 90 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 9 – PENSION PLANS – COST‐SHARING (Continued)  C. Sensitivity of the Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability to Changes in the Discount Rate The following presents the City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability for the Plan as of the measurement date, calculated using the discount rate for the Plan, as well as what the City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is one percentage point lower (6.15%) or one percentage point higher (8.15%) than the current rate: Safety 1% Decrease 6.15% Net Pension Liability 40,021,625$         Current Discount Rate 7.15% Net Pension Liability 27,003,552$         1% Increase 8.15% Net Pension Liability 16,361,927$         Actuarial assumptions and information regarding the discount rate are discussed in Note 9D below.  D. Information Common to the Miscellaneous (Footnote 10) and Safety Plans Actuarial  Assumptions – For the measurement period ended June 30, 2017, the total pension liabilities were determined by rolling forward the June 30, 2016 total pension liability. The June 30, 2017 total pension liabilities were based on the following actuarial assumptions: Miscellaneous and Safety Plans Valuation Date June 30, 2016 Measurement Date June 30, 2017 Actuarial Cost Method Entry‐Age Normal Cost Method Actuarial Assumptions: Discount Rate 7.15% Inflation 2.75% Projected Salary Increase Varies by Entry Age and Service Investment Rate of Return 7.375% Mortality Derived using CalPERS Membership Data for all Funds (1) Post Retirement Benefit Increase Contract COLA up to 2.75% until Purchasing Power Protection  Allowance Floor on Purchasing Power applies, 2.75% thereafter (1) The mortality table used was developed based on CalPERS’ sp ecific data. The table includes 20 years of mortality improvements using Society of Actuaries Scale BB. For more details on this table, please  refer to the CalPERS 2014 experience study report available on CalPERS website. 91 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 9 – PENSION PLANS – COST‐SHARING (Continued)  D.Information Common to the Miscellaneous (Footnote 10) and Safety Plans (Continued) All other actuarial assumptions used in the June 30, 2016 valuation were based on the results of a January 2015 actuarial experience study for the period 1997 to 2011, including updates to salary increase, mortality and retirement rates. Further details of the Experience Study can be found in the CalPERS website under Forms and Publications. Change of Assumptions – GASB 68, paragraph 68 states that the long long‐term expected rate of return should be determined net of pension plan investment expense, but without reduction for pension plan administrative expense. The discount rate of 7.15 percent used for the June 30, 2017 measurement date is without reduction of pension plan administrative expense. Discount Rate – The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability was 7.15% for each Plan.  To determine whether the municipal bond rate should be used in the calculation of a discount rate for each plan, CalPERS stress tested plans that would most likely result in a discount rate that would be different from the actuarially assumed discount rate.  Based on the testing, none of the tested plans run out of assets.  Therefore, the current 7.15% discount rate is adequate and the use of the municipal bond rate calculation is not necessary.  The long term expected discount rate of 7.15% will be applied to all plans in the Public Employees Retirement Fund (PERF).  The stress test results are presented in a detailed report that can be obtained from the CalPERS website. The  long‐term  expected  rate  of  return  on  pension  plan  investments  was  determined  using  a building‐block  method  in  which  best‐estimate  ranges  of  expected future real rates of return (expected returns, net of pension plan investment expense and inflation) are developed for each major asset class. In determining the long‐term expected rate of return, CalPERS took into account both short‐term and long‐term market return expectations as well as the expected pension fund cash flows.  Using historical returns of all the funds’ asset classes, expected compound returns were calculated over the short‐term (first 10 years) and the long‐term (11‐60 years) using a building‐block approach. Using  the  expected  nominal  returns  for  both  short‐term  and  long‐term, the present value of benefits was calculated for each fund.  The expected rate of return was set by calculating the single equivalent expected return that arrived at the same present value of benefits for cash flows as the one calculated using both short‐term and long‐term returns.  The expected rate of return was then set equivalent to the single equivalent rate calculated above and rounded down to the nearest one quarter of one percent. 92 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 9 – PENSION PLANS – COST‐SHARING (Continued)  D. Information Common to the Miscellaneous (Footnote 10) and Safety Plans (Continued) The table below reflects the long‐term expected real rate of return by asset class.  The rate of return was calculated using the capital market assumptions applied to determine the discount rate and asset allocation.  These rates of return are net of administrative expenses. Asset Class New Strategic Allocation Real Return Years 1 ‐ 10 (a) Real Return Years 11+ (b) Global Equity 47.0% 4.90% 5.38% Global Fixed Income 19.0% 0.80% 2.27% Inflation Sensitive 6.0% 0.60% 1.39% Private Equity 12.0% 6.60% 6.63% Real Estate 11.0% 2.80% 5.21% Infrastructure and Forestland 3.0% 3.90% 5.36% Liquidity 2.0% ‐0.40% ‐0.90% Total 100% (a) An expected inflation of 2.5% used for this period. (b) An expected inflation of 3.0% used for this period. Pension Plan Fiduciary Net Position – Detailed information about each pension plan’s fiduciary net  position is available in the separately issued CalPERS financial reports.   NOTE 10 – PENSION PLANS – MULTIPLE EMPLOYER  NOTE 10 A. General information about the Miscellaneous Pension Plan Plan Descriptions – All qualified permanent and probationary employees are eligible to participate in the City’s separate Miscellaneous Plan, agent multiple employer defined benefit pension plan administered by CalPERS, which acts as a common investment and administrative agent for its participating member employers.  Benefit provisions under the Plan are established by State statute and the City resolution.  CalPERS issues publicly available reports that include a full description of the pension plan regarding benefit provisions, assumptions, and membership information that can be found on the CalPERS website. 93 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 10 – PENSION PLANS – MULTIPLE EMPLOYER (Continued)  A. General information about the Miscellaneous Pension Plan (Continued) Benefits Provided – CalPERS provides service retirement and disability benefits, annual cost of living adjustments, and death benefits to plan members, who must be public employees and beneficiaries. Benefits are based on years of credited service, equal to one year of full time employment. Members with five years of total service are eligible to retire at age 50 with statutorily reduced benefits.  All members are eligible for non‐duty disability benefits after 10 years of service.  The death benefit is one of the following: the Basic Death Benefit, the 1957 Survivor Benefit, or the Optional Settlement 2W Death Benefit.  The cost of living adjustments for each plan are applied as specified by the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law.  The Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA), Assembly Bill 340, is applicable to employees new to CalPERS and hired after December 31, 2012. The Plan’s provisions and benefits in effect at June 30, 2018, are summarized as follows: Miscellaneous Hire date Prior to January 1, 2013 On or after         January 1, 2013 Benefit formula 2.5% @ 55 2.0% @ 62 Benefit vesting schedule 5 years service 5 years service Benefit payments monthly for life monthly for life Retirement age 50 ‐ 55 52 ‐ 67 Monthly benefits, as a % of eligible compensation 2.0% to 2.5% 1.0% to 2.5% Required employee contribution rates 8.0%6.75% Required employer contribution rates 10.70%13.30% Employees Covered – As of the June 30, 2016 actuarial valuation date, the following employees  were covered by the benefit terms for the Plan:  Miscellaneous Inactive employees or beneficiaries currently receiving benefits265 Inactive employees entitled to but not yet receiving benefits 13 8 Active employees 179 Total 582 Contributions – Section 20814(c) of the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law requires that  the employer contribution rates for all public employers be determined on an annual basis by the  actuary and  shall be effective on the July 1 following notice  of  a  change  in  the  rate.    Funding  contributions for both Plans are determined annually on an actuarial basis as of June 30 by CalPERS.   The actuarially determined rate is the estimated amount necessary to finance the costs of benefits  earned by employees during the year, with an additional amount to finance any unfunded accrued  liability.  The City is required to contribute the difference between the actuarially determined rate  and the contribution rate of employees.  94 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 10 – PENSION PLANS – MULTIPLE EMPLOYER (Continued)  B. Net Pension Liability The City’s net pension liability for the Miscellaneous Plan is measured as the total pension liability, less the pension plan’s fiduciary net position.  The net pension liability of the Plans is measured as of June 30, 2017, using an annual actuarial valuation as of June 30, 2016, rolled forward to June 30, 2017, using standard update procedures.  A summary of principal assumptions and methods used to determine the net pension liability is shown in Note 9D above. C. Changes in the Net Pension Liability The changes in the Net Pension Liability for the Miscellaneous Plan follow: Increase (Decrease) Total Pension  Liability Plan Fiduciary Net Position Net Pension  Liability/(Asset) Balance at June 30, 2016 130,809,457$    96,763,681$      34,045,776$      Changes in the year: Service cost 2,891,884 2,891,884 Interest on the total pension liability 9,717,799 9,717,799 Changes of benefit terms Changes in assumptions 7,865,663 7,865,663 Differences between actual and expected experience (570,100) (570 ,100) Plan to plan resource movement (397,322) 397,322 Contribution ‐ employer 3,362,448 (3,362,448) Contribution ‐ employee 1,357,763 (1,357,763) Net investment income 10,862,212 (10,862,212) Benefit payments, including refunds of employee  contributions (7,275,386) (7,275,386) Administrative expenses (142,865) 142,865 Net changes 12,629,860 7,766,850 4,863,010 Balance at June 30, 2017 143,439,317$    104,530,531$    38,908,786$      95 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 10 – PENSION PLANS – MULTIPLE EMPLOYER (Continued)  C.Changes in the Net Pension Liability (Continued) Sensitivity of the Net Pension Liability to Changes in the Discount Rate – The following presents the net pension liability of the City for each Plan, calculated using the discount rate for each Plan, as well as what the City’s net pension liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is one percentage point lower or one percentage point higher than the current rate: Miscellaneous 1% Decrease 6.15% Net Pension Liability 57,812,731$      Current Discount Rate 7.15% Net Pension Liability 38,908,786$      1% Increase 8.15% Net Pension Liability 23,298,583$      D.Pension Expenses and Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources Related to Pensions For the year ended June 30, 2018, the City recognized a pension expense of $5,591,250.  At June 30, 2018, the City reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the following sources: Deferred Outflows Deferred Inflows of Resources of Resources Pension contributions subsequent to measurement date 3,611,599$             Change of Assumptions 5,243,775 Differences between actual and expected experience (988,178)$               Net differences between projected and actual earnings on  plan investments 1,301,881 Total 10,157,255$           (988,178)$               96 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 10 – PENSION PLANS – MULTIPLE EMPLOYER (Continued)  D. Pension Expenses and Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources Related to Pensions (continued) $3,611,599 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to contributions subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in the year ended June 30, 2018.  Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized as pension expense as follows: Year Ended Annual  June 30 Amortization 2018 1,727,942$    2019 4,065,397 2020 578,900 2021 (814,761) E. Payable to the Miscellaneous Pension Plan At  June  30,  2018,  the  City  reported  no  payable  for  the  outstanding  amount  of  employer  and member contributions to the Miscellaneous pension plan required for the year ended June 30, 2018. NOTE 11 – OTHER ‐POST‐EMPLOYMENT HEALTHCARE PLAN (OPEB)  NOTE 11  A. Plan Description The City of Burlingame has established a Retiree Healthcare Plan (Plan), and participates in an agent multiple‐employer defined benefit retiree healthcare plan.  The Plan provides post‐employment healthcare benefits to eligible employees who retire directly from the City under CalPERS at the minimum age of 50 with at least 5 years of CalPERS service or disability.  Retirees must make a retirement election with CalPERS within 120 days following the date of separation from the City. Benefit provisions are established and may be amended through agreements and memorandums of understanding (MOUs) between the City, its management employees, and unions representing City employees. The City participates in the CalPERS healthcare program (PEMHCA) and allow retirees to continue participation in the medical insurance program after retirement.  Under the Plan, the City pays retiree healthcare benefits up to a cap for eligible retirees and dependents based on bargaining unit and hire date.  Employees hired on or after January 1, 2012 (or an earlier date as defined in the MOUs)  are  only  eligible  to  receive  a  City  contribution  equal  to  the  PEMHCA  minimum  upon retirement from the City.  As stated above, an individual must also qualify as a CalPERS annuitant in order to receive this benefit.  No dental, vision or life insurance benefits are provided. In addition, the City provides a defined contribution retiree healthcare plan for eligible employees. Employees hired after January 1, 2012 (or an earlier date as defined in the MOUs) are enrolled in a retiree health savings plan (RHS Plan) after five years of service.  Upon enrollment, the City contributes 2.0% of the employee’s annual base pay into the RHS Plan.  Contributions cease upon termination from employment. 97 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 11 – OTHER ‐ POST‐EMPLOYMENT HEALTHCARE PLAN (Continued)  B.Employees Covered by Benefit Terms At June 30, 2017 (the Measurement date), the benefit terms covered the following employees: Active employees 208 Inactive employees, spouses, or beneficiaries  currently receiving benefit payments 269 Inactive employees entitled to  but not yet receiving benefit payments 0 Total 477 C.Net OPEB Liability The City's net OPEB liability was measured as of June 30, 2017, and the total OPEB liability used to calculate the net OPEB liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of June 30, 2017. For governmental funds, the General Fund has been primarily used to liquidate OPEB liabilities. Actuarial  Assumptions:  The  total  OPEB  liability  in  the  June  30,  2017  actuarial  valuation  was determined  using  the  following  actuarial  assumptions,  applied  to  all  periods  included  in  the measurement, unless otherwise specified: Actuarial valuation date June 30, 2017 Inflation 2.75% Salary increases 3.00%. Additional merit‐based increases based on  CalPERS merit salary increase tables. Investment rate of return 7.28% Healthcare cost trend rates 7.00% in the first year.  Trending down to 3.84% over 58 years Mortality rate Based on CalPERS tables Discount Rate: The discount rate used to measure the total OPEB liability is 7.28%. This is the  expected long‐term rate of return on City assets using investment strategy 1 within the California  Employers'  Retiree  Benefit  Trust  (CERBT).  The  projection  of  cash  flows  used  to  determine  the  discount rate assumed that the City contribution will be made at rates equal to the actuarially  determined contribution rates. Based on those assumptions, the OPEB plan's fiduciary net position  is projected to cover all future OPEB payments. Therefore, the discount rate was set equal to the  long‐term expected rate of return.  98 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 11 – OTHER ‐ POST‐EMPLOYMENT HEALTHCARE PLAN (Continued)  D.Changes in the Net OPEB Liability Total OPEB Plan Fiduciary Net Net OPEB Liability Position Liability/(Asset) (a) (b)(c) = (a) ‐ (b) Balance at 6/30/2017:51,665,130$  11,284,358$      40,380,772$       Changes Recognized for the Measurement Period: Service Cost 1,076,983     1,076,983     Interest on the total OPEB liability 3,715,640     3,715,640     Expected investment income Contributions Employer ‐ City's Contribution 4,402,957  (4,402,957)    Employer ‐ Implicit Subsidy 627,012     (627,012)    Employee Net investment income 1,236,932  (1,236,932)    Administrative expenses (5,990)  5,990   Difference between expected and actual experience Changes of assumptions Implicit rate subsidy fullfilled (627,012)   (627,012)     Benefit payments (2,779,180)   (2,779,180)     Net Changes 1,386,431     2,854,719  (1,468,288)    Balance at 6/30/2018: (Measurement Date: 6/30/17)53,051,561$   14,139,077$      38,912,484$       Increase (Decrease) Sensitivity of the net OPEB liability to changes in the discount rate: The net OPEB liability of the  City, as well as what the City's net OPEB liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate  that is one percentage point lower (6.28%) or one percentage point higher (8.28%) follows:  Net OPEB Liability/(Asset) Discount Rate ‐1% Discount Rate Discount Rate +1% (6.28 %) (7.28%) (8.28%) $44,884,150 $38,912,484 $33,885,441 Sensitivity of the net OPEB liability to changes in the healthcare cost trend rates: The net OPEB  liability of the City, as well as what the City's net OPEB liability would be if it were calculated using  healthcare cost trend rates that are one percentage point lower (6.00%) or one percentage point  higher (8.00%) than current healthcare cost trend rates follows:  Net OPEB Liability/(Asset) 1% Decrease Healthcare Cost 1% Increase Trend Rates (6% decreasing to 2.84%) (7% decreasing to 3.84%) (8% decreasing to 4.84%) $33,415,032 $38,912,484 $45,499,269 99 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 11 – OTHER ‐ POST‐EMPLOYMENT HEALTHCARE PLAN (Continued)  E.OPEB Expense and Deferred Inflows and Outflows of Resources Related to OPEB For the year ended June 30, 2018, the City recognized an OPEB expense of $3,768,235. At June 30, 2018, the City reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB from the following sources: Deferred Outflows Deferred Inflows of Resources of Resources Employer contributions made subsequent to the measurement date 4,996,552$        Net differences between Projected and Actual Earnings 206,554$     Changes of assumptions 0 Total 4,996,552$       206,554$     Amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to  OPEB will be recognized in OPEB expense as follows:  Year Annual Ended June 30 Amortization 2019 51,639$         2020 51,639 2021 51,639 2022 51,637 F. Funding Policy The contribution requirements of the Plan participants and the City are established and may be amended by the City. In September 2013, the City established an irrevocable trust to prefund its unfunded actuarially accrued liability for retiree health care benefits. The California Benefit Trust Fund (CERBT), a multi‐ employer trust, is administered by CalPERS which also invests trust fund deposits made by the City on behalf of retirees. The City pre‐funds the Plan by contributing the City’s ADC every year to the CERBT. During fiscal year 2017‐18, the City made deposits of $1,588,645 to the trust. As of June 30, 2018, the cash balance was $16,846,083. 100 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 11 – OTHER ‐ POST‐EMPLOYMENT HEALTHCARE PLAN (Continued)  G.Net Position Restatements Management adopted the provisions of the following Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 75, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefits Other than  Pensions  (OPEB),  which  became  effective  during  the  year  ended  June  30,  2018.    The implementation of the Statement required the City to make prior period adjustments.  As a result, the beginning net position as of July 1, 2017 of the Governmental Activities, Business‐Type Activities and the corresponding Enterprise Funds were restated and reduced by $15,551,053 and $3,874,621 respectively. NOTE 12 – NET POSITION AND FUND BALANCES  NOTE 12  A.Net Position Net position is the excess of all the City’s assets and deferred outflows over all its liabilities and deferred inflow, regardless of fund.  Net position is divided into three captions on the Statement of Net Position.  These captions apply only to net position, which is determined at the Government‐ wide level and proprietary funds and are described as follows: Net investment in capital assets, describes the portion of net position which is represented by the current net book value of the City’s capital assets, less the outstanding balance of any debt issued to finance these assets. Restricted describes the  portion of net position which is restricted as to use by the terms and conditions of agreements with outside parties, governmental regulations, laws or other restrictions which the City cannot unilaterally alter.  These principally include developer fees received for use on capital  projects,  debt  service  requirements  and  funds  restricted  to  low  and  moderate  income purposes. Unrestricted describes the portion of net position which is not restricted as to use. B.Fund Balances Governmental fund balances represent the net current assets of each fund.  Net current assets generally represent a fund’s cash and receivables, less its liabilities. 101 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 12 – NET POSITION AND FUND BALANCES (Continued)  B.Fund Balances (Continued) The City’s fund balances are classified in accordance with GASB Statement Number 54 (GASB 54), Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions, which requires the City to classify its fund balances based on the long‐term amounts of loans and on spending constraints imposed on the use of resources.   For programs with multiple funding sources, the City prioritizes and expends funds in the following order: Restricted, Committed, Assigned and Unassigned.  Each category in the following hierarchy is ranked according to the degree of spending constraint as follows: Nonspendable represents balances set aside to indicate items do not represent available, spendable resources even though they are a component of assets.  Fund balances required to be maintained intact,  such  as  Permanent  Funds,  and  assets  not  expected  to  be converted  to  cash,  such  as inventories and prepaids, the long‐term amounts of loans and notes receivable and land held for resale are included.  However, if proceeds realized from the sale or collection of nonspendable assets  are  restricted,  committed  or  assigned,  then  nonspendable amounts are required to be presented as a component of the applicable category. Restricted fund balances have external restrictions imposed by creditors, grantors, contributors, laws, regulations, or enabling legislation which requires the resources to be used only for a specific purpose.  Nonspendable  amounts  subject  to  restrictions  are  included  along  with  spendable resources. Committed fund balances have constraints imposed by resolution of the City Council, which may only  be  altered  by  resolution  of  the  City  Council.  Nonspendable amounts subject to council commitments are included along with spendable resources. Assigned fund  balances  are  amounts  constrained  by  the  City’s  intent  to  be used for a specific purpose, but are neither restricted nor committed.  Intent is expressed by the City Council or its designees and may be changed at the discretion of the City Council or its designees.  The City Council  has  not  delegated  the  authority  to  make  assignments  of fund  balance.    This  category includes nonspendables, when it is the City’s intent to use proceeds or collections for a specific purpose and residual fund balances, if any, of Special Revenue, Capital Projects and Debt Service Funds which have not been restricted or committed. Unassigned fund balance represents residual amounts that have not been restricted, committed or assigned.  This includes the residual general fund balance and residual fund deficits, if any, of other governmental funds. 102 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 12 – NET POSITION AND FUND BALANCES (Continued)  B. Fund Balances (Continued) Committed and Assigned Fund Balance In 2015, the City Council adopted a General Fund Reserve Policy by resolution.  The policy, based on an analysis of risks specific to the City, establishes targeted levels for an Economic Stability Reserve and  a  Catastrophic  Reserve  (24%  of  budgeted  revenues),  Catastrophic  Reserve  amount  of $2,000,000, as well as a Contingency Reserve amount of $500,000.  The actual reserve levels are adopted by resolution with each annual budget, or as recommended by the Finance Director based upon an update of the City’s fiscal needs or forecasts during the year. As  the  City  Council  and  management  can  only  use  reserves  for  purposes  consistent  with  the purposes described in the policy, these reserve amounts are reported as assignments of the General Fund’s balance. The aggregate balance of the General Fund’s assigned fund balance was $19,929,904 as of June 30, 2018. The breakdown is shown below: The Economic Stability Reserve is available to protect and preserve City services from dramatic  drops  in  General  Fund  revenues  that  are  highly  sensitive  to  economic conditions, mainly sales taxes and transient occupancy taxes. The balance at June 30, 2018, was $16,913,000. The Catastrophic Reserve is available to make repairs and reconstruct City buildings and facilities that may be damaged by natural disasters or acts of war and terrorism. The balance at June 30, 2018, was $2,000,000. The  Contingency  Reserve  is  available  to  cover  unexpected  expenses  that  may  arise during the course of the fiscal year that were not considered during budget planning. The balance at June 30, 2018, was $500,000. Encumbrances and Reappropriations represent commitments related to contracts not yet performed and purchase orders not yet filled or appropriations for specific activities approved late in the fiscal year that were not encumbered by contractual arrangements by the end of the fiscal year. The total of encumbrances and reappropriations at June 30, 2018 were $516,904. 103 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 12 – NET POSITION AND FUND BALANCES (Continued)  B. Fund Balances (Continued) Detailed classifications of the City’s fund balances, as of June 30, 2018, are below: Storm Capital Other General Drainage Debt Service Projects Governmental  Fund Balance Classifications Fund Fund Fund Fund Funds Total  Nonspendable:   Items not in spendable form:   Prepaids 6,041$         6,041$            Total Nonspendable Fund  Balances 6,041 6,041  Restricted for:   Employee Benefits 4,390,537 4,390,537  Special Revenue Programs:   Development Fees 6,259,267$       6,259,267  Local Grants 588,329 588,329  Measure A and Gas Tax 964,997 964,997  Special Assessment District 405,117 405,117  Other 725,232 725,232  Capital Projects 4,195,033$     4,195,033  Debt service 9,187,451$       9,187,451     Total Restricted Fund Balances 4,390,537 4,195,033 9,187,451 8,942,942 26,715,963  Committed to:   Capital Projects 27,004,814$         27,004,814     Total  Committed Fund Balances 27,004,814 27,004,814  Assigned to:   Encumbrances and reappropriations 516,904 516,904  Contingency reserve 500,000 500,000  Economic stability reserve 16,913,000 16,913,000  Catastrophic event reserve 2,000,000 2,000,000  Capital Projects 25,800,000 25,800,000          Total Assigned Fund Balances 19,929,904 25,800,000 45,729,904  Unassigned: 12,045,699 12,045,699     Total Fund Balances 36,372,181$     4,195,033$     9,187,451$       52,804,814$         8,942,942$       111,502,421$           C.PARS Trust During fiscal year 2018, the City established an irrevocable trust with Public Agency Retirements Services (PARS) to set aside funds for pension liability. At June 30, 2018, the balance in the trust was $4,812,540.  The City Council reserves the authority to review and amend this funding policy from time to time, in order to ensure the funding policy continues to best suit the circumstances of the City. 104 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 12 – NET POSITION AND FUND BALANCES (Continued)  D.Deficit Fund Balance/Net Position The following funds had a deficit fund balance/net position at June 30, 2018: Deficit Fund Balances/ Funds Net Position Enterprise Funds: Landfill 1,778,248$      Internal Service Fund: Facilities Services 1,156,460        The City expects future revenues to mitigate the deficit fund balance/net position in future years.  NOTE 13 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES  NOTE 13  A.Grant Programs The  City  may,  from  time  to  time,  participate  in  Federal  and  State  grant  programs.  No  cost allowances were proposed as a result of the City’s financial audit. As of June 30, 2018, the City has not made an allowance for expenditures which may be disallowed by the granting agencies. Any disallowance for expenditures is expected to be immaterial. B.Litigation The City is subject to litigation arising in the normal course of business.  In the opinion of the City Attorney, there is one case pending in which there is at least a possibility that the plaintiff could be entitled to monetary damages.  However, the City believes that its financial position would not be adversely affected due to the availability of reserves in the remote event that the plaintiff prevails. C.Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Revenue Bonds Surcharge The City contracts with the City and County of San Francisco for the purchase of water from the Hetch Hetchy System operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC).  The City is also a member of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) which represents the interests of all the 24 cities and water districts, as well as two private utilities, that purchase wholesale water from the SFPUC. In 2009 the City entered into a new 25 year agreement with the SFPUC.  Under the new agreement, the SFPUC issues revenue bonds and the debt service (which also includes an interest component) is paid for through rates over the life of the bonds. 105 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 13 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES (Continued)  C.Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Revenue Bonds Surcharge (Continued) During the transition from the old to the new contracts, one of the issues addressed was how to deal with the $370 million in assets that were still being paid for by the wholesale customers under the old agreement.  The assets were transferred to the new agreement, assigned a life with an agreed upon rate of return of 5.13%. Also negotiated was a provision to allow the wholesale customers to prepay any remaining existing assets’ unpaid principal balance without penalty or premium.  This prepayment was executed through the issuance of bonds by BAWSCA which provide a better interest rate given the favorable rate environment. BAWSCA issued Revenue Bonds in the principal amount of $335,780,000 in January 2013 to prepay the capital cost recovery payment obligation and fund a stabilization fund.  The Bonds mature in October 2034  and  are  secured  by  surcharges  to  the  monthly  water  purchase  charges  imposed  upon  the participating members.  The Bonds are not a debt obligation of any member, and BAWSCA’s failure to pay its Bonds would not constitute a default by any participating member. Should any participating member fail to pay its share, BAWSCA will rely on the stabilization fund and will pursue all legal remedies to collect the shortfall from the delinquent member.  In the interim, other participating members may have their portion adjusted to insure the continued payment of the debt service surcharge. The risk of bearing the debt service expense of a defaulting member is not significantly different than the risk each member assumes currently for fluctuations in water purchase charges.  Under the Bond indenture,  BAWSCA  maintains  a  stabilization  fund.    If  surcharge  revenues  collected  are  less  than needed (due to a member’s failure to pay timely), BAWSCA uses the stabilization fund to fund the debt service deficiency, and increases the surcharge in the subsequent year to make up for the prior year shortfall and reimburse the stabilization fund account.  Also, given that each participating agency’s governing body adopted a Resolution to participate in the Bond issue, Management believes that default is generally very unlikely. The annual debt service surcharges are a fixed amount for each participant and are calculated by taking the subsequent fiscal year’s debt service, multiplied by each participant’s actual water purchase as a percent of total wholesale customer water purchases from the prior fiscal year.  One‐twelfth of the annual surcharge is included in the monthly bill from SFPUC.  Because each participant’s share of the debt service surcharge is proportional to the amount of water purchased during the prior fiscal year, the City’s share of the debt service will fluctuate from year to year. The City paid its surcharge of $683,583 during fiscal year 2018, which is included as a component of purchased  water  expenses  in  the  Water  Enterprise  Fund.    The  surcharge  for  fiscal  year  2019  is estimated to be $674,112. 106 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)  JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 14 – SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE  On September 29, 2018, the Governor of California approved Assembly Bill No. 1912, which requires  member agencies of an agency established pursuant to a joint powers agreement that participates  in, or contracts with, a public retirement system, prior to filing a notice of termination or upon  notice of potential termination by the Board of Administration of the Public Employees’ Retirement  System (PERS), to mutually agree as to the apportionment of the agency’s retirement obligations  among themselves, provided that the agreement equals 100% of the retirement liability of the  agency.   If the member agencies are unable to mutually agree to the apportionment, the bill requires the  PERS board to apportion the retirement liability of the agency to each member agency, as specified,  and would establish procedures allowing a member agency to challenge the board’s determination  through the arbitration process. This bill also requires the PERS board to enter into the above‐ described agreement upon request of a member agency of a terminating agency formed under the  Joint Exercise of Powers Act and providing that the member agencies of the terminating agency are  liable to the system for inadequate funding of the benefits pursuant to the agreement.   This bill will extend that liability and lien to all of the parties of a terminating agency that was  formed under the Joint Exercise of Powers Act. In addition, the bill requires the PERS board, prior to  exercising its authority to reduce benefits and to the extent consistent with its fiduciary duties, to  consider and exhaust all options and necessary actions, including evaluating whether to bring a civil  action against any member agencies to a terminated agency formed by an agreement under the  Joint Exercise of Powers Act to compel payment of the terminated  public  agency’s  pension  obligations.   The above requirements apply retroactively to a member agency, or current and former member  agency, that has an agreement in existence with the PERS board on or before January 1, 2019. It also  applies to any new agreements between an agency and the board on or after January 1, 2019.  However, it will not apply to an agency that has dissolved prior to January 1, 2019.  As of June 30, 2018, the City participated in the following joint powers agreements that participate  in, or contracts with, a public retirement system:  Central County Fire District – CCFD (fire, emergency medical, disaster preparedness) San Mateo  County  Pre‐Hospital  Emergency  Services  Group  –  SMCPHESG  (pre‐hospital emergency services, ambulance transport, first response) The City is not aware that any of these agencies are in the process of termination or facing potential  termination by the PERS board.    107 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report June 30, 2018 REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION  CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 1 – COST‐SHARING MULTIPLE‐EMPLOYER DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN  Safety Plan, Cost‐Sharing Multiple‐Employer Defined Pension Plan Last 10 Years* SCHEDULE OF THE CITY'S PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE NET PENSION L IABILITY Safety Plan Measurement Date 6/30/2014 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 Plan's Proportion of the Net Pension  Liability/Asset 0.24850% 0.44660% 0.45659% 0.45193% Plan's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension  Liability/(Asset)15,465,681$       18,401,988$       23,647,731$    27,003,552$   Plan's Covered Payroll 4,498,186$         4,478,926$         4,671,613$      4,834,326$      Plan's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension  Liability/(Asset) as a Percentage of it's  Covered Payroll 343.82% 410.86%506.20% 558.58% Plan's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension  Liability/(Asset) as a Percentage of the Plan's  Total Pension Liability 18.58%22.03%27.54%29.02% * Fiscal year 2015 was the 1st year of implementation, therefor e only four years are shown. 110 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION (Continued)  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 1 – COST‐SHARING MULTIPLE‐EMPLOYER DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN (Continued)  As of fiscal year ending June 30, 2018 Last 10 Years* SCHEDULE OF CONTRIBUTIONS Safety Plan Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2015 2016 2017 2018 Actuarially determined contribution 1,288,226$         1,686,060$         1,923,807$     2,106,261$         Contributions in relation to the actuarially  determined contributions (1,288,226)     (1,686,060)   (1,923,807)     (2,106,261)    Contribution deficiency (excess)‐$       ‐$        ‐$        ‐$        Covered payroll 4,478,926$        4,671,613$        4,834,326$     4,880,736$         Contributions as a percentage of covered  payroll 28.76%36.09%39.79%43.15% Notes to Schedule Valuation date:6/30/2013 6/30/2014 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 Methods and assumptions used to determine contribution rates: Actuarial cost method Entry age Amortization method Level percentage of payroll, closed Remaining amortization period 30 years Asset valuation method 5‐year smoothed market Inflation 2.75% Salary increases 3.0 % Varies by Age, Service and Type of Employment Retirement age The probabilities of retirement are based on the 2010 CalPERS Experience Study  for the period from 1997 to 2007 Mortality The probabilities of mortality are derived from CalPERS' Member ship Data for all Funds based on CalPERS' specific data from a 2014 CalPERS Experience Study.   The table includes 20 years of mortality improvements using  the Society of Actuaries Scale BB.   * Fiscal year 2015 was the 1st year of implementation, therefore only three years are shown. 111 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION (Continued)  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 2 – AGENT MULTIPLE‐EMPLOYER DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN  Prepared for City of Burlingame, an Agent Multiple‐Employer Defined Pension Plan Last 10 Years* SCHEDULE OF CHANGES IN THE NET PENSION LIABILITY AND RELATED RATIOS Measurement Date 6/30/2014 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 Total Pension Liability Service Cost 2,451,356$     2,374,018$     2,440,538$        2,891,884$         Interest 8,964,159 9,244,742 9,456,322 9,717,799 Changes of benefit terms ‐  ‐   ‐      Differences between expected and actual  experience ‐  (1,273,339)  (1,959,467)  (570,100)   Changes in assumptions ‐  (2,208,472)  7,865,663     Benefit payments, including refunds of  employee contributions (6,246,453)    (6,895,260)  (6,958,358)  (7,275,386)    Net change in total pension liability 5,169,062  1,241,689   2,979,035   12,629,860   Total pension liability ‐ beginning 121,419,671  126,588,733     127,830,422  130,809,457    Total pension liability ‐ ending (a)126,588,733$   127,830,422$   130,809,457$   143,439,317$    Plan fiduciary net position Contributions ‐ employer 2,214,366$     2,605,414$     2,936,966$        3,362,448$         Contributions ‐ employee 1,203,540  1,064,874   1,112,768   1,357,763     Net investment income 15,116,451   2,248,984   487,558  10,862,212   Benefit payments, including refunds of  employee contributions (6,246,453)    (6,895,260)  (6,958,358)  (7,275,386)    Plan to plan resource movement ‐  40,946     (98) (397,322)  Administration expense ‐  (111,650)     (60,485)   (142,865)  Net change in plan fiduciary net position 12,287,904   (1,046,692)  (2,481,649)  7,766,850     Plan fiduciary net position ‐ beginning 88,004,118   100,292,022     99,245,330     96,763,681   Plan fiduciary net position ‐ ending (b)100,292,022$   99,245,330$     96,763,681$     104,530,531$    Net pension liability ‐ ending (a)‐(b)26,296,711$     28,585,092$     34,045,776$     38,908,786$      Plan fiduciary net position as a percentage of  the total pension liability 79.23%77.64%73.97%72.87% Covered payroll 13,078,081$     13,191,923$     13,560,054$     14,918,921$      Net pension liability as percentage of covered‐ employee payroll 201.07% 216.69% 251.07% 260.80% Notes to Schedule: * ‐ Fiscal year 2015 was the 1st year of implementation. Changes in assumptions.In 2017, the accounting discount rate reduced from 7.65 percent to 7.15 percent. In 2016, there were no changes. In 2015, the discount rate was changed from 7.5% (net of administrative expenses) to 7.65%. In 2014, amounts reported were based on the 7.5 discount rate.  Benefit changes.Figures abovedo notincludeany liability impactthatmay haveresulted fromplan changes whichoccurred after the June 30, 2016. This applies for voluntary benefit changes as well as any offers of Two Years Additional Service Credit (a.k.a. Golden Handshakes). 112 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION (Continued)  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 2 – AGENT MULTIPLE‐EMPLOYER DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN (Continued)  Prepared for City of Burlingame, an Agent Multiple‐Employer Defined Pension Plan Last 10 Years SCHEDULE OF CONTRIBUTIONS Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2015 2016 2017 2018 Actuarially determined contribution 2,605,414$           2,929,226$           3,370,189$           3,611,599$           Contributions in relation to the actuarially  determined contributions (2,605,414)         (2,929,226)           (3,370,189)    (3,611,599)         Contribution deficiency (excess)‐$              ‐$              ‐$                           ‐$              Covered payroll 13,191,923$        13,560,054$        14,918,921$        15,717,707$         Contributions as a percentage of covered payroll 19.75%21.60%22.59%22.98% Notes to Schedule Valuation date:6/30/2013 6/30/2014 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 Methods and assumptions used to determine contribution rates: Actuarial cost method Entry age Amortization method Level percentage of payroll, closed Remaining amortization period 30 years Asset valuation method 5‐year smoothed market Inflation 2.75% Salary increases 3.0% Varies by category, entry age, and duration of service. Retirement age Mortality * Fiscal year 2015 was the 1st year of implementation. The probabilities of Retirement are based on the 2014 CalPERS Experience Study for the  period from 1997 to 2011.  The probabilities of mortality are derived from CalPERS' Membership Data for all Funds  based on CalPERS' specific data from a 2014 CalPERS Experience Study.  The table includes  20 years of mortality improvements using the Society of Actuaries Scale BB.   113 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION (Continued)  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 3 – OTHER POST‐EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (OPEB)  Schedule of Changes in the Net OPEB Liability and Related Ratios An Agent Multi‐Employer Defined Benefits Retiree Healthcare Plan Last 10 fiscal years* Measurement Date 6/30/17 Total OPEB Liability (1) Service Cost 1,076,983$         Interest 3,715,640 Changes of benefit terms Differences between expected and actual experience Changes of assumptions Implicit rate subsidy fullfilled (627,012) Benefit payments (2,779,180) Net change in total OPEB liability 1,386,431 Total OPEB liability ‐ beginning 51,665,130 Total OPEB liability ‐ ending (a)53,051,561$       OPEB fiduciary net position Net investment income 1,236,932$         Contributions ‐ employer 4,402,957    Contributions ‐ Implicit Subsidy 627,012   Contributions ‐ employee ‐   Administrative expense (5,990)         Implicit rate subsidy fullfilled (627,012)      Benefit payments, including refunds of employee contributions (2,779,180)   Net change in plan fiduciary net position 2,854,719    Plan fiduciary net position ‐ beginning 11,284,358    Plan fiduciary net position ‐ ending (b)14,139,077    Net OPEB liability ‐ ending (a)‐(b)38,912,484$       Plan fiduciary net position as a percentage of the total OPEB liability 26.65% Covered‐employee payroll 21,235,525$       Net OPEB liability as a percentage of covered‐employee payroll 183.24% Notes to schedule: *‐ Fiscal year 2018 was the first year of implementation. 114 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION (Continued)  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 3 – OTHER POST‐EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (OPEB) (Continued)  Schedule of Changes in the Net OPEB Liability and Related Ratios An Agent Multi‐Employer Defined Benefits Retiree Healthcare Plan Last 10 fiscal years* Fiscal Year Ended June 30,  2018 Actuarially Determined Contribution (ADC) 4,669,234$       Less : Contributions in Relation to the ADC 4,996,552 Contribution Deficiency (Excess) ($327,318) Covered‐employee payroll 21,872,591$       Contributions as a percentage of Covered‐employee payroll 22.84% Notes to Schedule: Assumptions and Methods Actuarial Cost Method Entry age normal, level percent of pay Amortization Method Closed period, level percent of pay Amortization Period 17 years Inflation 2.75% Assumed Payroll Growth 3.00% Healthcare Trend Rates 7.00%, trending down to 3.84% Rate of Return on Assets 7.28% Mortality & Retirement Rates CalPERS Rates *Fiscal year 2018 was the first year of implementation of GASB 75. 115 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION (Continued)  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 4 – MODIFIED APPROACH FOR THE CITY’S INFRASTRUCTURE  In accordance with GASB Statement No. 34, the City accounts for and reports infrastructure capital  assets. The City defines infrastructure as the basic physical assets including the street system; park and  recreation lands and improvement system; storm water collection system; and site amenities associated  with buildings, such as parking and landscaped areas, used by the City in the conduct of its business.  Each major infrastructure system is divided into subsystems. For example, the street system is divided  into concrete and asphalt pavements, concrete curb and gutters, sidewalks, medians, streetlights, traffic  control devices (signs, signals, and pavement markings), landscaping, and land. Subsystem detail is not  presented in these  basic financial statements; however, the City  maintains detailed information on  these subsystems.   The City has elected to use the modified approach, as defined by GASB Statement No. 34, for the Roads  and  Streets  networks.  Under  GASB  Statement  No.  34,  eligible  infrastructure  capital  assets  are  not  required to be depreciated.  In February 2016, the City’s consultant completed a study to update the physical condition assessment  of the streets.  The streets, primarily asphalt pavements, were defined as all physical features associated  with the operation of motorized vehicles that exist within the limits of right of way.  City‐owned streets  are classified based on land use, access and traffic utilization into the following four classifications: (1)  arterial/major, (2) collector, (3) residential, and (4) other (such as alleys and parking lots).  This condition assessment will be performed approximately every two years.  For this inspection update,  all the paved streets in the City’s system were re‐inspected.  A visual survey of approximately 82.28  centerline  miles  was  evaluated  in  accordance  with  Metropolitan Transportation  Commission  (MTC)  standards.  Upon completion of this survey, a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) was calculated for each  segment  to  reflect  the  overall  pavement  condition.    Ranging  between  0  –  100,  a  PCI  of  0  would  correspond to a badly deteriorated pavement with virtually no remaining life.  A PCI of 100 would  correspond to a new pavement with proper engineering design and construction at the beginning of its  life cycle.   116 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION (Continued)  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 4 – MODIFIED APPROACH FOR THE CITY’S INFRASTRUCTURE (Continued)  The following conditions were defined:  Condition Rating Description Excellent 90‐100 Little or no distress. Very Good 70‐89 Little or no distress, with the exception of utility patches in good condition, or minor to moderate hairline cracks; typically lightly weathered. Good 50‐69 Light to moderate weathering, light load‐related base failure, moderate linear cracking. Poor 25‐49 Moderate to severe weathering, moderate levels of base failure, moderate to heavy linear cracking. Very Poor 0‐24 Extensive weathering, moderate to heavy base failure, failed patches, extensive network of moderate to heavy linear cracking. The City’s policy is to achieve an average rating of 65 for all streets.  This rating allows minor cracking  and raveling of the pavement along with minor roughness that could be noticeable to drivers traveling  at the posted speeds.  As of June 30, 2017, the City’s street system was rated at a PCI index of 77 on a  100‐point scale.  The overall condition of the street pavement is in the lower range of MTC’s designation  ‘Very Good’.    The following table details the network statistics and pavement condition by functional class.   Table 1 – Street Network Statistics and Average PCI by Functional Class  Functional Class Centerline Miles Lane Miles # of Sections % of Network Average PCI Arterial 23.47 53.50 84 28.5%75 Residential 37.55 67.33 249 45.6%80 Collector 20.35 39.69 116 24.8%77 Other 0.80 1.61 24 1%60 Totals 82.17 162.13 473 100%77 117 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION (Continued)  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 4 – MODIFIED APPROACH FOR THE CITY’S INFRASTRUCTURE (Continued)  Table 2 details the percentage of the street network area by each PCI range or condition category.  Table 2 – Percent Network Area by Functional Class and Condition Class  Condition Class PCI Range Arterial Collector Residential Other NCE Total Excellent/Very Good (I)70‐100 22.40% 22.00% 32.70% 2.00%0.00%78.90% Good/Fair (II/III)50‐69 5.60%3.30% 8.50%0%0.00%18.21% Poor (IV)25‐49 0.40%0.60% 0.70% 1.00%0.00%2.31% Very Poor (V)0‐24 0.00%0.20% 0.10% 0.40%0.10%0.58% Totals 28.40% 26.10% 42.00% 3.40%0.10%100.00% The  City’s  street network  replacement  value  is  estimated  at  $160  million.  Replacement  value  is  calculated as the current cost to reconstruct each street in the network.  The  optimal  network  PCI  is  somewhere between low and mid 80’s, which  is  in  the  middle  of  the  ‘excellent/very good’ condition category.  This is recommended because streets with a PCI in the 80’s as  opposed to 70’s will likely remain in the ‘excellent/very good’ condition category for a longer period of  time if relatively inexpensive preventive maintenance treatments are used.  Once PCI falls below 70,  more expensive rehabilitation treatments will be needed.   The cost to repair and maintain a pavement depends on its current PCI.  In the ‘excellent/very good’  category, it costs very little to apply preventative maintenance treatments.  More than half (76.9%) of  the City’s street network would benefit from these lower cost preventative maintenance treatments.  Approximately 96% of the City’s street network is considered in ‘good’ condition. Pavements in this  range require more than a life‐extending treatment.  At this point, a well designed pavement will have  served at least 75 percent of its life with the quality of the pavement dropping approximately 40%.  The remaining 4% of the City’s street network falls into the ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ PCI ranges.  These  pavements are near the end of their service lives and often exhibit major forms of distress.  At this stage  a street usually requires either a thick overlay or reconstruction.    One of the key elements of a pavement repair strategy is to keep streets that are in the ‘good’ or ‘fair’  category from deteriorating.  This is particularly true for streets in the ‘fair’ range, because they are at  the point where pavement deterioration accelerates if left untreated.  The projected pavement budget for fiscal year 2016‐17 through fiscal year 2020‐21 is approximately  $1,400,000 per year or $7,000,000 million.  This investment level is estimated to maintain the current  PCI level with a decrease of one point to 76 in 2020.    Furthermore, under this investment level, the  deferred maintenance backlog is projected to decrease from $2.4 million in 2016 to $1.3 million in 2020.   118 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA  REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION (Continued)  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018  NOTE 4 – MODIFIED APPROACH FOR THE CITY’S INFRASTRUCTURE (Continued)  2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Budget 1,400,000$       1,400,000$       1,400,000$   1,400,000$ 1,400,000$ 7,000,000$  Rehabilitation 4,441,000  1,167,000     2,114,000    986,000  420,000     9,128,000    Preventative  Maintenance 61,300  3,000       1,100      10,300    600       76,300    Deferred  Maintenance 2,416,651  3,028,748     4,389,200    3,233,473   1,338,271   14,406,343  PCI 78 78 77 77 76 ‐     A schedule of estimated annual amounts calculated to maintain and preserve the City’s streets at the  current level compared to actual expenditures  for  street  maintenance  for  the  last  three  years  is  presented below.   Fiscal  Maintenance Actual  PCI Year Estimate Expenditures Rating 2013‐2014 1,200,000$        980,218     76 2014‐2015 1,200,000$       1,479,349  76 2015‐2016 1,200,000$       1,151,003  77 2016‐2017 1,200,000$       1,300,698  78 The City’s ongoing street rehabilitation program is funded in the Capital Improvement Program.  119 Variance Positive Original Final Actual (Negative) Revenues Property taxes 19,189,000$       20,150,000$       20,334,818$       184,818$             Sales and use taxes 12,205,000         12,205,000 12,819,794 614,794 Transient occupancy taxes 26,871,000         27,400,000 27,935,991 535,991 Other taxes 3,046,000            3,085,000 3,216,203 131,203 Licenses and permits 88,500                 88,000 82,622 (5,378) Fines, forfeitures and penalties 901,500               910,700 977,121 66,421 Charges for services 5,257,500            5,337,775 5,515,803 178,028 Other revenue 195,500               208,500 223,078 14,578 Grants and subventions 238,216               238,216 284,839 46,623 Investment income 945,000               840,000 332,714 (507,286) Total revenues 68,937,216 70,463,191 71,722,983 1,259,792 Expenditures Current: General Government City Attorney 906,965               906,965               704,341               202,624 City Clerk 366,167                366,167                287,187               78,980 City Council 350,699               355,699               333,794               21,905 City Manager 823,277               823,277               696,570               126,707 Elections 168,000               168,000               108,463               59,537 Human Resources 956,176               956,176               762,222               193,954 Finance 2,227,805             2,242,805             2,240,374            2,431 Total General Government 5,799,089 5,819,089 5,132,951 686,138 Public safety: Fire 10,356,780         10,356,780         10,210,972         145,808 Fire ‐ Disaster Preparedness 494,889               494,889               483,063               11,826 Police Communications Dispatch 1,577,730            1,577,730            1,495,279            82,451 Police ‐ Parking Enforcement 638,422               638,422               625,387               13,035 Police 13,829,348         13,925,948         13,546,606         379,342 Total Public Safety 26,897,169 26,993,769 26,361,307 632,462 Public Works 5,903,529             6,342,629            5,624,681 717,948 Community Development 1,836,358            1,861,358            1,799,124 62,234 Parks, recreation, and library Library 5,190,727             5,181,277             5,065,279            115,998 Parks 4,692,033             4,753,533             4,689,883            63,650 Recreation and Aquatics 5,037,153             5,050,986            4,791,418            259,568 14,919,913 14,985,796 14,546,580 439,216 Capital outlay 209,200               209,200               172,615 36,585 Total Expenditures 55,565,258 56,211,841 53,637,258 2,574,583 Excess (deficiency) of revenues  over expenditures 13,371,958 14,251,350 18,085,725 3,834,375 Other financing sources (uses) Transfers in 3,223,273            3,194,673 3,194,673 Transfers out (18,246,437)        (18,185,317) (18,180,617)4,700   Total other financing sources (uses)(15,023,164) (14,990,644) (14,985,944)4,700   Net change in fund balance (1,651,206)$         (739,294)$            3,099,781 3,839,075$          FUND BALANCE Beginning of year 33,272,400 End of year 36,372,181$        See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA Budgeted Amounts Total Leisure & Cultural Services GENERAL FUND SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET AND ACTUAL  FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018 120 Variance Positive Original Final Actual (Negative) Revenues Charges for services 2,825,200$      2,912,200$      2,959,633$      47,433$            Investment income 236,000 218,000 53,331 (164,669) Total revenues 3,061,200 3,130,200 3,012,964 (117,236) Other financing sources (uses) Transfers in 44,829              44,829 44,829 Transfers out (2,074,239)       (2,074,239) (2,074,239)   Total other financing sources (uses)(2,029,410) (2,029,410) (2,029,410)   Net change in fund balance 1,031,790$      1,100,790$      983,554 (117,236)$         FUND BALANCE Beginning of year 3,211,479 End of year 4,195,033$       CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements Budgeted Amounts STORM DRAINAGE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET AND ACTUAL  FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018 121 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report June 30, 2018 COMBINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND  SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION  Comprehensive Annual Financial Report June 30, 2018 NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS  Special Revenue Funds  Measure  A  Fund  –  This  fund  accounts  for  the  City’s  share  of  the  special  half‐cent  sales  tax  for  transportation approved on the November 1988 ballot, effective January 1, 1989.  Expenditures from  this fund can only be incurred on transportation‐related programs.  Gas Tax Fund – This fund is to account for revenue received from the State of California derived from  gasoline taxes.  These funds may only be used for street purposes as specified in the State Streets and  Highway Code.  Special Assessment District Fund – This fund accounts for revenue from special assessments received  from a special benefit district formed during fiscal year 2011‐12 on Burlingame Avenue. The special  benefit district revenues fund the lighting, landscape, and utility‐related upgrades completed in 2014,  and a portion of the related maintenance costs.  Train Shuttle Fund – This fund is to account for grant revenues received from the San Mateo County  Transportation Authority and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for a commuter shuttle bus  program.  State/Federal Grants Funds – These funds are to account for grants from the State of California and the  federal government, used or expended for a specific purpose, activity, or facility.  Local Grants Fund – This fund is to account for grants or donations from local sources other than the  State or Federal government used or expended for a specific purpose, activity, or facility.  Development Fees Fund – This fund is to account for developers’ fees that may be used for public  improvements or facilities needed to support approved development projects in the City.  This fund  includes receipts from impact fees for specific improvement in the  Bayfront  and  North  Burlingame  areas, as well as parking in lieu fees.  Public TV Access Fund – This fund is to account for the PEG Access funding through Cable TV Franchise  agreement  beginning  January  1,  1999.    The  City  uses  these  funds  to  finance  capital  improvements  associated with the broadcast of municipal events.  125 Special  Train Measure A Gas Tax Assessment Shuttle Fund Fund District Fund ASSETS Cash and investments 305,237$          501,072$          403,103$          112,557$          Receivables (net of uncollectible amount of $0): Accounts and other receivables 128,318 30,370 17,972 63,675 Total assets 433,555$          531,442$          421,075$          176,232$          LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS AND  FUND BALANCES Liabilities: Accounts payable 7,935$               Due to other funds Total liabilities 7,935 Deferred Inflows: Unavailable revenue 15,958$             31,600 Total deferred inflows 15,958 31,600 Fund Balances: Restricted 433,555$          531,442$          405,117 136,697 Total fund balances 433,555 531,442 405,117 136,697 Total liabilities, deferred inflows and fund  balances 433,555$         531,442$         421,075$         176,232$          Special Revenue Funds CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA Combining Balance Sheet Nonmajor Governmental Funds June 30, 2018 126 Total State /Federal Local Development  Public TV Nonmajor Grants Grants  Fees Access Governmental Fund Fund Fund Fund Funds 10,529$             596,740$          6,229,121$           548,307$          8,706,666$             25,866 1,654 30,146 28,358 326,359 36,395$             598,394$          6,259,267$           576,665$          9,033,025$             10,065$             3,740$               21,740$                  20,785$             20,785 20,785 10,065 3,740 42,525 47,558 47,558 15,610 588,329 6,259,267$          572,925 8,942,942 15,610 588,329 6,259,267 572,925 8,942,942 36,395$            598,394$         6,259,267$          576,665$         9,033,025$             Special Revenue Funds 127 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances Nonmajor Governmental Funds For the year ended June 30, 2018 Special  Train Measure A Gas Tax Assessment Shuttle  Fund Fund District Fund REVENUES: Investment income 3,875$               3,377$              1,637$             Intergovernmental taxes 857,925 794,595 Charges for services 294,136 Grants and subventions 95,750$         Total revenues 861,800 797,972 295,773 95,750 EXPENDITURES: Current: General government Public safety Community development Parks, recreation, and library Shuttle operations 159,868 Total expenditures 159,868 REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 861,800 797,972 295,773 (64,118) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES): Transfers in 140,000 Transfer out (2,200,000) (1,460,000) (310,000) Total other financing sources (uses)(2,200,000) (1,460,000) (310,000) 140,000 Net change in fund balance (1,338,200) (662,028) (14,227) 75,882 FUND BALANCE: Beginning of year 1,771,755 1,193,470 419,344 60,815 End of year 433,555$          531,442$          405,117$        136,697$       Special Revenue Funds 128 Total State /Federal Local Development Public TV Nonmajor Grants Grants Fees Access Governmental Fund Fund Fund Fund Funds 24,509$              2,057$  35,455$   1,652,520 146,654 106,496 547,286 125,630$      323,379$        544,759 125,630 323,379 171,163 108,553 2,780,020 45,285 45,285 80,329 80,329 12,500 12,500 11,959 249,437 261,396 159,868 104,788 249,437 45,285 559,378 20,842 73,942 171,163 63,268 2,220,642 140,000 (3,970,000) (3,830,000) 20,842 73,942 171,163 63,268 (1,609,358) (5,232) 514,387 6,088,104 509,657 10,552,300 15,610$        588,329$        6,259,267$       572,925$               8,942,942$               Special Revenue Funds 129 Measure A Fund Variance Variance Positive Positive Budget  Actual (Negative) Budget  Actual (Negative) REVENUES: Investment income 23,000$           3,875$             (19,125)$         18,000$           3,377$             (14,623)$          Intergovernmental 824,000 857,925 33,925 849,100 794,595 (54,505) Charges for services Grants revenue Total revenues 847,000 861,800 14,800 867,100 797,972 (69,128) EXPENDITURES: Current: General government Public safety Parks, recreation, and library Community development Shuttle operations Total expenditures REVENUES OVER  (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 847,000 861,800 14,800 867,100 797,972 (69,128) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES): Transfers in Transfers out (2,200,000) (2,200,000)(1,460,000) (1,460,000) Total other financing sources (uses)(2,200,000) (2,200,000)(1,460,000) (1,460,000) Net change in fund balance (1,353,000)$    (1,338,200) 14,800$           (592,900)$       (662,028) (69,128)$          FUND BALANCE: Beginning of year 1,771,755 1,193,470 End of year 433,555$        531,442$         Gas Tax Fund CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA Combining Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances ‐  Budget and Actual ‐ Nonmajor Governmental Funds For the year ended June 30, 2018 Special Revenue Funds 130 Variance Variance Variance Positive Positive Positive Budget  Actual (Negative) Budget  Actual (Negative) Budget  Actual (Negative) 6,000$             1,637$             (4,363)$            310,000 294,136 (15,864) 64,150$           95,750$           31,600$           77,500$           125,630$        48,130$            316,000 295,773 (20,227) 64,150 95,750 31,600 77,500 125,630 48,130 99,573 80,329 19,244 7,500 11,959 (4,459) 12,500 (12,500) 204,650 159,868 44,782 204,650 159,868 44,782 107,073 104,788 2,285 316,000 295,773 (20,227) (140,500) (64,118) 76,382 (29,573) 20,842 50,415 140,000 140,000 (310,000) (310,000) (310,000) (310,000)140,000 140,000 6,000$             (14,227) (20,227)$         (500) 75,882 76,382$           (29,573)$         20,842 50,415$            419,344 60,815 (5,232) 405,117$        136,697$        15,610$            Special Revenue Funds Special Assessment District Train Shuttle Fund State/Federal Grants Fund 131 Local Grant Funds Development Fees Fund Variance Variance Positive Positive Budget  Actual (Negative) Budget Actual (Negative) REVENUES: Investment income 3,000$             (4,310)$           (7,310)$           60,000$           24,509$           (35,491)$          Intergovernmental Charges for services 146,654 146,654 Grants revenue 27,000 323,379 296,379 Total revenues 30,000 319,069 289,069 60,000 171,163 111,163 EXPENDITURES: Current: General government Public safety Parks, recreation, and library 23,555 245,127 (221,572) Community development Shuttle operations Total expenditures 23,555 245,127 (221,572) REVENUES OVER  (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 6,445 73,942 67,497 60,000 171,163 111,163 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES): Transfers in Transfers out Total other financing sources (uses) Net change in fund balance 6,445$             73,942 67,497$           60,000$           171,163 111,163$         FUND BALANCE: Beginning of year 514,387 6,088,104 End of year 588,329$        6,259,267$      CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA Combining Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances ‐  Budget and Actual ‐ Nonmajor Governmental Funds For the year ended June 30, 2018 Special Revenue Funds 132 Public TV Access Fund Variance Positive Budget  Actual (Negative) 6,000$             2,057$             (3,943)$            110,000 106,496 (3,504) 116,000 108,553 (7,447) 60,000 45,285 14,715 60,000 45,285 14,715 56,000 63,268 (7,268) 56,000$           63,268 (7,268)$            509,657 572,925$         Special Revenue Funds 133 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report June 30, 2018 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS  General  Liability  Fund  –  This  fund  accounts  for  the  servicing  of  the  general  liability  self‐insurance  program of the City.  Included are costs associated with self‐insurance and the purchase of excess  insurance to adequately protect the City.  User departments are charged for this program at rates based  on loss experience (frequency and severity of claims).  Workers’ Compensation Fund ‐ This fund accounts for the funding of the City’s Workers’ Compensation  costs.  User departments are charged for workers’ compensation at rates based on loss experience and  on departmental personnel budgets.  OPEB (Other Post‐Employment Benefits) Fund – This fund accounts for the costs of the City’s retiree  medical program and related liabilities. A percentage “surcharge” on actual payroll provides the fund’s  revenues; benefits are paid out of the fund and the remaining funds are swept to the irrevocable trust  fund established to reduce the OPEB liability incurred in prior years.  Facilities Services Fund – This fund accounts for the costs of operation of the City’s maintenance and  repair of City building and custodial services on a cost reimbursement basis.  Equipment  Services  Fund – This fund accounts for the costs of operation, maintenance, and  replacement of automotive equipment used by the various departments.  Such costs are billed to the  consuming departments at a rate that includes operation and maintenance, and an amount necessary to  provide replacement of the equipment at a future date.  Information Technology Services Fund – This fund accounts for the costs of operation of the City’s  telephone  and  computer  maintenance  and  acquisitions.    Such  costs  are  billed  to  the  consuming  departments at a rate that includes operation and maintenance, and an amount necessary to provide  for replacement of computers.  135 Information General  Worker's Facilities Equipment Technology Liability Compensation OPEB Services Services Services Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Total ASSETS Current assets: Cash and investments 4,983,580$        6,767,944$             $323,911 351,785$           6,255,419$         884,387$       19,567,026$         Receivable (net of uncollectible amounts of $0): Accounts 3,580 30,049 33,629 Other receivables 21,980 32,796 96,790 1,779 31,559 3,922 188,826 Prepaid and Inventory 14,272 33,621 47,893 Total current assets 5,005,560 6,800,740 434,973 353,564 6,324,179 918,358 19,837,374 Non‐Current assets: Cash and investments, restricted 85,195 57,153 37,296 5,767 185,411 Capital assets: Facilities, infrastructure, and equipment,  net of depreciation 109,402 1,520,167 27,012 1,656,581 Total noncurrent assets 85,195 166,555 1,557,463 32,779 1,841,992 Total assets 5,005,560 6,885,935 434,973 520,119 7,881,642 951,137 21,679,366 DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES Deferred outflows related to pensions 282,010 182,933 12,936 477,879 Deferred outflows related to OPEB 104,928 67,953 10,493 183,374 Total deferred outflows of resources 386,938 250,886 23,429 661,253 LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable 20,604 804 10,305 86,155 72,341 101,133 291,342 Compensated absences due in one year 192 9,602 9,794 Claims and litigation due in one year 50,000 80,000 130,000 Total current liabilities 70,604 80,804 10,305 86,347 81,943 101,133 431,136 Noncurrent liabilities: Compensated absences 47,954 6,069 54,023 Claims and litigation 773,000 5,762,000 6,535,000 Net pension liability 1,080,280 700,751 49,554 1,830,585 Net OPEB liability 817,162 529,210 81,716 1,428,088 Total noncurrent liabilities 773,000 5,762,000 1,945,396 1,236,030 131,270 9,847,696 Total liabilities 843,604 5,842,804 10,305 2,031,743 1,317,973 232,403 10,278,832 DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES Deferred inflows related to pensions 27,436 17,797 1,259 46,492 Deferred inflows related to OPEB 4,338 2,809 434 7,581 Total deferred outflows of resources 31,774 20,606 1,693 54,073 NET POSITION Net investment in capital assets 109,402 1,520,167 27,012 1,656,581 Restricted 85,195 57,153 37,296 5,767 185,411 Unrestricted (deficit)4,161,956 957,936 424,668 (1,323,015) 5,236,486 707,691 10,165,722 Total net position 4,161,956$       1,043,131$            424,668$            (1,156,460)$      6,793,949$         740,470$       12,007,714$         CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA Combining Statement of Net Position Internal Service Funds June 30, 2018 136 Information General  Worker's Facilities Equipment Technology Liability Compensation OPEB Services Services Services Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Total OPERATING REVENUES: Charges for services 1,510,000$      848,883$         4,774,219$      1,529,812$       1,231,636$      1,244,298$      11,138,848$       Other revenue 32,692 117 1,232 34,041 Total operating revenue 1,542,692 848,883 4,774,219 1,529,929 1,232,868 1,244,298 11,172,889 OPERATING EXPENSES: Salaries and benefits 814,132 435,941 81,396 1,331,469 Retiree medical benefit 4,322,881 4,322,881 Supplies and services 133,936 105,299 26,670 713,639 223,459 926,149 2,129,152 Depreciation 17,379 528,221 15,345 560,945 Insurance claims and expenses 519,621 702,922 2,156 47,940 1,272,639 Total  operating expenses 653,557 808,221 4,349,551 1,547,306 1,235,561 1,022,890 9,617,086 Operating income (loss)889,135 40,662 424,668 (17,377) (2,693) 221,408 1,555,803 NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES): Investment income (expense) 17,870 26,664 2,388 26,285 3,314 76,521 Net nonoperating revenues (expenses)17,870 26,664 2,388 26,285 3,314 76,521 Net change in net position 907,005 67,326 424,668 (14,989) 23,592 224,722 1,632,324 NET POSITION: Total net position, beginning, as restated  3,254,951 975,805 (1,141,471) 6,770,357 515,748 10,375,390 Total net position, ending 4,161,956$      1,043,131$      $424,668.00 (1,156,460)$      6,793,949$      740,470$          12,007,714$       CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position Internal Service Funds For the year ended June 30, 2018 137 Information General Workers' Facilities Equipment Technology Liability Compensation OPEB Services Services Services Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Total CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: Receipts from customers for service charges 1,566,417$        835,887$            4,768,629$        1,529,614$      1,265,968$      1,212,492$      11,179,007$           Payments to claims (70,295) (479,672)(549,967) Payments to suppliers (512,726) (247,745) (32,662) (688,437) (243,638) (955,254) (2,680,462) Payments to retirees and trust (4,322,881)(4,322,881) Payments to employees (792,255) (404,195) (84,989) (1,281,439) Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities 983,396 108,470 413,086 48,922 618,135 172,249 2,344,258 CASH FLOWS FROM  NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES: Interfund loans received (paid)(89,175)(89,175) (89,175)(89,175) CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND  RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES: Acquisition and construction of capital assets (13,341) (961,652)(974,993) CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: Interest received on investments 17,870 26,664 2,388 26,285 3,314 76,521 17,870 26,664 2,388 26,285 3,314 76,521 Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents 1,001,266 135,134 323,911 37,969 (317,232) 175,563 1,356,611 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS: Beginning of year 3,982,314 6,718,005 370,969 6,609,947 714,591 18,395,826 End of year 4,983,580$        6,853,139$         323,911$           408,938$          6,292,715$      890,154$         19,752,437$           RECONCILIATION OF OPERATING INCOME (LOSS)  TO NET CASH PROVIDED BY (USED IN) OPERATING ACTIVITIES: Operating (loss) income 889,135$           40,662$               424,668$           (17,377)$           (2,693)$             221,408$         1,555,803$             Adjustments for noncash activities: Depreciation and amortization 17,379 528,221 15,345 560,945 Changes in assets and liabilities: Receivables 23,725 (12,996) (5,590)(315) 33,100 (31,806)6,118 Inventories (14,272)(33,621)(47,893) Deferred outflows (146,774) (95,097) (12,412) (254,283) Accounts payable 20,536 804 8,280 27,358 61,382 (29,105)89,255 Compensated absences (48,146) (7,541)(55,687) Claims and litigations liabilities 50,000 80,000 130,000 Deferred inflows (33,871) (21,976) (1,318)(57,165) Net pension liabilities 135,019 87,583 6,193 228,795 Net OPEB liabilities 115,649 68,777 3,944 188,370 Total adjustments 94,261 67,808 (11,582) 66,299 620,828 (49,159)788,455 Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities 983,396$           108,470$            413,086$           48,922$            618,135$          172,249$         2,344,258$             RECONCILIATION OF CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS  TO THE STATEMENT OF NET POSITION Cash and investments – current 4,983,580$        6,767,944$         323,911$           351,785$          6,255,419$      884,387$         19,567,026$           Cash and investments, restricted 85,195 57,153 37,296 5,767 185,411 Total cash and investments per Statement of Net Position 4,983,580$        6,853,139$         323,911$           408,938$          6,292,715$      890,154$         19,752,437$           CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA Combining Statement of Cash Flows Internal Service Funds For the year ended June 30, 2018 138 FIDUCIARY FUNDS  Agency Funds  Seismic Education Fees – This Fund records fees collected from building permits and disbursements to  the State of California in accordance with program regulations.  Hotel Business Improvement District (BID) Fees Fund – This fund accounts for fee collections received as  an Agent for the San Mateo County Visitors and Convention Bureau.  Elementary School Development Fees Fund – This fund accounts for fee collections received as an Agent  for the Burlingame Elementary School District.  High School Development Fees Fund – This fund accounts for fee collections received as an Agent for  the San Mateo Union High School District.  Council Cities – This fund records collections received for the Council of Cities meeting.   Business Improvement District (BID) Fund – Broadway – This fund accounts for collections received as  an Agent for the Broadway Business Improvement Project.  Library Foundation Account Fund – This fund accounts for collections and disbursements by the Library  Foundation.  Building Standards Administration Fund – This Fund records fees collected from building permits and  disbursements to the State of California in accordance with program regulations.  Downtown Business Improvement District Fund – This fund accounts for collections received for the  Downtown Business Improvement District.  Deferred Compensation – Retirees Fund – This fund is for the collection of the City’s closed out deferred  compensation plans. Funds will be disbursed to the account beneficiaries.   Deferred Compensation – Administrative Services Fund – This fund is used to collect funding deposits  from the City’s deferred compensation plan vendor to pay third party expenses.     139 CITY OF BURLINGAME AGENCY FUNDS  COMBINING STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018 Balance Balance June 30, 2017 Additions Deductions June 30, 2018 Seismic Education Fees Assets: Cash and investments 6,356$(6,356)$   Total assets 6,356$(6,356) Liabilities: Accounts payable 4,795$($4,795) Due to other governmental units 1,561 (1,561) Total liabilities 6,356$(6,356) Hotel BID Fees Assets: Cash and investments 151,561$               (11,456)$                140,105$                Accounts receivable 749,899 38,721 788,620 Total assets 901,460$               38,721$                 (11,456)$                928,725$                Liabilities: Accounts payable 159,574$               (12,087)$                147,487$                Due to other governmental units 741,886 39,352 781,238 Total liabilities 901,460$               39,352$                 (12,087)$                928,725$                Elementary School Development Fees Assets: Cash and investments 29,320$                 212,925$               242,245$                Total assets 29,320$                 $212,925 242,245$                Liabilities: Accounts payable 29,320$                 $212,925 242,245$                Total liabilities 29,320$                 $212,925 242,245$                High School Development Fees Assets: Cash and investments 22,913$                 167,113$               190,026$                Total assets 22,913$                 167,113$               190,026$                Liabilities; Accounts payable 22,913$                 167,113$               190,026$                Total liabilities 22,913$                 167,113$               190,026$                (continued) 140 CITY OF BURLINGAME AGENCY FUNDS  COMBINING STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018 Balance Balance June 30, 2017 Additions Deductions June 30, 2018 Council Cities Assets: Cash and investments 1,050$                   (1,050)$                   Accounts receivable 550 (550) Total assets 1,600$                   ($1,600) Liabilities: Accounts payable 1,300$                   (1,300)$                   Due to other governmental units 300 (300) Total liabilities 1,600$                   ($300) BID ‐ Broadway Assets: Cash and investments 262$                       6,496$                   6,758$                    Total assets 262$                       6,496$                   6,758$                    Liabilities; Accounts payable 262$                       6,496$                   6,758$                    Total liabilities 262$                       6,496$                   6,758$                    Library Foundation Account Fund Assets: Cash and investments 2,346$                   (199)$                     2,147$                    Total assets 2,346$                   (199)$                     2,147$                    Liabilities; Accounts payable 2,346$                   ($199)2,147$                    Total liabilities 2,346$                   (199)2,147$                    (continued) 141 CITY OF BURLINGAME AGENCY FUNDS  COMBINING STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018 Balance Balance June 30, 2017 Additions Deductions June 30, 2018 Building Standards Administration Assets: Cash and investments 1,761$(1,761)$   Total assets 1,761$(1,761) Liabilities; Accounts payable 1,005$(1,005)$   Due to other governmental units 756 (756) Total liabilities 1,761$  (1,761)$   Downtown Business Improvement District Assets: Cash and investments 2,363$(2,363)$   Accounts receivable 10,385 3,005 13,390 Total assets 12,748$                 3,005$(2,363)$13,390$                  Liabilities: Accounts payable 4,108$(3,258)$850$   Due to other governmental units 8,640 3,900$12,540 Total liabilities 12,748$                 3,900$  (3,258)$  13,390$                  Deferred Comp ‐ Retirees Assets: Cash and investments 6,428$6,428$ Total assets 6,428$  6,428$   Liabilities: Due to other governmental units 6,428$6,428$ Total liabilities 6,428$  6,428$   (continued) 142 CITY OF BURLINGAME AGENCY FUNDS  COMBINING STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018 Balance Balance June 30, 2017 Additions Deductions June 30, 2018 Deferred Comp ‐ Admin. Services Assets: Cash and investments 17,921$                 41,050$                 (22,500)$                36,471$                  Prepaids 3,806 (3,806) Total assets 21,727 41,050$                 (26,306)$                36,471$                  Liabilities: Accounts payable 12,000$                 (12,000)$                 Due to other governmental units 9,727 41,050 (14,306) 36,471 Total liabilities 21,727$                 41,050$                 (26,306)36,471$                  Totals ‐ All Agency Funds Assets: Cash and investments 242,281$               427,584$               (45,685)$                624,180$                Accounts receivable 760,834 41,726 (550)802,010 Prepaid and deposit 3,806 (3,806) Total assets 1,006,921$            469,310$               (50,041)$                1,426,190$             Liabilities: Accounts payable 237,623$               386,534$               (34,644)$                589,513$                Due to other governmental units 769,298 84,302 (16,923)836,677 Total liabilities 1,006,921$            470,836$               (51,567)$                1,426,190$             143 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report June 30, 2018 STATISTICAL SECTION  Comprehensive Annual Financial Report June 30, 2018 STATISTICAL SECTION  Contents  Pages  Financial Trends  These schedules contain trend information to help the reader understand how the   City’s financial performance and well‐being have changed over time.  146‐153  Revenue Capacity  These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the factors affecting   the City’s ability to generate its property and other taxes.  154‐160  Debt Capacity  These schedules present information to help the reader assess the affordability of the   City’s current levels of outstanding debt and the City’s ability to issue additional debt in   the future.  161‐165  Demographic and Economic Information  These schedules offer demographic and economic indicators to help the reader understand   the environment within which the City’s financial activities take place and to help make   comparisons over time and with other governments. 166‐168  Operating Information  These schedules contain information about the City’s operations and resources to help   the reader understand how the City’s financial information relates to the services the City   provides and the activities it performs. 170‐172  147 Fiscal Year (1)(1)(1) 2009 2010 2011 2012 Governmental activities: Net investment in capital assets 60,967$      59,936$      51,521$      78,903$       Restricted 3,575          3,515          8,674           12,102          Unrestricted ‐ restated per GASB 75 41,005        42,298        49,259        27,234          Total governmental activities net position 105,547$   105,749$   109,454$    118,239$     Business‐type activities: Net investment in capital assets 32,014$      30,759$      38,406$      40,381$       Restricted ‐              ‐              ‐               5,014            Unrestricted ‐ restated per GASB 75 18,119        19,260        17,736        14,788          Total business‐type activities net position 50,133$      50,019$      56,142$      60,183$       Primary government: Net investment in capital assets 92,981$      90,695$      89,927$      119,284$     Restricted 3,575          3,515          8,674           17,116          Unrestricted 59,124        61,558        66,995        42,022          Total primary government net position 155,680$   155,768$   165,596$    178,422$     (1) Reclassifications in the categories were made to stay consistent and comparable with the presentation in the current year. (2) 2012 reflects net position as originally stated and does not include the effect of implementation of GASB Statement No. 65 in 2013 which restated beginning net position. CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA NET POSITION BY COMPONENT Last Ten Fiscal Years (accrual basis of accounting) (amounts expressed in thousands) 148 Fiscal Year (2) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 64,020$      72,956$      74,346$      79,019$      82,624$         87,689$          26,400         45,863         36,446         38,414         43,383           26,901            34,841         14,732         (26,763)       (25,511)       (9,583)            6,415              125,261$    133,551$    84,029$      91,922$      116,424$       121,005$        43,469$      46,341$      50,485$      54,587$      61,071$         66,077$          5,050           451              451               12,367         11,963           12,155            16,093         27,092         22,038         26,002         30,125           31,760            64,612$      73,884$      72,974$      92,956$      103,159$       109,992$        107,489$    119,297$    124,831$    133,606$    143,695$       153,766$        31,450         46,314         36,897         50,781         55,346 39,056 50,934         41,824         (4,725) 491              20,542           38,176            189,873$    207,436$    157,003$    184,878$    219,583$       230,998$        149 2009 2010 2011 2012 Expenses Governmental activities: General government 5,493$                 5,354$                 6,803$                 6,358$                  Public safety 21,154 21,050 21,141 20,265  Public works 8,071 8,453 8,514 8,248  Community development 3,263 2,318 1,752 1,245  Parks, recreation and library 10,868 9,191 10,475 9,828  Shuttle operations 318 130 324 249  Financing and other activities 2,093 1,876 2,656 2,215  Total governmental activities expenses 51,261 48,372 51,665 48,408  Business‐type activities: Water 9,315 9,370 9,569 11,082  Sewer 10,442 10,170 9,509 9,686  Waste management 1,217 687 936 681  Landfill ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  Parking 1,353 1,298 1,454 1,435  Building 1,185 1,075 1,141 1,222  Total business‐type activities expenses 23,512 22,600 22,608 24,107  Total primary government expenses 74,773$               70,972$               74,273$               72,516$                Program Revenue Governmental activities: Charges for services: General government 240$  350$  616$  2$  Public safety 2,104 1,179 2,202 1,053  Public works 556 314 1,713 560  Community development 300 336 744 319  Parks, recreation and library 2,565 2,643 2,744 2,760  Shuttle operations ‐ ‐ 72 ‐  Operating grants and contributions 2,590 2,040 2,210 1,165  Capital grants and contributions 918 3,407 3,189 3,520  Total government activities program revenues 9,273 10,269 13,490 9,379  Business‐types activities: Charges for services: Water 11,800 11,516 12,734 13,708  Sewer 12,467 12,534 14,566 16,157  Waste management 7 294 653 465  Landfill ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  Parking 1,640 1,645 1,802 1,950  Building 2,356 1,479 1,404 1,580  Capital grants and contributions 535 23 ‐ ‐  Total business‐type activities program revenues 28,805 27,491 31,159 33,860  Total primary governmental program revenues 38,078$               37,760$               44,649$               43,239$                Net (expenses)/revenue Government activities (41,988)$              (38,103)$              (38,175)$              (39,029)$               Business‐type activities 5,293 4,891 8,551 9,753  Total primary government net expenses (36,695)$              (33,212)$              (29,624)$              (29,277)$               General Revenues and Other Changes in Net Position  Governmental activities: Taxes Property taxes 12,798$               13,355$               13,310$               13,672$                Sales tax 8,251 6,276 8,041 8,495  Transient occupancy tax 10,155 10,342 13,404 16,183  Other taxes 2,095 2,267 5,037 4,478  Other general revenue ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  Special Item ‐ OPEB pre‐funding ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  Loss on disposal of capital assets ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  Investment earnings (expense)897 618 805 472  Transfers 980 5,447 1,282 4,513  Total governmental activities 35,176 38,305 41,879 47,813  Business‐type activities: Other taxes 610 442 ‐ 228  Other general revenue Investment earnings (expense)‐ ‐ (1,145) (1,427)  Transfers (980) (5,447) (1,282) (4,513)  Total primary government (370) (5,005) (2,427) (5,712)  Change in Net Position Government activities (6,811) 202 3,704 8,784  Business‐type activities 4,923 (114) 6,124 4,041  Total primary government (1,887)$                88$ 9,828$                 12,825$                CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA CHANGE IN NET POSITION Last Ten Fiscal Years (accrual basis accounting) (amounts expressed in thousands) 150 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 6,188$                  7,295$                  4,231$                  4,275$                  4,757$                  5,785$                  21,163 19,141 23,005 26,296 25,710 27,129  9,268 12,961 8,267 8,312 7,353 7,929  941 1,007 1,145 1,162 1,386 1,817  11,065 11,162 15,832 13,786 14,581 16,925  179 188 135 137 150 191  3,552 2,812 2,422 2,639 3,075 2,210  52,356 54,567 55,037 56,607 57,012 61,986  12,127 10,745 11,471 12,822 13,806 14,671  9,553 9,332 10,144 10,960 10,345 11,205  634 467 481 487 676 789  ‐ 177 67 56 77 406  1,350 1,183 1,296 445 635 1,053  1,317 1,254 1,368 1,420 2,054 1,580  24,980 23,158 24,827 26,190 27,593 29,704  77,336$               77,725$               79,864$               82,797$               84,605$               91,690$                117$  302$  116$  123$  122$  119$   212 1,097 1,066 1,009 1,075 1,140  3,230 4,075 3,870 3,477 4,316 4,186  384 738 657 890 5,900 702  2,880 2,919 3,372 3,405 3,860 4,208  ‐ ‐ ‐ 150 ‐ ‐  987 738 1,127 591 978 830  357 1,249 740 439 150 1,218  8,167 11,118 10,948 10,084 16,401 12,403  14,875 16,023 15,425 15,158 16,375 18,623  16,791 16,931 15,679 15,634 15,798 15,837  564 1,694 943 778 780 700  ‐ 350 445 437 447 465  2,428 2,477 2,573 2,649 2,766 2,820  1,707 2,057 1,980 2,257 4,087 4,413  ‐ ‐ ‐ 42,858 ‐ ‐  36,365 39,532 37,045 79,771 40,253 42,858  44,532$               50,651$               47,993$               89,855$               56,654$               55,261$                (44,189)$              (43,449)$              (44,089)$              (46,523)$              (40,611)$              (49,583)$               11,385 16,374 12,218 53,581 12,660 13,154  (32,804)$              (27,075)$              (31,871)$              7,058$                 (27,951)$              (36,429)$               14,394$               15,497$               16,677$               17,645$               18,933$               20,335$                9,199 10,196 11,101 12,828 12,089 12,820  18,244 21,357 23,698 26,092 26,263 27,936  5,311 4,595 4,697 4,589 4,407 4,869  ‐ 344 1,254 233 427 381  ‐ (6,600) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (115)  148 576 481 1,292 266 624  3,916 5,774 3,127 (8,114) 2,730 2,863  51,212 51,739 61,037 54,565 65,115 69,713  314 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  382 144 185  (3,353) (1,329) (1,451) 762 128 235  (3,916) (5,774) (3,127) 8,114 (2,730) (2,864)  (6,955) (7,103) (4,578) 9,258 (2,458) (2,444)  7,023 8,290 16,947 7,893 24,503 20,132  4,430 9,271 7,640 19,982 10,202 10,709  11,453$               17,562$               24,587$               27,875$               34,705$               30,841$                151 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report June 30, 2018 2009 2010 2011 (1) 2012 2013 General Fund: Nonspendable 3$                 1$                 217$             Restricted ‐                ‐ ‐  Committed ‐                ‐ ‐  Assigned 10,200         11,927 12,300 Unassigned 1,665           3,591           7,430            Reserved 670$            580$             Unreserved 6,676           6,276            Total general fund 7,346$         6,856$         11,868$       15,519$       19,947$        All other governmental funds: Nonspendable 475               204$            396$             Restricted 5,756           11,898 26,004          Committed ‐                ‐  19,412          Assigned 16,140         13,246 1,166 Unassigned ‐                ‐ ‐  Subtotal all other governmental funds 22,370         25,348$       46,978$        Reserved 6,111$         9,024$          Unreserved, reported in: Debt service funds ‐ ‐  Special revenue funds 757               739                Capital projects funds ‐ ‐  Total all other governmental funds 6,868$         9,763$         34,238$       40,867$       66,925$        2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 General Fund: Nonspendable 221$            224$            337$            215$            6$                  Restricted ‐ ‐ ‐ 12                  4,391            Committed ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  Assigned 9,413 18,773 18,638 19,386 19,930 Unassigned 13,251         10,465         11,003         13,659         12,046          Subtotal General Fund 22,885$       29,462$       29,978$       33,272$       36,373$        All other governmental funds: Nonspendable 383$            375$            575$            ‐$  ‐$   Restricted 17,417         10,851         21,034         25,196         22,325          Committed 28,063         25,220         20,874         22,359         27,005          Assigned 651 8,762 13,500 20,500 25,800 Unassigned ‐ ‐ 97                 (5) ‐  Subtotal all other governmental funds 46,514$       45,208$       56,080$       68,050$       75,130$        Total governmental fund balance 69,399$       74,670$       86,058$       101,322$     111,503$      (1) Beginning in fiscal year 2011, the City implemented GASB Statement No. 54 which provided updated guidance on   fund balance designation and reporting. CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA FUND BALANCE OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Last Ten Fiscal Years (modified accrual basis of accounting) (amounts express in thousands) 153 Fiscal Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 REVENUES: Property taxes 12,798$        12,209$         13,310$         13,672$         15,539$        Sales and use taxes 8,251             6,276             8,041             8,495             9,199            Transient occupancy taxes 10,155          10,342           13,404           16,183           18,244          Other taxes 2,012             2,159             2,416             2,582             2,970            Licenses and permits 298                92 97 100                 102                Fines, forfeitures, and penalties 1,298             467                1,025             889                 933                Investment income 959                695                803                 472                 148                Motor vehicle in lieu tax 83 108                148                 ‐ ‐  Intergovernmental 1,898             1,506             1,500             1,896             2,115            Charges for services 3,986             6,393             6,121             6,270             6,721            Grant and governmental revenues 824                1,146             662                 1,216             267                Other revenue 877                552                845                 904                 370                Total revenues 43,440          41,945           48,371           52,680           56,608          EXPENDITURES: Current General government 5,111             4,842             5,458             6,669             5,699            Public safety 19,097          18,830           17,378           18,392           18,895          Public works 6,839             7,231             5,713             9,790             7,834            Community development 890                780                731                 1,172             854                Parks, recreation and library 10,319          8,500             8,620             9,463             9,328            Shuttle operations 318                130                139                 145                 179                Other ‐ ‐ 17 ‐ ‐  Capital Outlay 11,001          5,028             4,023             ‐  6,447            Debt service: Principal 2,138             2,212             7,526             3,034             3,527            Interest 2,104             1,922             2,425             2,304             2,337            Total expenditures 57,817          49,475           52,031           50,969           55,101          EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (14,377)         (7,530)            (3,660)            1,711             1,507            OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES): Transfer in 17,398          16,797           26,312           29,276           33,209          Transfer out (6,686)           (6,861)            (25,029)          (24,763)          (29,293)         Pension obligation bonds issued ‐                 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐                 Payment to PERS retirement ‐                 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐                 Refund bond issued ‐                 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐                 Premium on bonds issued ‐                 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐                 Proceeds from issuance of debt ‐                 ‐ 20,300           405                  20,637          Payments to refunded bond escrow agent ‐                 ‐ (305) ‐ ‐                 Total other financing sources (uses)10,712          9,936             21,278           4,918             24,553          Net change in fund balances (3,665)$         2,405$           17,618$         6,630$           26,058$        Debt service as a percentage of noncapital expenditures 9% 9% 21% 10% 12% CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Last Ten Fiscal Years (modified accrual basis of accounting) (amounts expressed in thousands) 154 Fiscal Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 15,497$       16,677$       17,645$       18,933$       20,335$        10,196         11,101         12,828         12,089         12,819          21,357         23,698         26,092         26,263         27,936          2,970           3,048           3,154           3,024           3,216            112               84                 86                 88                 83                  874               921               864               898               976                391               374               1,036           309               547                ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  1,625           1,648           1,435           1,383           1,653            7,704           8,076           7,919           14,284         9,298            1,987           1,867           1,075           779               2,048            345               1,255           391               427               378                63,058         68,749         72,525         78,477         79,289          5,989           4,434           4,917           5,148           5,604            20,082         23,231         25,057         25,646         26,448          11,280         8,311           7,330           6,238           6,617            1,041           1,244           1,406           1,531           1,812            10,485         15,145         12,725         13,590         15,642          188               135               137               150               160                ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  3,205           6,594           3,885           4,863           8,080            4,631           4,964           5,832           5,596           5,246            2,752           2,548           2,633           3,182           2,364            59,654         66,607         63,922         65,944         71,973          3,404           2,142           8,603           12,533         7,316            33,520         33,694         30,150         26,378         29,605          (34,448)        (30,567)        (38,264)        (23,648)        (26,741)         ‐                ‐                ‐                ‐                ‐                 ‐                ‐                ‐                ‐                ‐                 ‐                ‐                ‐                ‐                ‐                 ‐                ‐                1,045           ‐                ‐                 ‐                ‐                9,855           ‐                ‐                 ‐                ‐                ‐                ‐                ‐                 (929) 3,127 2,786           2,730           2,864            2,473$         5,270$         11,389$       15,263$       10,180$        13% 13% 14% 14% 12% 155 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA ASSESSED VALUES OF TAXABLE PROPERTY Last Ten Fiscal Years Category 2008‐09 2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13 Residential 4,752,698,976$   4,919,813,993$   4,964,900,673$   5,067,435,558$   5,292,630,080$   Commercial 1,205,209,020      1,229,890,648     1,197,204,546     1,203,204,597     1,264,338,491     Industrial 403,343,837         417,397,081        445,945,589        449,409,192        469,569,724         Government 1,718,546              1,752,914             477,622                481,217                490,841                 Institutional 27,466,494           23,302,586           5,108,197             5,179,683             5,313,527             Miscellaneous 2,386,992              6,116,146             47,603,695           46,149,474           47,731,445           Recreational 20,570,100           17,974,577           21,392,656           21,565,053           21,330,221           Vacant Land 43,891,543           46,610,281           50,379,786           44,684,470           53,260,644           SBE Nonunitary 3,837,425              3,837,425             3,680,597             2,560,452             2,560,452             Unsecured 300,758,515         299,902,769        274,429,627        270,906,684        275,840,943         Unknown 145,525                 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  TOTALS 6,762,026,973$   6,966,598,420$   7,011,122,988$   7,111,576,380$   7,433,066,368$   Total Direct Rate 0.14522 0.14521 0.14520 0.14519 0.14209 Note: Exempt values are not included in the total. Source:  San Mateo County Assessor 2008/09 ‐ 2017/18 Combined Tax Rolls In 1978 the voters of the State of California passed Proposition 13 which limited taxes to a total maximum rate of 1%, based  upon the assessed value of the property being taxed.  Each year, the assessed value of property may be increased by an  "inflation factor" (limited to a maximum of 2%).  With few exceptions, property is only reassessed as a result of new  construction activity or at the time it is sold to a new owner.  At that point, the property is reassessed based upon the added  value of the construction or at the purchase price (market value) or economic value of the property sold.  The assessed  valuation data shown above represents the only data currently available with respect to the actual market value of taxable  property and is subject to the limitations described above. 156 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17 2017‐18 5,657,587,039$   6,106,922,682$    6,543,165,637$   6,996,722,454$    7,392,749,191$     1,304,028,690      1,406,432,281      1,487,657,043      1,665,932,944      1,857,291,724       487,612,064         491,904,917         500,290,183         523,550,270         545,609,274           1,131,741              1,136,878              16,859,592           17,116,700            17,459,033             5,686,994              6,739,774              5,545,746              5,634,571              5,743,999               52,216,889           52,541,265            63,818,615           76,577,551            102,398,944           21,756,820           27,696,881            30,269,253           30,095,025            30,696,916             61,242,201           42,238,634            43,082,544           62,448,455            63,823,350             2,560,452              2,560,452              2,763,435              2,763,435              2,763,435               302,712,785         307,284,506         324,903,282         329,134,973         338,411,794           45,233,193           ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  7,941,768,868$   8,445,458,270$    9,018,355,330$   9,709,976,378$    10,356,947,660$   0.14205 0.14235 0.14250 0.14246 0.14245 157 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA NET TAXABLE ASSESSED VALUE HISTORY Last Ten Fiscal Years LIEN YEAR SECURED UNSECURED SBE NONUNITARY NET TOTAL  ASSESSED VALUE % CHANGE 2008/09 6,457,431,033$     300,758,515$        3,837,425$             6,762,026,973$     5.91% 2009/10 6,662,858,226       299,902,769          3,837,425               6,966,598,420       3.03% 2010/11 6,733,012,764       274,429,627          3,680,597               7,011,122,988       0.64% 2011/12 6,838,109,244       270,906,684          2,560,452               7,111,576,380       1.43% 2012/13 7,154,664,973       275,840,943          2,560,452               7,433,066,368       4.52% 2013/14 7,636,495,631       302,712,785          2,560,452               7,941,768,868       6.84% 2014/15 8,135,613,312       307,284,506          2,560,452               8,445,458,270       6.34% 2015/16 8,690,688,613       324,903,282          2,763,435               9,018,355,330       6.78% 2016/17 9,378,077,970       329,134,973          2,763,435               9,709,976,378       7.67% 2017/18 10,015,772,431     338,411,794          2,763,435               10,356,947,660     6.66% Source:  San Mateo County Assessor  TAXABLE PROPERTY VALUES 158 (per $100 of assessed value) General County, Community Elementary High  Fiscal   City and  Peninsula College School School Total   Year  Schools (1)(2)City   County Hospital District District District  Tax Rate $$$$$$$$ 2009 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.016500 0.108300 0.029800 1.154600 2010 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.018200 0.127400 0.031900 1.177500 2011 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.019300 0.132300 0.032200 1.183800 2012 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.019900 0.138800 0.038300 1.197000 2013 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.019400 0.144800 0.038100 1.202300 2014 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.019400 0.177200 0.035500 1.232100 2015 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.019000 0.101500 0.047500 1.168000 2016 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.025000 0.090000 0.046600 1.161600 2017 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.024700 0.082400 0.041500 1.148600 2018 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.023500 0.103800 0.043300 1.170600 City's Share of 1% Levy Per Prop 13 (3)0.17065 Redevelopment Rate (4)0.0000 Total Direct Rate 0.14245 Note: DEBT AND/OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA PROPERTY TAX RATES‐‐DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GOVERNMENTS Last Ten Fiscal Years (1) In 1978, California voters passed Proposition 13 which set the property tax rate at a 1.00% fixed amount. This 1.00% is shared by all taxing agencies in which  the subject property resides within.  In addition to the 1.00% fixed amount, property owners are charged taxes as a percentage of assessed property values for the  payment of any voter approved bonds. the State of California for the fiscal year 2012/13 and years thereafter. (2) Overlapping rates are those of local and county governments that apply to property owners within the City. Not all overlapping rates apply to all city  property owners. (5) Total Direct Rate is the weighted average of all individual direct rates applied to by the government preparing the statistical section information and  excludes revenues derived from aircraft. Beginning in 2013‐14 the Total Direct Rate no longer includes revenue generated from the former redevelopment tax  rate areas. Challenges to recognized enforceable obligations are assumed to have been resolved during 2012‐13. For the purposes of this report, residual  revenue is assumed to be distributed to the City in the same proportions as general fund revenue. (3) City's share of 1% levy is based on the City's share of the General Fund tax rate area with the largest net taxable value within the city. Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) General Fund tax shifts may not be included in tax ratio figures. (4) Redevelopment Agency (RD) rate is based on the largest RDA tax rate area (TRA) and includes only rate(s) from indebtedness adopted prior to 1989 per California State Statute.  RDA direct and overlapping rates are applied only to the incremental property values. The approval of ABX1 26 eliminated RDA from  159 Taxpayer Taxable Assessed Value Rank Percentage  of Total  Taxable Assessed Value (1)Taxpayer Taxable Assessed Value Rank Percentage  of Total  Taxable Assessed Value (1) HMC Burlingame Hotels LLC 220,369$        1 2.13% Bay Park Plaza Associates 111,392$        1 1.65% EQR‐NorthPark LP 122,952          2 1.19% HMC Burlingame Hotel LLC 110,887          2 1.64% Inland American Lodging Burlingame LLC 112,663          3 1.09% HMH SFO Inc.76,089             3 1.13% Burlingame Bay LLC 92,105             4 0.89% Stellar Skyline LLC 45,671             4 0.68% MNCVAD‐Harvest One Bay LLC 72,420             5 0.70% Felcor CSS Holdings LP 45,178             5 0.67% Felcor CSS Holdings LP 66,927             6 0.65% CRP BAHP SFO 32,561             6 0.48% Burlingame Point LLC 49,434             7 0.48% FB Riveroaks LLC 29,525             7 0.44% EQR Skyline Terrace LP 47,010             8 0.45% Harbor View Hotels Inc.27,972             8 0.41% Romel Chicago LLC 41,387             9 0.40% Glenborough Rollins Road LLC 26,520             9 0.39% Green Banker LLC 38,924              10 0.38% 350 Beach Road LLC 26,010              10 0.38% 864,191$        8.34%531,805$        7.86% (1) 2017‐18 Local Combined Assessed Valuation 10,356,948$  Source: San Mateo County Assessor Combined Tax Rolls and the SBE Non Unitary Tax Roll  2018 2009 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA TOP TEN PROPERTY TAXPAYERS June 30, 2018 (amounts expressed in thousands) 160 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA PROPERTY TAX LEVIES AND COLLECTIONS Last Ten Fiscal Years Fiscal Year      Total Tax Levy     Current Tax Collections % of Levy Delinquent Tax Collections   Total Tax Collections   % of Levy 2009 11,304,881$       9,730,358$         86.07%‐  9,730,358$         86.07% 2010 11,653,813         8,840,920 75.86%‐  8,840,920           75.86% 2011 11,729,356         10,050,908         85.69%‐  10,050,908         85.69% 2012 11,900,220         10,976,456         92.24%‐  10,976,456         92.24% 2013 12,446,101         11,762,421         94.51%‐  11,762,421         94.51% 2014 13,312,310         12,745,227         95.74%‐  12,745,227         95.74% 2015 14,167,158         13,744,014         97.01%‐  13,744,014         97.01% 2016 15,144,338         14,512,541         95.83%‐  14,512,541         95.83% 2017 16,321,692         15,570,855         95.40%‐  15,570,855         95.40% 2018 17,425,188         16,758,071         96.17%‐  16,758,071         96.17% Notes: Source: San Mateo County Controller's Office; Audited City financial records  Collected Within Year of Levy Total Collections (1) In fiscal year 2009‐10 as part of the State of California's budget balancing actions, the State borrowed $1,145,268 of the City's property tax revenue,  with the promise to repay the Prop 1A loan in three years with 2% interest. These amounts were fully reimbursed by the State of California as of June 30, 2013. (2) Current tax collections are less than the levy due to roll corrections, county administrative charges, and other adjustments which may occur after the date of levy. (3) The City participates in the Teeter Plan under California State law. Under the Teeter Plan, the County remints the entire tax levy and manages delinquent tax collections with the associated interest and penalties. 161 Fiscal Year Property Tax Sales & Use Tax Transient Occupancy Tax Other Taxes Inter‐ governmental Revenues Total 2009 12,798$            8,251$              10,155$            1,782$              1,898$              34,884$             2010 13,355              6,276                 10,342              1,857                 1,506                 33,336               2011 13,310              8,041                 13,404              2,070                 1,500                 38,325               2012 13,672              8,495                 16,183              2,582                 1,896                 42,828               2013 14,394              9,199                 18,244              4,217                 2,115                 48,169               2014 15,497              10,196              21,357              2,970                 1,625                 51,645               2015 16,677              11,101              23,698              3,048                 1,648                 56,172               2016 17,645              12,828              26,092              3,154                 1,435                 61,154               2017 18,933              12,089              26,263              3,024                 1,383                 61,692               2018 20,335              12,820              27,936              3,216                 1,653                 65,960               Source: Audited City Financial records ‐ Governmental Funds GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES TAX REVENUES BY SOURCE (accrual basis of accounting) (amounts expressed in thousands) CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 162 Fiscal Year Lease Revenue Bond Storm  Drainage Pension  Obligation  Bonds State Loans Lease  Purchase Sewer Bonds Water Bonds Total Primary Government Percentage  of Personal  Income (1) Per  Capita (1) 2009 4,530,000$      ‐$   29,020,000$  10,249,390$  ‐$   24,250,000$  29,550,000$  97,599,390$  7.66% 3,326                2010 3,950,000       ‐  27,605,000     9,791,549       ‐  22,400,000     28,600,000     92,346,549     6.61% 3,173                2011 11,555,000     9,805,000       26,010,000     11,776,097     1,500,000       20,470,000     27,625,000     108,741,097  7.78% 3,736                2012 10,935,000     9,560,000       24,235,000     13,466,890     1,305,907       18,225,000     25,925,000     103,652,797  6.91% 3,522                2013 19,985,000     19,630,000     22,275,000     364,204          1,104,952       17,525,000     24,895,000     105,779,156  7.14% 3,563                2014 18,889,859     19,596,924     20,095,000     320,209          897,598          30,260,807     24,550,763     114,611,160  7.74% 3,861                2015 16,999,489     19,083,477     17,695,000     274,884          683,639          28,729,137     23,372,756     106,838,382  6.41% 3,597                2016 15,040,564     28,920,064     15,050,000     228,210          462,866          27,143,163     22,154,450     108,999,317  6.03% 3,667                2017 13,773,133     28,060,024     12,145,000     ‐ ‐  25,861,091     21,262,243     101,101,491  5.44%3,353                2018 12,465,703     27,169,985     8,970,000       ‐ ‐  24,129,246     19,895,915     92,630,849     4.77% 3,058                Note: Details regarding the City's outstanding debt can be found in the Notes to the Basic Financial Statements. Furthermore, please reference the schedule of Demographic and Economic Statistics for personal income and per capita data. Data for calendar year 2018 is not available. Therefore, in order to present a useful estimate, personal income data for calendar year 2016 has been used. Business‐Type Activities CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA RATIOS OF OUTSTANDING DEBT BY TYPE Last Ten Fiscal Years Governmental Activities 163 RATIOS OF GENERAL BONDED DEBT OUTSTANDING  Last Ten Fiscal Years Fiscal Year General Obligation Bonds Net Total  Assessed Value Percentage of Estimated Actual Taxable Value of Property Burlingame  Population Per Capita$$ 2008 30,280,000$         6,384,850,363$    0.47%28,453$                 1,064$   2009 29,020,000            6,762,026,973      0.43%28,762 1,009  2010 27,605,000            6,966,598,420      0.40%29,050 950  2011 26,010,000            7,011,122,988      0.37%29,342 886  2012 24,235,000            7,111,576,380      0.34%29,106 833  2013 22,275,000            7,433,066,368      0.30%29,426 757  2014 20,095,000            7,941,768,868      0.25%29,685 677  2015 17,695,000            8,445,458,270      0.21%29,700 596  2016 15,050,000            9,018,355,330      0.17%29,724 506  2017 12,145,000            9,709,976,378      0.13%30,148 403  2018 8,970,000              10,356,947,660    0.09%30,294 296  Note: CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA The City has had no general obligations bonds outstanding over the last ten years.  However, because the 2006 Pension  Obligation Bonds are to be repaid with general government resources, they are shown as general obligation bonds  included in this table. 164 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA COMPUTATION OF DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING DEBT* June 30, 2018 2017‐18 Assessed Valuation** :  10,356,947,660$  City's share of Total Debt Percent Debt June 30, 2018 Applicable (1) June 30, 2018 OVERLAPPING TAX AND ASSESSMENT DEBT: San Mateo Community College District 576,424,069$         5.005% 28,850,025$      San Mateo Union High School District 525,549,991           14.249%74,885,618         Burlingame School District 124,377,486           94.668%117,745,678      Hillsborough School District 69,062,002              0.152%104,974              TOTAL OVERLAPPING TAX AND ASSESSMENT DEBT 1,295,413,548$       221,586,295$    DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING LEASE OBLIGATION DEBT:  San Mateo County General Fund Obligations 366,157,077$          5.005% 18,326,162$      San Mateo County Board of Education Certificates of Participation 8,745,000                5.005%437,687              Burlingame School District Certificates of Participation 3,443,660                94.668%3,260,044           City of Burlingame General Fund Obligations (Net)12,465,703              100.000% 12,465,703         City of Burlingame Pension Obligation Bond 8,970,000                100.000% 8,970,000           City of Burlingame ‐ Storm Drainage Revenue Bonds, Series 2010 (Net)8,144,661                100.000% 8,144,661           City of Burlingame ‐ Storm Drainage Revenue Bonds, Series 2012 (Net)9,293,475                100.000% 9,293,475           City of Burlingame ‐ Storm Drainage Revenue Bonds, Series 2016 (Net)9,731,849                100.000% 9,731,849           TOTAL GROSS DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING LEASE OBLIGATION DEBT 426,951,425$         70,629,581$      Less: City of Burlingame General Fund Obligations supported from enterprise revenues 2,151,600           Less: City of Burlingame Pension Obligations supported by enterprise revenues 2,242,500           TOTAL NET DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GENERAL FUND OBLIGATION DEBT 66,235,481$      TOTAL GROSS DIRECT DEBT 48,605,688$      TOTAL NET DIRECT DEBT 44,211,588$      TOTAL OVERLAPPING DEBT 243,610,188$    GROSS COMBINED TOTAL DEBT 292,215,876$    NET COMBINED TOTAL DEBT (2)287,821,776$    Ratios to 2017‐18 Assessed Valuation:   Total Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt 2.14% *   Source:  California Municipal Statistics, Inc.   Total Gross Direct Debt  0.47% ** Total assessed valuation less other exemptions   Total Net Direct Debt 0.43%    Source:  San Mateo County Assessor   Gross Combined Total Debt 2.82%   Net Combined Total Debt 2.78% Note: Overlapping governments are those that coincide, at least in part, with the geographic boundaries of the city.  This schedule estimates the portion of the outstanding debt of those overlapping governments that is borne by the residents and businesses of the City of Burlingame.  This process recognizes that, when considering the City's ability to issue and repay long‐term debt, the entire debt burden borne by the residents and businesses should be taken into account.  However, this does not imply that every taxpayer is a resident, and, therefore responsible for repaying the debt of each overlapping government. Source: California Municipal Statistics (1) Percentage of overlapping agency's assessed valuation located within boundaries of the city. (2) Excludes tax and revenue anticipation notes, enterprise revenue, mortgage revenue and non‐ bonded capital lease obligations. 165 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA LEGAL DEBT MARGIN INFORMATION Last Ten Fiscal Years (amount expressed in thousands) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Debt limit 253,576$    261,247$    266,684$    295,550$    295,550$    297,816$    299,010$    323,138$    351,979$    379,416$     Pension Obligation Bond 29,020$      27,605$      26,010$      24,235$      22,275$      20,095$      17,695$      15,050$      12,145$      8,970$         Total net debt   applicable to the  limit as a percentage  of debt limit 11.4% 10.6% 9.8% 8.2% 7.5% 6.7% 5.9% 4.7% 3.5% 2.4% Legal  Debt Margin Calculation for Fiscal Year 2018 Gross Assessed Valuation Multiplied by: (1) Less: Amount of Debt Applicable to Limit Legal Debt Margin 0.0375   Fiscal Year 388,385,537  8,970,000  379,415,537$   10,356,947,660$                (1) California Government, Code Section 43605 sets the debt limit at 15%.  The Code section was enacted when assessed  valuations were based on 25% of full market value.  This has since changed to 100% of full market value.  Thus, the limit  shown is 3.75% (one‐fourth the limit of 15%). 166 Less:Net Fiscal Water Operating Available Year Charges Expenses Revenue Principal Interest Coverage 2009 11,800,380       6,801,139          4,999,241          925,000             1,279,173          2.27  2010 11,515,884       6,874,120          4,641,764          950,000             1,249,998          2.11  2011 12,734,554       7,747,436          4,987,118          975,000             1,218,998          2.27  2012 13,708,448       9,112,553          4,595,895          1,225,000          1,232,332          1.87  2013 14,874,705       9,577,242          5,297,463          1,220,000          1,295,085          2.11  2014 16,023,092       8,955,437          7,067,655          1,125,000          942,966             3.42  2015 15,425,234       9,507,833          5,917,401          1,095,000          964,149             2.87  2016 15,178,439       9,945,476          5,232,963          1,135,000          928,601             2.54  2017 16,385,236       10,933,600       5,451,636          1,240,000          705,220             2.80  2018 18,635,292       11,843,823       6,791,469          1,180,000          772,751             3.48  Less:Net Fiscal Wastewater Operating Available Year Charges Expenses Revenue Principal Interest Coverage 2009 12,466,935       6,763,470          5,703,465          350,000             845,798             4.77  2010 12,534,507       6,578,950          5,955,557          365,000             835,723             4.96  2011 14,566,587       6,927,346          7,639,241          375,000             824,648             6.37  2012 16,157,287       6,932,146          9,225,141          405,000             786,381             7.74  2013 16,791,449       6,297,799          10,493,650       700,000             780,966             7.09  2014 16,931,432       6,448,667          10,482,765       750,000             693,981             7.26  2015 15,679,343       7,071,969          8,607,374          750,000             695,633             5.95  2016 15,634,340       6,973,545          8,660,795          785,000             668,183             5.96  2017 15,821,906       7,081,664          8,740,242          870,000             470,705             6.52  2018 15,866,790       7,994,847          7,871,943          795,000             541,101             5.89  Notes:   Details regarding the City's outstanding debt can be found in the Notes to the Basic Financial Statements. The above reference debt service only includes parity debt. Operating expenses, for purposes of calculating debt service coverage, do not include depreciation and amortization. Debt Service Debt Service CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA PLEDGED REVENUE COVERAGE Last Ten Fiscal Years Water Revenue Bonds Wastewater Revenue Bonds 167 Calendar Year Population (1) Personal Income (amounts  expressed in thousands)(2) Per Capita Personal Income (2) % of Population  25+ with High  School Degree (3) % of Population  25+ with  Bachelor's Degree  (3) Unemployment   Rate (4) 2008 28,762 1,747,107$           60,744$                 N/A N/A 3.5% 2009 29,050 1,700,088             58,523 95.3%53.6% 6.2% 2010 29,342 1,274,382             43,432 94.4%51.8% 6.5% 2011 29,106 1,396,972             47,996 94.1%53.4% 5.8% 2012 29,426 1,500,785             51,002 95.2%54.1% 3.7% 2013 29,685 1,480,747             49,882 95.2%54.6% 3.0% 2014 29,700 1,667,596             56,148 95.5%58.3% 3.3% 2015 29,724 1,808,528             60,844 95.8%58.0% 2.6% 2016 30,148 1,856,902             61,592 96.6%58.5% 2.3% 2017 30,294 1,943,371             64,150 96.3%60.5% 2.2% Sources: (1) California State Department of Finance (3) For 2007‐2008, education level attained for population 25 years of age and over was not available. (4)State of California Employment Development Department for San Mateo County DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC STATISTICS Last Ten Fiscal Years (2) Income Data: ESRI provided by HDL, Coren & Cone CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 168 PRINCIPAL EMPLOYERS Last Fiscal Year and Nine Years Ago Business Name Number of  Employees Percent of Total  Employment (%) Number of  Employees (1) Percent of Total  Employment (%) Mills‐Peninsula Medical Center ‐ Sutter Health 1,960 10.71% Lufthansa Service Holding Group Sky Chefs Inc 569 3.11%281 1.93% Hyatt Regency SF Airport*425 2.32%467 3.21% Flying Food Group**425 2.32%236 1.62% Lahlouh Inc.350 1.91%218 1.50% Burlingame School District 327 1.79% Burlingame Long Term Care 297 1.62% Guittard Chocolate CO*267 1.46% American Medical response*228 1.25% Hilton‐San Francisco Airport 176 0.96% Classic Party Rentals 521 3.58% ECC Remediation Services Corp 460 3.16% Critchfield Mechanical, Inc 371 2.55% SF Airport Marriott 350 2.40% Virgin America 257 1.77% Goldberg & Solovy Foods, Inc 244 1.68% Total Top 10 Employers 5,024 27.45%3,405 23.39% Total City Labor Force (2)18,300 14,556 * Includes full and part time ** Includes 2 locations in Burlingame (1) Prior year data provided by previous CAFR. (2) Total City Labor Force provided by EDD Labor Force Data. Results based on direct correspondence with city's local businesses.  CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 2017‐18 2008‐09 Source:  Avenu Insights & Analytics 169 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA FULL‐TIME EQUIVALENT CITY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES BY FUNCTION Last Ten Fiscal Years 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Function General government 19.13       19.00       18.00       18.00       18.00       18.00       19.00       19.63       19.88       19.88       Public safety Police: Officers 42.00       39.00       37.00       37.00       37.00       37.00       37.00       37.00       39.00       39.00       Civilians 20.00       19.00       18.25       18.25       17.25       19.25       19.25       20.00       20.00       20.00       Fire: Firefighters and officers 44.00       43.00      ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               Civilians 1.75         1.75        ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               Public works 56.30       59.55       61.15       61.15       61.14       61.75       62.74       62.99       62.99       64.99       Community development 12.00       12.00       10.00       10.00       10.00       11.00       11.00       11.75       12.75       12.75       Leisure and culture 55.42       52.29       49.77       49.77       49.52       51.67       52.18       53.93       54.38       54.38       Note: Source:   City of Burlingame The Central County Fire Department (CCFD) is a Joint Powers Authority shared by the Town of Hillsborough and City of  Burlingame. Please refer to the Notes to the Financial Statements which define the reporting entity. CCFD is a non‐disclosed organization,  independently governed, and therefore, no longer a reporting unit of the City. 170 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report June 30, 2018 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA OPERATING INDICATORS BY FUNCTION Last Ten Fiscal Years 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Function Police Calls for Service 28,481        29,124        30,865        39,724        41,651         Physical arrests 343              438              348              508              560               Crimes Reported 2,296          1,797          1,516          1,879          1,799           Traffic Stops 6,354          5,255          3,683          5,692          8,057           Fire Number of calls answered 4,205          4,267          4,152          N/A N/A Inspections 1,299          1,414          4,195          5,700          5,662           Public works Street repair  (sq. ft.)15,529        10,000        14,154        10,678        15,560         Sidewalk & curb repair (sq. ft.)8,278          4,000          5,468          2,539          1,985           City planning Plans checked 500              364 355              366 499 Planning applications reviewed 187              131 144              134 125 Building Permit issued N/A N/A N/A 1,075          1,229           Inspections conducted N/A N/A N/A 5,161          5,662           Leisure and culture Recreation Class Participants 14,318        13,607        13,821        13,657        11,982         Library circulation 698,558      713,394      696,096      721,132      761,795       Tree plantings 466              222              229              164 271 Tree trimmings 1,576          1,831          1,785          1,712          1,621           Water New connections 17                50                37                20 10 Main and valve repairs 61                15                19                19 15 Millions of gallons purchased 1,561          1,600          1,474          1,190          1,519           (millions of gallons) Wastewater Average daily sewage treatment 3.82 3.30 2.60 2.60 2.60 (millions of gallons) Preventive Maintenance, main cleaning (F 450,937      450,000      404,488      299,212      330,586       Source: Various city department records.   Police statistical data has been presented on a calendar year basis. Central County Fire Department data is now reported with the Central County Fire Department CAFR. Aquatic Center registrations are not included in fiscal year 2013, due to the transition of  programming responsibility from the City of Burlingame to the Burlingame Aquatics Club. 172 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 40,773        40,854        41,553        41,673        46,540         634              586              770              768              800               1,787          1,878          2,222          1,885          1,915           9,455          6,506          4,812          5,003          5,178           N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12,600        13,650        12,545        13,704        9,891           2,100          43,789        2,557          52,557        4,262           554              500              494              418              436               94                120              86                112              129               1,185          1,230          1,280          1,226          1,278           5,280          5,600          6,135          5,722          7,433           13,428        13,424        13,331        13,787        14,537         753,694      647,128      720,000      688,058      658,754       230              198              271              240              257               1,943          2,866          1,520          1,830          2,081           21                16                20                4 2  17                26                16                22                21                 1,497          1,340          1,164          1,058          1,232           2.60 3.00 2.81            3.55            2.82             270,000      366,774      220,192      202,812      342,422       173 2013 2018 Function Public works Streets (miles)152 152  Streetlights 1,800 1,800  Traffic signals 17 18  Water Water mains (miles)107 107  Fire hydrants 822 887  Maximum daily capacity 2,850 2,850  (thousands of gallons) Sewer Sanitary sewers (miles)98 130  Storm sewers (miles)42.0 50.0  Maximum daily treatment capacity 4,100 4,100  (thousands of gallons)     Storm drain pump station 5 5 Note: Historical data is not available. Includes Hillside Fire Station which is currently closed. Source: City of Burlingame CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA CAPITAL ASSET STATISTICS BY FUNCTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017‐18 (COMPARED TO 5 YEARS AGO) 174 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER  FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS  BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN  ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS  To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council  of the City of Burlingame, California  We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of  America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards  issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the basic financial statements of the City of  Burlingame, California, as of and for the year ended June 30, 2018, and have issued our report thereon  dated October 26, 2018.    Internal Control Over Financial Reporting  In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal  control over financial reporting (internal control) to determine  the  audit  procedures  that  are  appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements,  but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.  Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.  A deficiency  in  internal  control exists  when  the  design  or  operation  of  a  control  does  not  allow  management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or  detect  and  correct,  misstatements on a timely basis.  A material  weakness is  a  deficiency,  or  a  combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material  misstatement of the City’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a  timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control  that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged  with governance.  Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this  section  and  was  not  designed  to  identify  all  deficiencies  in  internal  control  that  might  be  material  weaknesses or significant deficiencies.  Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any  deficiencies  in  internal  control  that  we  consider  to  be  material  weaknesses.  However,  material  weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.  175 Compliance and Other Matters  As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City’s financial statements are free of  material  misstatement,  we  performed  tests  of  its  compliance  with  certain  provisions  of  laws,  regulations,  contracts,  and  grant  agreements,  noncompliance  with  which  could  have  a  direct  and  material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts.  However, providing an opinion on  compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express  such an opinion.  The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that  are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.  We have also issued a separate Memorandum on Internal Control dated October 26, 2018 which is an  integral part of our audit and should be read in conjunction with this report.  Purpose of this Report  The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and  compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the  City’s  internal  control  or  on  compliance.    This  report  is  an  integral  part  of  an  audit  performed  in  accordance  with Government  Auditing  Standards  in  considering  the  City’s  internal  control  and  compliance.  Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.  Pleasant Hill, California  October 26, 2018  176 1 Memorandum AGENDA NO: 11a MEETING DATE: December 3, 2018 To: City Council Date: December 3, 2018 From: Mayor Michael Brownrigg Subject: Committee Report SBWMA: Just a little more color on the significant decision made by SBWMA two weeks ago. The Board has approved a pilot program to strip organics out of the black trash (not green), process them into a sort of slurry, and then truck the slurry to a nearby Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) for processing the slurry into biogas. If the pilot proves out, we will then go to commercial scale, which will require additional investment, but some portion of which will be paid for by refinancing earlier, more expensive bonds. At scale, the system would remove about 20% of the garbage that goes into landfill today (mostly food waste) -- which otherwise would break down in the landfill into methane, a bad climate change gas -- and turn it into biogas energy. In the full scale deployment we would also leverage piping between SBWMA and nearby Silicon Valley WWTP so that we can pipe the slurry to the WWTP rather than truck it there, and in a final environmental coup, may bring the biogas back to SBWMA by pipe and convert it into bio-diesel so that future Recology trucks can be run on green fuel. Again, assuming our pilot proves out the economics and efficiency, the full scale would have the effect of significantly reducing total Green House Gasses (maybe even to net zero at SBWMA) as well as saving money for rate payers by substantially reducing our fleet fuel costs. This work was spearheaded by SBWMA staff and driven by the Zero Landfill Committee, which Burlingame chairs along with reps from San Mateo, Belmont, Atherton and West Bay Sanitary district. RIBBON CUTTINGS: Happy to welcome to our Burlingame community over the last few weeks Intero Realty, a Berkshire Hathaway affiliate on the corner of Park and Howard, and Starfish Therapies, a pediatric rehab operation that brings great therapists together with kids from around our region to help them feel better and get stronger. Both enterprises will of enthusiastic people and great founders with strong vision and a commitment to excellence. VETERANS DAY: Attended on behalf of Burlingame the terrific celebration in Hillsborough on Veterans Day with Mayor Chuang. Our neighbors honored a number of really remarkable vets, including singing and a ceremony in their Veterans Memorial. 1 Memorandum AGENDA NO: 11b MEETING DATE: December 3, 2018 To: City Council Date: December 3, 2018 From: Vice Mayor Donna Colson Subject: Committee Report November 15, 2018 National Trust for Historic Preservation Women and Historic Preservation - Voting Rights and Women’s Suffrage National Votes for Women Trail - Contains 800 historical sites in 34 states. • Group study project urban, rural, north south, Puerto Rico to Hawaii and Florida to Alaska. Crowd Source project. • Diversity across race/ethnicities, classes, genders, religion and culture • Looking at Diversity over time and the Organized Movement - 1840 Seneca Falls to 1920 and the 19th Amendment • After 1920 implementation was not guaranteed and particularly people of color, states find ways to deny voting rights. 1947 African American voting rights limited. The case for Native Americans is complicated. Asian Americans 1952 - could apply for citizenship. 1965 voting rights for people of color. Shelby V Holder 2013 Supreme Court denied some voting rights. • Idea is to find sites that need to be on the registry that promoted suffrage. • National Collaborative for Women’s History Website and a google survey that can add your site to the registry. Have 1,000 current sites. • Full suffrage was mostly first in the western US states. The eastern US states had no voting rights for women. What was happening? These states were sparsely populated and many about mining activity. • 15th Amendment gave African American men the right to vote. • Nevada site of initial women’s suffrage meetings. • Role of SHIPO offices...and checking to see if we have anything in Burlingame. Session Native American and Historic Preservation: Re-indigenizing Native American Homelands • Indigenizing places renamed and taking the culture and heritage to rename in English terms. • Sacred Native American places that require the indigenous people to fight for their rightful places. Current battle is with Bears Ears. • Taking of ancestors and cultural items without consent and happened over 500 years. University, federal and other agencies took artifacts. Also, government massacre allowed people to be taken and used by museums and hospitals without permission. Colson Committee Report December 3, 2018 2 • Speaking face-to-face with people to restore rights and freedoms. • UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples - and US finally signed in Dec 2010. Provisions that create a baseline for the rights of indigenous people as to how states should treat us. Sacred lands and repatriation are discussed. • 1906 - Creation of Antiquities Act - the creation of this law impacted their community. All of our national monuments are a result of that law and that law displaces tribes from their homelands. Ranching has also displaced people. 1964 National Wilderness Act - but this Act also created legal description of what wilderness is and it does not allow for man to be a part of that eco-system. A place to tame and fence and manage - values have shifted. • Land and its resources are essential to existence and sustainability, protection of these resources means spiritual balance and well-being. Living Heritage for Sustainable Urban Development • How do we treat culturally significant property • Intangible Heritage - The cultural traditions and practices that define our communal existence that are not conveyed through tangible assets. The word “inherit” is included in the word “heritage” and these traditions we give down and how the intangible is manifest in the intangible. Example - food is a part of our heritage. • Cultural mapping as a way to bottom up hear voices from community. Decisions to come from the community and not from the top down - this is a storytelling notion. Use photo graphs and sticky notes to tell stories. Allows people to tell us what is important. Talking about more than just the built environment. • Sustainable Development Goals one of the first cities to adopt Living Heritage Trades Exhibit - San Antonio, TX • Rehab-O-Rama - working with local schools and contractors to figure out ways to train local artisans that can work on economic development. • Economic Development and then we can register as a Legacy business to help promote and make sure that these entities have support. San Francisco - First cultural heritage strategy - LGBTQ+ Planning tool to protect the culture of a community (all neighborhoods in SF) • ID the needs and concerns • Articulate the management of the cultural resources • Outlines a process for developing and prioritizing projects that support the LGBTQ+ community • Losing some important sites for the physical places and could not landmark the use only the place - how do we save the business. Had started the legacy business program. Look specifically at the night life and entertainment side of the equation. • Expanded three areas 1. well being social services 2. culture arts and 3. history and then economic opportunity as gathered from the broad community. • Annual review to reflect the changing goals of the community • Outreach - partnered with events already taking place... Colson Committee Report December 3, 2018 3 Tools - 1. Coordinate existing resources - have an abundance, but difficult to access. Thinking an online navigation tool. This will be a full-time person on staff. 1. Use exhibiting hubs and increase roving hubs. Create targeted initiatives within existing programs. 2. Community advisory group to work on landmarking so that we can designate and recognize history. 3. Mayors office of housing and also economic development 4. New museum to the history of LGBTQ+ people and also an office with the Mayor to coordinate strategy and take on as their work plan. 5. Initiate a summit for one time a year or so. 6. Partners - mayors office transgender people and also GLBT historical society 7. Website https://sf-planning.org/LGBTQstrategy.com Arts and Culture Commission - Interesting that these two are included as one. November 19, 2018 Meeting Facebook • First building planned open January 2020 • Most of the employees are being transferred from other offices including SF and Menlo Park and live locally • Impressed with our community and the schools FB Goals and reasons why Burlingame worked for them: 1. Scale 2. Quality of housing and education 3. Buildings designed for labs - use for hardware tech 4. Location to support existing FB demographics Transportation - 50% Shuttle and rest drive Top Priorities for FB in a community 1. Housing 2. Traffic and transportation (TDM) Traffic Demand Management 3. Safe bikes routes to campus - new ped-bike bridge by Frank Gehry that will connect the bay here. Do TI, landscape design, etc. to help out how to work on the space. 4. Sustainability November 26, 2018 Peninsula Clean Energy Meeting to review the Mustang II contract - new ownership structure and also increase in build time due to impact of solar panel tariffs and production. Both were approved. Colson Committee Report December 3, 2018 4 Park and Recreation Foundation Meeting • Fundraising has gone well with nearly $30,000 in the bank account • Worked with staff to determine projects for individual parks including game tables and corn hole for several locations around the city, new benches for tennis courts, water dispensers at four new park locations and a few other considerations • Ray Park brick program has kicked off strong with nearly $3,000 in sales • Upcoming dates - Goal Setting on January 5 and Sports Flea on January 26th Peninsula Health Care District Town Hall Community Meeting • Strong public opinion to include affordable housing in the project • Discussion about workforce housing and senior housing - people expressed interest in both • Concerns over traffic and size of office buildings • Interest in a community wellness center • Discussion about partnerships with Gatepath and also with BSD • Consensus that the community appreciated and wants to continue these discussions and also favored a neutral location for the meetings Meeting HCDC for NOFA 7.0 and wrap up of 6.0 • Review of Application priorities for 7.0 including low income benefit and funding minimums. Meeting Cell Tower Discussion November 28, 2018 Mayor Brownrigg - reviewed the history of the cell tower ordinance and the update on the situation with regard to ATT and current regulatory environment. • It is inevitable that we will have these small cells so the team and city efforts should go in the form of how do we manage the process to mitigate the visual impact. • ATT asked for extension so they could continue to work to negotiate new locations for at least one site. This will be continued into January. • Interest for both parties is to see the public complaints addressed. ATT needs to dig deep and hear the public concerns and work to try to address these concerns. Both issue to deal with these pending permits and the larger picture of aesthetics. • Macro site has 10,000s of people that have to be served • Small cell 500-700 feet from the pole and are regenerating access to the macro installations (which generate 80% of the bandwidth) • System is getting increased capacity, data speeds - the techies have pushed all this tech to the maximum and the small cells are needed to boost capacity etc. • Short-term - get these appeals complete and the Medium Term issue is putting in place aesthetic standards, objectives, fees, and have a substantive position. General meeting with constituents. 1 Memorandum AGENDA NO: 11c MEETING DATE: December 3, 2018 To: City Council Date: December 3, 2018 From: Councilmember Emily Beach Subject: Committee Report Thursday, 11/15/18: Met with Samaritan House Board Members from their Strategic Planning Committee who wanted to discuss the needs of our community’s most vulnerable members and how they might support. Friday, 11/16/18: • Economic Development Subcommittee Meeting o Conceptual discussion about possible grant program to help Broadway businesses with façade improvements • US 101 Managed Lane Joint Study Session, SMCTA Board and C/CAG Board o Deep-dive into policy considerations and tradeoffs between San Mateo County retaining ownership of the lanes once built, or instead turning ownership over to BAIFA (within MTC.) Very complex, high-impact issue I’ve been deeply involved with over the past 18 months. Moment of decision coming to SMCTA Board on 12/6 and C/CAG Board on 12/13. • Anson Burlingame Evening Event o Thanks to Brad and our Library team for executing an inspiring event that celebrated Anson’s timeless values-- and to Mayor Brownrigg for his vision to create the event! Monday, 11/19/18: City Council Meeting Tuesday, 11/20/18: Constituent meeting related to US 101 Managed Lane project Thanksgiving Holiday Monday, 11/26/18: • C/CAG’s CMEQ Committee (Congestion Management and Environmental Quality Policy Committee) o Discussion of US 101 Managed Lane Project; majority of committee generally favored VTA operator/San Mateo County ownership model • Two Constituent Meetings related to environmental and sustainability policy o Burlingame CEC member o Tuolumne River Trust • PHCD Town Hall Meeting for Peninsula Wellness Community at the Lane Room Beach Committee Report December 3, 2018 2 o Developer team led the meeting discussion; 3 PHCD Board Members in attendance. Estimated 40 community members from throughout the six-City District showed up. o Large attendance by housing advocates who desire deeply affordable housing on this public land as primary community benefit for the 8.3 acres o Other community concerns/benefits raised by attendees: preference for PHCD residents for housing; preference for developmentally disabled seniors, Mission Hospice integration, community hub / social integration to prevent isolation of seniors Tuesday, 11/27/18: Grand Boulevard Initiative TF Subcommittee Wednesday, 11/28/18: Meeting at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in SF to discuss potential ownership of US 101 Managed Lane. Represented SMCTA Board along with rep from C/CAG Board, plus SMCTA and C/CAG Staff. Two morning meetings plus tour of MTC’s toll operations center; multiple afternoon follow-up discussions with staff and elected leaders.